1928-06-02

Mr. W. H. TAYLOR (Norfolk-Elgin) moved:: That Bill No. 58, an act to incorporate the London and Port Burwell Railway Company be placed this day in its position on the order paper for third reading.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask the hon.
member what he considers the place of this bill should be?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the hon. member asking that question of the Chair?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am asking the hon.
member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That would be for the
officers of the house to say.


Mr. MANION:: Does this motion require
notice?


Hewitt Bostock: No; under standing order 45 no notice is required in the case of private bills but if amendments are made then under standing order 113a notice is required.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: The motion reads "in its position". I should like to know what those words mean. I have no objection to the bill being placed on the order paper but it cannot hiave precedence over other bills now on the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: Is that a point of order?


William Horace Taylor: I am willing to take your
ruling, Mr. Speaker, as regards the position the bill should take on the order paper.

London and Port Burwell Railway


Hewitt Bostock: Yesterday the motion
was made by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) for the third reading of this bill. Thereupon the hon. member for Fromtenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) rose and moved the previous question. The previous question was negatived. What does that imply? It means simply that on that day the bill could not be read the third time. In my humble opinion, however, it should not lose its position. It was not "killed;" it was only superseded and therefore should retain the position it held last night. The bill was not in committee of the whole. Standing order 15, subsection 4 reads:
After a private or public bill has been considered on Tuesday or Friday evening and debate thereon has been adjourned or interrupted at nine o'clock, it shall be placed at the foot of the list of such bills on the order paper.
That was not the case in the present instance. The Speaker Was in the chair, and the bill was merely superseded by reason of the previous question having been negatived. Consequently it keeps its place on the order paper, and I so rule.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It keeps its rank?


Hewitt Bostock: It keeps its rank because, as I have said, it was not "killed". The situation is the same as though the bill had stood. If an hon. member had said "stand" the bill would not have lost its rank. The bill was paralysed-figuratively speaking

yesterday, ibut to-day it is revived.


Robert James Manion: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when the house last night voted that the question be not now put, the inference is that tlie house had no wish to decide upon the bill at all.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Robert James Manion: Not at thait time. I
am not objecting to its being reintroduced, out I do submit that the bill should go to the bottom of the list and not be placed at the top.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps I should observe
that the implication of "the previous question" has been always a moot question. Cushing, who has written several chapters on the point, has this to say:
When this motion was first introduced, the question was put in this form, "that the main question be put?" and, if resolved in the negative, the main question was suppressed, and could not again be moved for the whole session. The form of the question -was afterwards changed (it is said on the suggestion of Sir Harry Vane), to that which it now bears, namely, "that the main question be now put?" and the operation of it, if resolved in the negative,

As the motion in this instance was last night.
-is to suppress the main question for the day only.
And further:
If the previous question is decided in the negative, namely, that the main question shall not now be put, the effect of this decision is, that the same question cannot be moved again the same day, but may be on any subsequent day.
But the motion resumes its position automatically the next day. I have cited Cushing, but May and Bourinot are both of the same opinion. The motion therefore stands where it was yesterday. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion for concurrence in report of committee.
Mr. C. R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved:: That the third and final report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, as amended by instructions of the house, be concurred in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This motion is not on the votes and proceedings. Surely it requires notice. As soon as I got my votes and proceedings this morning I consulted it but I could not find any notice of the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Has notice been given?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The house has virtually had notice for over two weeks. There is but a slight amendment in what is asked to be concurred in now as compared with what was submitted for concurrence days ago.


Hewitt Bostock: Strictly speaking notice
must be given. In the absence of notice the motion stands.
Motion stands.



UNITED STATES FLAGS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), referring to a press dispatch from Saranac Lake, New York, appearing in the local newspapers today intimating that a complaint had been made that American flags were torn from a Saranac Lake tourist party's automobile in



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Montreal and trampled upon by a resident of that city on May 30. Will the government consider the suggestion made by the Native Sons of British Columbia that legislation be introduced making it compulsory that all foreign automobiles while in the Dominion of Canada, carrying or displaying a flag of their own country, should carry and display a British flag of like size?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have not had an opportunity to consider the suggestion. Personally I do not like the idea of compulsory legislation in matters of this kind. I should think that a useful purpose might be served by conversations between the legations in Washington and Ottawa as to the practice which each country might follow in these matters of international courtesy. The question might be dealt with more effectively in that way than in any other. I shall have pleasure in opening a conversation towards that end.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHEP.IES

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries-building fishways and clearing rivers, $20,000.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: May I ask the minister' to explain the work done under this vote?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This appropriation is for the purpose of removing obstructions to fish ascending rivers and streams to their spawning areas and building fishways in dams across such rivers and streams. Particularly in British Columbia, log jams are forming continually and frequently become so complete that the ascending salmon are unable to get past them. In addition to that, natural obstructions are sometimes encountered which prevent the salmon from reaching the excellent spawning areas higher up the stream. Experience has proven that the removal of these obstructions invariably results in substantial increases in the runs of fish. In British Columbia during last year an expenditure of $11,260 was made. The list of the places where this money was expended is rather long; does my hon. friend desire that list?	.


Arthur Edward Ross: No. There is a very important matter in coneetion with this item to which I direct the attention of the minister and of the department. While the run
TMr. McQuarrie.]
of salmon in British Columbia is very important, there is a certain difficulty on the rivers running into Hudson bay. Power companies are 'being allowed to build dams and obstructions on these rivers without giving the fish an opportunity to pass up in the spawning season. This may be a provincial matter as far as the construction of the dams is concerned, yet the construction of these obstructions prevents the run of fish into Hudson bay. The minister and the department will find that a number of power dams arc being erected in that part of the country with no arrangement made to permit of the passage of the fish. This is important not only to the province, but to the Dominion as well.


Mr. MILNE:: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that on the White Mud river, at the town of Gladstone, Manitoba, the Canadian Pacific Railway constructed a dam in order to provide water for their tank. In this dam there is no adequate means for the passage of the fish. This matter has been brought to the attention of the department for at least fifteen or eighteen years, and nothing has been done. It is only on very rare occasions, when the water is extremely high, that the fish are able to get over the dam. In ordinary years, when the ice goes out with comparatively low water, the fish come up to the bottom of the dam and remain there; they cannot get up the stream, where they desire to go. I draw this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope he will endeavour to have something done. There are many settlers above the dam who desire to obtain these fish in the spring, but on account of the dam they are unable to do so. I hope the minister and his department will look into the matter and see if something cannot be done to permit the fish to get up the stream in spring as they desire to do.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have had one fishway built at that place but the technical officers advise that this is a very difficult situation to deal with. However, we propose this summer to send an engineer to look over the situation and advise us as to the possibility of coping with it. As far as my hon. friend from Kingston is concerned I may say that when a dam is built on a river the company is obliged to build a fishway according to the regulations established by the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: But still these dams are being built with no arrangement of this kind. This is very important, because the spawning grounds of the fish are destroyed

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
and the settlers will suffer later. There are no fishways in these new dams which are being built for power purposes in that part of the country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Has my hon. friend an-y particular river in mind?


Arthur Edward Ross: I cannot give them all, but I can mention one, the Matagami river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The law gives us power to impose upon the companies the obligation to build fishways in all their dams according to plans and specifications aproved by the department. Of course, it may be that the river to which my hon. friend is referring is in a province which administers its own fisheries.


Arthur Edward Ross: While that may be true and the site of this dam may be within a provincial jurisdiction, yet the effect is on Hudson bay, so the matter becomes federal also.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I see the point.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I want to add to what has been said with reference to these dams. As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned the construction of fishways is entirely overlooked, and some of our best rivers are destroyed because there is no fishway in the dam and consequently not a single fish can get up to the spawning grounds. This not only deprives outsiders of their sport but also deprives the people living along those rivers of an opportunity of employment and of the means of earning very considerable sums of money during the fishing season. There is one river in particular, a very excellent salmon river, which has been absolutely destroyed because of a dam built across the river without a fishway. That applies to a great many of our rivers, but when these matters are brought to the attention of either the federal department or the provincial department we are told that they will look into it, and that is .the end.' I protest against these dams being built across the rivers with no proper provision to permit the salmon to pass up to their spawning grounds.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am very much surprised at the criticism of my hon. friend from Halifax, because I am informed by the director of fisheries that we are paying very close attention to this work in the maritime provinces and particularly in Nova Scotia. I am told that a certain number of these fishways would be of no effect at all in view of a change which has taken place in the con-
561 03-234j
ditions obtaining on several of the rivers, but in order to be in a position to inquire I would like my hon. friend to give me the name of the river to which he has just referred.


William Anderson Black: I was referring to the East river, Sheet Harbour. I may say that I would be delighted to spend two or three days with the minister if he would care to come down to that province. I would take care of him and put him up and show him the .conditions which prevail, so that he could verify what I have been saying.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask the minister if any further work is contemplated in clearing out Hell's Gate on the Fraser river, above New Westminster? The minister is perhaps aware that in 1913 the river was completely filled by a mountain slide caused by the operations of the Canadian Northern railway. Since 1913 there has not been a large run of sockeye salmon. Previous to that time in a big year, which occurred every fourth year, we had packs of sockeye salmon which ran up as high as a million cases. A case of sockeye salmon is worth about $16, and perhaps more. Since that time the highest pack that we have had on the Fraser river has been about 50,000 cases. I think the minister will realize the loss there is to the country by reason of the depletion of the run of sockeye on the Fraser river. It just happened that this slide took place during one of the big runs, just before the spawning season, and the salmon could not get through. It was understood that the rock had been removed from the bed of the river to allow the salmon in after years to proceed to the spawning ground, of which there are hundreds of thousands of acres above that point, but some of the people out there, and more particularly the Indians, are not satisfied that the river has been properly cleared. I believe that recently there has been some investigation made by engineers of the department, but I have not heard with what results. I do not know what is proposed to be done but it seems to me it is a point that should receive special consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have had working at this particular point, a board of engineers composed of engineers of the provincial and federal governments, but a report has not yet been made by that board. My hon. friend may rest assured that this matter has not been forgotten, and is being looked into. We realize the importance of it.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Garland McQuarrie: When did the engineers start work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About a year ago.


William Garland McQuarrie: The reply that these reports are indefinitely delayed is not good enough. When I was complaining about the depletion of the sockeye run on the Fraser river I was told that the biological board Was making investigations. I asked when we might expect a report from that board and I was told possibly in ten years or so. This means a big loss to the country, and it seems to me that the engineers have had sufficient time to make a report. If the river has not been cleared it should be cleared out immediately.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that it is very important that we reach a proper decision. If a mistake is made, according to the information giveD to me by the technical officers of the department, it would mean the ruination of the whole fishing industry in that section. We are taking every precaution to make a complete study so that proper recommendations may be made.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like the minister to explain that because, as I understand it, it is just a question of taking out rock which fell into the bed of the river. What other question is involved there? How can that industry be seriously damaged when it has been almost completely wiped out already?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be very easy to say that it is only a matter of taking out a certain amount of rock, but I am told by the director of fisheries that if we take out a certain amount of rock at certain places it may change the direction of the river. At the present time a certain number of fish are going up that river, but if rock is taken out at certain points it will create such a current that the fish will be unable to pass through it.


William Garland McQuarrie: You could not change the direction of the river at that point by anything short of an earthquake. If the minister had seen the river I think he would agree with me.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The currents would be
changed.


William Anderson Black: I would like to
mention the Indian river in Nova Scotia. This river gave up to flies over 200 salmon the last year it was fished, but because of the dam, not a fikh is to be had in it to-day.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will send my hon. friend a complete statement regarding the two rivers he has just mentioned.


William Anderson Black: A large development is being carried on in the Mersey river in Queens county, where a number of dams are being constructed. This is a valuable river and I would ask that special attention be given to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries-to assist in the conservation and development of deep-sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $130,000.
Mr. PRICE:: To assist in the conservation of fisheries, and the demand for fish from deep sea waters, I would like to call the attention of the minister to something needed for the benefit of the fishermen in my constituency. At Cape Bauld considerable difficulty has been experienced for some years in protecting the fishing boats owing to lack of shelter facilities. The government built a pierhead about 100 feet long, but it is not long enough to give the protection required. There should be an extension of at least 100 feet to this pierhead in order that protection would be afforded the small fishing boats during rough weather. Considerable destruction has taken place there, both to boats and motors, and the fishermen feel that more business would be transacted and they would have a better opportunity of carrying on deep-sea fishing if this pierhead was extended. I think this could be done with an expenditure of about 810,000 or $12,000. I have previously called the attention of the department to this pier, and I would again suggest that this work be carried out. I realize that it would have to be done in co-operation with the Department of Public Works, and I would also direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this point. It is something that is really required. About 875,000 worth of lobsters alone go over this wharf every year, and a considerable quantity of potatoes are shipped -from twelve to fifteen thousand barrels. This expenditure should be made there in order to assist the farmers and the fishermen, and I ask the minister to consider this and see if something cannot foe done to relieve the situation there.


Mr. NEILL:: I am sure I will have the
support of every justice-loving member in this house in the matter I propose to bring up, and especially those from the maritime provinces, and more particularly from the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
province of Nova Scotia. If the members will look at the foot of this page, they will see these words:
Authorized by statute - fishing bounty,


Mr. SHORT:: We have not come to that
item yet.


Alan Webster Neill: I am going to speak on it
under item 241, because we are not allowed to speak on a vote authorized by statute and it concerns the same matter. My hon. friends will, I am sure, be surprised to be told that, inadvertently no doubt, the province of Nova Scotia has been robbing the province of British Columbia of the sum of $80,000 annually for the last forty-six years. This is no phantasy; it is founded on law.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Is that why the British Columbia members want Hell's Gate opened?


Alan Webster Neill: You cannot give Hell's Gate
away, but you can give this away unless some action is taken now. The act is now chapter 74 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and it is called the Deep Sea Fisheries Act. It was passed in 1882, that is forty-six years ago. What did the act do? It provided that an annual grant-I wish the committee to note that word-not a bounty, a grant, of $160,000 a year foe paid. Where was that grant obtained? By looking at section 2 we find that it is to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Mark that, Mr. Chairman. There was not some earmarked fund set aside, but the money was to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. What was to be done with it? I again quote section 2. It was to be used-[DOT]
To aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, and the encouragement of the building and fitting out of improved fishing vessels, and the improvement of the condition of the fishermen.
That is the fishermen of Canada. The act under section 7 took power to make regulations, as follows:
The governor in council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient respecting the payment of the said grant and the manner in which applications for the same or any portion thereof shall be made.
And so on. It is just the regular phraseology that allows the minister to make regulations for the carrying out of the act. But it is an axiom of law-and I do not need to repeat it here-that parliament can give power to a minister to make regulations under an act, but those regulations must always be merely in an administrative capacity for
carrying out the act. They are confined entirely to the administration of what is in the act. It is absolutely ultra vires and impossible for parliament to confer, and it never does confer by an act of that kind, legislative powers on a minister; that is to say, he cannot under those regulations go out and make legislation or change the legislation concerning which he is authorized to make regulations. Just as recently as yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) quoted a reference to the supreme . court the other day of a matter in connection with British Columbia fisheries, and a great deal of the argument turned on that point. The judge who gave his decision alluded particularly to the fact that the Fisheries Act under a similar section gave the minister power to make regulations but not power to legislate.
But what the minister did in this case under the regulations was practically the same as if he had madte a new act. He might as well have said that this money should be given for the production of cabbages or sheep or something of that kind because, by means of regulation, he changed the whole spirit and intent of the act. I am not speaking about the present minister, of course, because this thing has been going on for forty-six years. By provisions made under the regulations the act was confined practically entirely to the maritime provinces and particularly Nova Scotia. They dared not do this in so many words because that would have been too raw, but they introduced, in connection with the application, language which practically confined the act to Nova Scotia. I notice they forbade applications to be made for this so-called bounty-it is not a bounty; it is a grant-by anyone engaged in fishing for salmon. One would suppose that fishing for salmon would come under the category of deep sea fisheries. I also find that they made provisions whereby people who went lobster fishing in Nova Scotia were qualified as 'being engaged in deep sea fisheries, although I do not think they go out so far to sea to trap lobsters as they do on the coast of British Columbia where we have trollers that go out thirty or forty miles to sea to catch salmon. That was the way in which the thing was worked. In addition to the provision against salmon taking it did not even allow British Columbia fishermen to qualify where they were engaged in cod or herring fishing. In other words they said indirectly what they could not and dared not say directly, namely, that British Columbia

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
was not to share in this grant which was announced to be entirely for the development of the deep sea fisheries of Canada.
A week or two ago I asked the government whether it was true that this money had been spent entirely on the Atlantic coast and the answer I got was yes. I also asked whether the government would take steps to see that the fishing industry on the Pacific coast got its fair share of the money and the answer I received was this:
As the bounty is based on the interest on Canada's share of the award made'under the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington, 1871, and as the said articles apply to the Atlantic coast only, the payment is restricted to that coast.
That is a very nice answer if you want to believe it, but you do not have to. In the first place it is a grant, not a bounty, and it is so specified in the act. I am not talking about what happened in 1871; I am talking about the act which was passed in 1882. When I am told that it is based on something that happened in 1871, I am reminded of an incident that happened in British Columbia. There was a case up in the supreme court and the lawyer who was arguing it happened to have been in the legislature at the time the particular act under discussion was passed. He insisted on telling the judge how he knew that the legislators when they passed the act intended such and so and meant such and so. He would say: "I was there and I know what the intention of the legislators was." Finally the judge got a chance to put in a word and he said: "Probably you were there and probably you know what the intentions were of the legislators, but unfortunately the government forgot to bind you up with the act. I have only the act before me and I must decide the law according to the act." That is the case here. We have nothing to do with the intention or what somebody thought or did not think in 1882. We have simply the act to bind us. I have a letter from an official of the department making a very valiant and desperate attempt to justify the action of the government in years past. He writes in part:
The fishing bounty-
I object to the word "bounty".
-grew out of the award of the Halifax commission which was made under the provisions of the Washington treaty of 1871.
And so on. I do not need to go into the details about the Washington treaty. I will say simply this. There were matters between the two governments and the two bodies of fishermen, American and Canadian. The
fMr. Neill.]
United States government agreed to pay the Canadian government a sum of money, which I think was $4,500,000, in consideration of our selling or giving them certain rights for their fishermen. In other words, Canada sold a little part of the rights of Canada, but my rights and your rights were sold just at the same time, as well as the rights of the fishermen of Nova Scotia, because they gave the Americans certain rights which were Canadian rights and they parted with a portion of those rights for $4,500,000. Very properly they took that money which belonged to the whole of Canada, just as the fish belonged to the whole of Canada, and placed it where? In a fund earmarked for this thing? No. It was placed in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada and we all know when money is placed there it is used entirely for the general good of Canada. The argument is used in the letter written by the department that this money was given to compensate the fishermen for their partial loss in sharing the privilege and therefore they were entitled to the interest derived from those sums. In the first place it was not given for that purpose; it was given to the whole people of Canada and not to one section of the people of Canada.
Let me give a very appropriate illustration. When the same conditions obtained in connection with the sealing award, they made a treaty between the United States and Canada, and the American government agreed to pay over a certain amount of money year by year from the proceeds of the sealing, and a considerable sum down in cash, but they paid that over to the government of Canada, and it went into the consolidated revenue fund. Parliament, it is' true, did take a very small sum and pay compensation to some sealers who had been immediately put out of business, but they held, and are holding to-day that that sum was paid for some rights belonging to Canada, and that it properly went into the consolidated revenue fund. However, that is more or less beside the point. The argument that I make is that whatever was thought or intended or wished at that time was not put into the statute. They say: It "grew" out of the treaty of 1871. Well, it took eleven years to grow, because the act was not passed till 1882, and all I am concerned with, and all we are concerned with here is, what did the act of 1882 say? For those eleven years that money lay in the consolidated revenue fund, and the interest was devoted to the common use of the finances of Canada, and there was no question of it being earmarked for anybody at all. They did not think of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that then. It was only in 1882, possibly because of some political exigency-I do not know-or perhaps because it was thought wise policy-at any rate they decided to vote $160,000 a year for the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, and that money has been spent, not for the benefit of the sea fisheries of Canada, but for the benefit of one small portion of the sea fisheries of Canada. Consequently we have been robbed, to put it in a blunt way, of our share of that money for that period.
It will be said that our fisheries were not in existence at that date, but that is not so. The salmon fishing of British Columbia had achieved considerable prominence even at that time. The trouble was that British Columbia was numerically inadequately represented in this house, and we suffered in consequence. When I was a child, being one of the younger members of the family, I suffered much from the theory largely believed in by my parents, and especially by my older brothers, that everything went to the older brother, and he had all the rights and privileges that were going. That feudal idea has disappeared now, and we in British Columbia, one of the younger members of the Dominion family as perhaps we are, feel that we are entitled to our fair share and to strict justice in this matter. I am asking, not for fair play, mot for equity, not for a compassionate arrangement, but just for that bare legal justice that we would accord even to an enemy alien in the darkest days of the war, for surely we would not refuse bare justice to anyone. We are not asking for a refund of our share of the $160,000 for forty-six years, which would be a considerable sum, or that we should get this amount exclusively for the next forty-six years. We are prepared to take a bigger view. We will make a grand gesture and say: Keep what you have got; we will not ask you how it was obtained, but we say that in the future we should share in the allocation of this money in proportion to the needs of the growing output of our fisheries and whatever is most urgent as between the two sides of the continent.
That the government themselves anticipated something of this kind will be found by referring to section 6 of the act which provides that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, whenever he deems it expedient to cause inquiries to be made in connection with any matter with respect to the grant or the payment thereof, shall direct that the inquiries be made.
There are many problems both on the Atlantic and the Pacific in connection with which this money could be far more wisely spent than in giving this trivial bounty of
one dollar to one man and six dollars to another. That does not do them any practical good, and it does not develop the sea fisheries of 'Canada. Take the British Columbia coast, for instance. There is a problem out there upon which a portion of this money could well be spent. The salmon going into the Fraser river go past our shores, but before they reach the Fraser they pass through Puget sound, where they are caught in enormous numbers in traps run by Americans who catch the big end of our Fraser river fish. If we did away with that, we would be in a position to make a treaty to-morrow with the United States. That is the stumbling block between us to-day. The United States are willing that we should have a close season and build up the Fraser river fish, but they want to take three-quarters of the catch in the future, as in the past. If we could develop this-some individual men have tried to do it, but they cannot afford to do it-if it was proved that these fish could be caught in our straits by gill nets-there are conditions of tide and current that govern fishing there-before they reach the United States traps, that would weigh heavily with the Americans, and we could make a treaty with the United States in six months.
There is another problem. That is in connection with the big pilchard industry that we have been developing in the last few years. The question will arise sooner or later whether these fish should not be caught out in the open sea instead of waiting until they get into the narrow inlets, where they are caught in such numbers that there is danger of scaring them away.
Then in connection with the trolling of salmon. No attempt has been made to trace the salmon, to find out where they come from, where they feed in the ocean, and in what way they approach our shores. That would be of great practical benefit to the fishing industry, and it would be worth fifty times a little hand out to a fisherman here and there. But I am not asking for any details. We are asking that in justice, and under the law as it stands in the act of 1882, a fair share of this money should be allocated to British Columbia or the Pacific coast in the future.


Harry Bernard Short: I have been very much interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but surely he is not serious in the argument that he is attempting to put up for the Pacific coast, that British Columbia should participate in the bounty.


Alan Webster Neill: Not a bounty, a grant.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Harry Bernard Short: It is a bounty. It was always understood that it was a bounty. It has been paid for the past fifty years. This sum of $160,000 represents the interest, as the hon. member well knows, on the award that was made at Halifax in 1878.


Alan Webster Neill: How should I know that?
Where do I find that?


Harry Bernard Short: The records show it. That was before there were practically any fisheries on the British Columbia coast.
Mr. M tie DONALD (Cape Breton): It was before British Columbia was a part of the Dominion.


Alan Webster Neill: British Columbia came into the Dominion long before 1882.


Harry Bernard Short: It was in 1878 that the award was made, and it never was paid. The government never decided to pay this bounty to the maritime provinces and Quebec until 1882, and consequently we Claim that there is interest of $160,000 for three years which is still unpaid and is still due to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. My hon. friend laughs, but there is no question about that. We have a well established claim to that money. The hon. gentleman well knows what the American government paid this money over to the Canadian government for. It was for certain privileges in regard to fisheries on the Atlantic coast, not on the Pacific coast. There were no fisheries on the Pacific coast at that time that amounted to anything, and the government did perfectly right in paying this bounty because the award was made for that puipose, and that purpose only. It has been paid for the past fifty years and it seems rather out of place now for a member from British Columbia to come forward, fifty years after this matter has been decided, to make a claim for the fishermen of British Columbia. I really cannot think that my hon. friend is serious in his demand, and I trust he will not press it, because it can only bring up a fruitless discussion. I am sure he is not going to take advantage of any little technicality there might- be in connection with the act and claim for British Columbia something that the province is certainly not entitled to. I am confident that we on the Atlantic coast would never think of making a claim for anything relating to the fisheries of the Pacific coast; and we expect of course the same treatment from our friends in British Columbia. I do not think this matter is worth discussing further, because it- was settled years and years ago and, as I say, the maritime provinces still claim that the interest for the three years

from 1878 to 1881 is due to us, amounting to-day to over half a million dollars. I hope the government will decide that that sum shall be distributed among the fishermen of the maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, no. I want an expression of opinion from the minister, but first of all I want to point out the absolute fallacy of my hon. friend's argument. He says: Everybody knows about this, it has been understood for fifty years. But when did age ever lend dignity to a wrong? If his argument is sound, see the extraordinary situation with which we are faced. If he has no better argument than to say I am striving for a technicality, then I submit my claim is proved, and I stand or fall by the act of 1882. Somebody says that British Columbia was not a member of the confederation at that time.


Harry Bernard Short: This award was made in 1878.


Alan Webster Neill: But I am talking of the act of 1882 which started this grant to our friend, and which now, not unnaturally, he wishes to retain when someone proposes to take it away from him. If I am not mistaken, British Columbia went into the union in 1871, but I am not quite sure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: But I am sure it was in the union a long time 'before 1882, I am sure we had fisheries then, and I am sure we are entitled to a share of this money. If the minister is not prepared to make a statement I will ask the Miniscter of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), not for a legal opinion, for I know he will wriggle out of it-I do not need a legal opinion; I have consulted some of the best legal minds in Canada on this subject, and they say that legally I am absolutely right-but, if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries cannot see. his way to make a statement, (then I ask the Minister of Justice to say if he will issue a fiat to enable us to test this matter in the Exchequer Court of Canada, and so ascertain whether we are relying on a technicality or not.


The CHAIRMAN:: Item 242-


Alan Webster Neill: No, Mr. Chairman, you are not going to proceed until I get an answer from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry, but I have just come in and do not know what my hon. friend is talking about.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: His colleague sitting beside him is fully acquainted with the matter and can easily fell him.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I am not in a position to satisfy the request made by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I am inclined to think that the practice which has been followed for the past fifty years has resulted in a certain interpretation of the statute regulating this matter. It as true that the statute does not state specifically that the money is to 'be distributed solely among the fishermen of the maritime provinces, but the interptetation placed upon this law by all governments since that time lead's me to believe that the real intention of the law-the spirit-has been understood as giving this privilege or advantage to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. In fact, the whole thing arose out of a difficulty at the time, which interested only the maritime provinces. As has been Stated, the treaty of Washington gave certain advantages to the fishermen of the United States, and certain reciprocal advantages were given to Canadian fishermen, but at the time it was thought that 'the balance of these advantages rested with the Americans. A joint board was appointed to investigate the matter, and it decided that the Canadian fishermen of the Atlantic coast-they were the only ones concerned in the negotiations-were to a certain extent prejudiced by the treaty, and the United States government paid four million dollars to the Dominion government by way of compensation. This money was paid in 1878. Since that time we have been paying the interest to the fishermen of the Atlantic coast, Reading the statute, not according to the strict letter but according to the spirit as interpreted by successive governments since that date, and taking into account the circumstances which gave rise to the legislation, I think it is fair to assume that the fishermen of the Atlantic coast are the people whom it was sought to compensate; and if the award was made for that purpose, it is only fair that those fishermen should be given the full advantage of the interest from that fund. I quite understand that from the purely legal point of view my hon. friend would be capable of making an argument-


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.
Mr. 'SHORT: But only an argument.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -but I should not like him to entertain the idea that in the application of our laws and regulations we forget their spirit and the circumstances existing at the
time any case was dealt with. Those who suffered as a result of this treaty are, m my opinion, the people who should receive the compensation; that is only a matter of justice.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister give 'the committee some information as to how this bounty is distributed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We distribute about $160,000 annually. One dollar is paid for each boat of a certain length which is used by the fishermen. Each fisherman must catch a certain quantity of fish to entitle him to the bounty.


Mr. IRVINE:: What is done to conserve our deep sea fisheries?


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps the member for AVet-askiwin (Mr. Irvine) will allow me to finish this subject?


William Irvine: Certainly.


Alan Webster Neill: I have this one word further to say in connection with the matter. If that was the spirit of the legislation when it was passed in 1882 the legislators must indeed have been chock full of spirit, or why did they not say so? Why was it not so expressed in the act? I cannot conceive of a body of legislators, passing an act like that, stating something entirely different from their supposed intention. As to the suggestion that because this thing has been going on so long it had better go on a little longer, I would remind the house of a recent example where this suggestion was not fallowed. I refer to Quebec's claim on Labrador, a claim that had been made for the last sixty years, but the Privy Council did not say: Well, having gone on so long the claim is valid. No, on the contrary, they said they would interpret the claim according to law. That is what I am asking the minister to do in this case, to adhere to the strict letter of the law. I may also say that in my view the suggestions I have made for the spending of this money would do far more good to our deep sea fishermen than giving a dollar to one man here and a dollar to another man there. That is not doing any good either to Nova Scotia or to any other part of the country. I want to ask the minister one more question. In view of the powers given him under section 6 of the act, would he be inclined to cause an inquiry to be made into the matter? That at least would give us some useful information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At pages 66 and 67 of the fisheries commission's report, it is recom-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
mended that the law be amended to meet the situation and obviate criticism. The idea is particularly to meet the objection of my hon. friend.


Alan Webster Neill: That is another proof that
my contention is correct.


Harry Bernard Short: How much does the minister propose to spend of this amount? This vote has been in the estimates each year, but last year only a small portion of it was spent- some $5,800. Out of this item an amount might very well be spent to create a demand for deep sea fish by means of advertising throughout the country. The money could not be spent in any better way. For two years the department spent $10,000 annually in conjunction with the dealers in the industry and a largely increased demand for fish was the result. The government should take out of this vote a sufficient sum-not a trifling amount like $10,000-to advertise deep sea fish throughout the length and breadth of the country. I understand that last year a small amount was used to put on a few collecting 'boats for the purpose of gathering up the fish in outlying districts and making it accessible to the market. How has that worked out? Was it satisfactory, and if so, is it the intention of the department to put more boats on this year so as to find a market for fish from the outlying districts?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Out of this vote we certainly could provide for some measure of advertising. Last year we contributed $10,000 to an organization and this has proved satisfactory. We can increase that contribution and this vote would cover the expenditure. Most of the money spent under the vote, which is relatively new, is intended to assist the marketing of fish.


Harry Bernard Short: Only $5,800 was spent last
year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The vote has been increased materially in the last few years. We are using the money to help the marketing of fish as well as to -collect fish caught in small places where there are n-o facilities for transportation. That fish is brought to the more important centres where it can be marketed more readily.


Harry Bernard Short: Is it the intention to increase that this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; we propose to extend that service.


Harry Bernard Short: I understand that not a
dollar was spent last year in advertising.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was the year before.


William Irvine: Is this vote intended to
conserve deep sea fish or deep sea fisheries? It is not clear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Deep sea fisheries.


William Irvine: What does that mean?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We encourage the fishermen and try to develop markets. Where fish can be marketed fresh, the fishermen make much better returns; hence it is desirable to extend the areas that can be served by fresh fish marketing. To this end an experiment was made in fish -collection along a portion of the coast of Guysborough, from Pickerton to Canso. Two boats were employed for the work early in July, and the service was continued until the end of the year. Towards the end of October a third boat had to be employed for a time to keep up the work. Each boat made three return trips per week, giving the coast a collection service every second day. This is more particularly contemplated to help those fishermen who are operating in small ports or on certain sections of the -coast where there are no facilities for the transportation of fish. We are assisting them in bringing their fish to the more important markets where it can be disposed of.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Were those boats equipped with cold storage?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Irvine: What was the total value
of the fishing industry in the maritimes last year?


Harry Bernard Short: $16,000,000, I think.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the vicinity of $20,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $442,000.
William Irvine: Has this to do with deep
sea fishing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Irvine: In Scotland the idea was
prevalent among the fishermen that the trawlers destroyed the fishing beds as well as the fish. Has the minister taken cognizance of that situation? I believe that trawlers are active on the coast just now.


Mr. BARBER:: I should like some information regarding a matter I brought up last session; I refer to the depletion of streams and rivers of British Columbia, particularly the Chilliwack river. It was intimated that the department had already taken action in regard to stocking that river with steelheads. What progress has been made in the restocking of these streams with game fish?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The director of fisheries informs me that he is not in a position to give details, but generally speaking the work is followed up.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister tell us if any new work 'has been undertaken in regard to fish culture? I think this is the most important work of his department, and I would like to know if he has done anything new.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: An appropriation was made in 1927-28 for building five hatcheries, but it was not found possible to complete the survey work required in selecting sites in time to have these hatcheries built. In addition, the Windsor hatchery is to be replaced1 and new hatcheries are to be built, one on the Lesser Slave lake, having to do with white fish. Then there is a trout hatchery on Waterton lakes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are these new hatcheries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Not some of the five which were proposed last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation last year was not sufficient to complete the work on these five hatcheries, and in addition the survey work was not completed. Hatcheries will be also located in northern Saskatchewan, Antigonish, Yarmouth and Windsor, and we propose to spend $175,000 on this work.


Arthur Edward Ross: Following that, a more important point is whether the department has dhanged its policy in regard to the deposit of fry and fingerlings. There is a further item in the estimates to provide for fish culture in connection with the biological board, and there has been a great deal of constructive criticism to the effect that the department should adopt different methods. Has any other method been adopted in regard to the deposit of fry and fingerlings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the department is studying the matter in conjunction with the biological board, but no definite change in procedure has been adbpted. I am also informed that in certain places one system is more profitable than another, but all the work is earned on in conjunction with the board1 according to what is best in view of the circumstances.


Arthur Edward Ross: The trouble has been that the suggestions of the board never have been carried out. Let me point out that in the United States a different policy has been adopted. We are still continuing the
deposit of fry and fingerlings in regard to pisciculture, and these fry and fingerlings are being destroyed, causing great waste. The United1 States has adopted1 a method by which these fingerlings are taken by separate clubs and kept for several months before they swe finally deposited in the streams. I am only directing attention to that fact because this discussion is now open, and this is a subject which is worthy of a great deal of attention. Waste has occurred in the past in this regard, and I think Canada should get more in line with modem methods in the distribution of fingerlings and fry.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Following the remarks of my hon. friend for Kingston, from my own experience, I am convinced that there is no doubt that we are wasting our time and1 our money in putting out fry and even fingerlings up to three and four inches in length. I might tell the minister that for four years in succession I have deposited some millions of fry in a lake the conditions of which from the point of view of fish culture, judging from a report made by the minister's own officer, are ideal. However, I have not seen any result whatever. That corresponds with the experience of scores of others not only in Nova Scotia but practically all over Canada where that work has been carried on. As the last speaker said, this question has been very freely discussed in the United States, and it is the opinion in that country that to deposit fry and small fingerlings is simply to waste effort, time and money. If we are going to attain any results we must keep these fry in the hatcheries or in some other place close by until they reach sufficient maturity to be able to dtefend themselves against their natural enemies, of which there are many. In other words, it is useless to put trout and salmon fry into our streams and liberate them under a length of say six inches, or more in some cases. I think that has been amply demonstrated, and I hope something will be done to remedy the enormous loss which we are suffering every year through the continuance of a practice which has proven valueless.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries
To provide for a director of publicity, fisheries branch, $3,420.
To provide for one head, western division, fisheries, $3,120.
To provide for one head, eastern division, fisheries, $3,120.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Are these new positions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What will be the duties of these men?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These are new positions to meet to a certain extent the recommendations of the fisheries commission. We propose to have a director of publicity. We had a publicity and marketing division some years ago, but when Mr. Conlon left the service the position was discontinued. The commission recommends the re-establishment of such a position, the need! for which has made itself evident from time to time in recent years We also wish to provide for an officer in western Canada and also one in eastern Canada more particularly to look after the fisheries in these sections.


Harry Bernard Short: This item is to provide for a new publicity service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries [DOT]- Marine Biological Board of Canada-further amount required, $62,100.
Arthur Edward Ross: Is that an increase over the amount in the main estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of a bounty for the destruction of hair seals in tidal waters, $25,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Was a similar amount
spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A sum was spent last year, but it was taken from the conservation vote.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Will the minister
explain the method used in the destruction of these seals?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The fishermen kill them
any way they can, and we pay them when they account to us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a bounty?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: How much per head?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $3.50.


William Irvine: What is a hair seal? I
never saw a seal that did not have hair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of a commission to enquire into the radio broadcasting situation throughout Canada and to advise as to the future administration, management, control and finance thereof, $25,000.
William Irvine: I understand the minister
gave the committee assurance yesterday that he was changing his attitude regarding the decision on the cancellation of the Bible

Students Association's license, and for that reason I was wondering what this commission was for. Am I correctly informed that the minister has decided to reconsider his decision in respect to the cancellation of that license?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is not exactly what
I said. This vote provides for the acquiring of the necessary information before changing the whole situation regarding broadcasting. We want to inquire in England, the United States, and Canada as to the best means for Canada to adopt in dealing with radio broadcasting. We want to have this information before coming to parliament with a bill nationalizing the system, or some such method. We want to get the benefit of the experience of others before doing this. I said that I would have no objection to this commission looking into this particular case to see if any real injustice had been done.


William Irvine: Do I understand the minister to say that he will see that that is done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes, I will.


Mr. HEAPS:: Is this commission to be of
a departmental character?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not necessarily. I have
not made up my mind as to whom I will appoint. The main object is to get information; we will try to appoint a commission which will be qualified to get the information we need.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The commission
will be entirely advisory; nothing administrative about it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, no, absolutely advisory.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I quite agree with the desire of the minister to have a commission for this purpose. This is a matter which affects everybody in this country, and a proper inquiry by a commission would be most helpful. I would suggest to the minister that this commission ought to be appointed differently from many of the commissions heretofore; it should be a non-partisan commission. The members should not be selected on political grounds, but for their qualifications to give this question serious study. This is a question in which Conservatives are just as much interested as Liberals. This is not an inquiry into a partisan matter, and I hope the minister will not follow the plan which has been followed with some other commissions in appointing a man purely for political reasons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-A griculture
To provide for compassionate allowance to J. B. Fontigny, father of Ovila Fontigny, formerly a member of the crew of the C.G.S. Shamrock, $3,050.
Mr. KAISER:: Vote No. 476 provides for a compassionate allowance to a member of the crew, and this vote provides for an allowance to the father of a member of the crew; why that distinction?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been the practice,
not only in my own department, but in other departments, to settle these difficulties according to the law existing in each of the provinces. The amount provided for in vote No. 477 is according to the law in the province of Quebec.


Mr. PETTIT:: Why the difference in the
amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot explain the difference, but I would say that the amount in vote No. 476 is satisfactory to the parties concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
To provide for the construction of an ice breaker for Hudson strait, preliminary amount required, $500,000.	.
Otto Baird Price: Where is this ice breaker
to be built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Tenders will be called for
as soon as the plans are complete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of a new ice breaker for service in the St. Lawrence river, preliminary amount required, $400,000.
Thomas Cantley: I notice a difference of
$100,000 in the amounts set aside for these two boats, one for the Hudson strait and the other for the St. Lawrence. Are we to understand that the boat for the Hudson strait is to be 25 per cent more powerful or more effective than the boat for the St. Lawrence?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is estimated that the ice breaker for Hudson bay is going to cost over $1,000,000, and the other one will cost in the vicinity of $600,000; it will be a smaller boat.


Robert James Manion: When does the minister
expect to have this boat ready for the Hudson bay? Is it needed at once?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are told that it will
take a year to build that ice breaker, and it has been represented to us that it will be needed by that time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You will be shipping wheat then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-live stock, including grants to exhibitions, feeder shows, etc., $1,480,000.
Mr. FRASER:: I want to ask the Minister [DOT] of Agriculture what arrangement he has made for the settlement of the claim that Mr. Pendrell Smith of Kamloops has against the department? I have had this claim up with the minister now for more than two years.
It is for a certain salary for certain work done 'by a member of his department, which salary the minister refuses to pay. I should like to have the thing finally and flatly settled.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: My recollection is that Mr. Smith was holding down two jobs, and that is contrary to the usual practice in government circles. So he was deprived of one salary, which was a very modest one and the smaller of the two, in connection with car inspection, the maximum salary for which would be about $200 a year at that point. That is just my recollection of the circumstances. The claim of Mr. Smith was that some back pay had been retained. After going into the matter very carefully we considered that his claim was not well founded.
I told my hon. friend a few days ago that I would have it reviewed, but in the rush of the last few days of the session I have not yet succeeded in doing that.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister says that
the action taken is on account of his holding two positions. I should like to know on what grounds he bases the statement that he cannot pay a man for two positions in the same department. Is it contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that
is contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act. At all events the Civil Service Commission declines to make two appointments go to the one man.


John Anderson Fraser: I want to read to the minister section 17 of the Civil Service Act which applies to the matter. Section 17 reads:
In the absence of special authority of parliament no payment additional to the salary authorized by law shall be made to any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee permanently employed _ in the civil service in respect of any service rendered by him, whether in the discharge of his ordinary duties of office or of any other duties which may be imposed upon him, or which he may undertake or volunteer to discharge or otherwise perform.
2. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the payment to any officer, clerk or
Supply-Agriculture

employee of a separate annual salary from each of two or more departments or distinct branches of the civil service in respect of separate duties performed for each of such departments or branches respectively, if one of such salaries is not sufficient to compensate him for his whole time, and if the aggregate salaries do not, in the opinion of the deputy head, concurred in by the commission, exceed reasonable compensation for the discharge of all the duties so performed.
I want to tell the minister that the total salary earned by this gentleman for the two positions was about $825 per annum. Does he consider that is sufficient salary for a man for a whole year? Both of these are seasonal occupations; neither of them extends throughout the year. Out of that amount of $825 per annum the minister is deducting $146 because the man is employed in two different branches of the same department. The officers of the department are absolutely certain of the fact that the services have been faithfully performed. They are anxious to pay the money and the heads of the department refuse to pay it. The duties do not conflict in any shape or form.


Mr. GOULET:: How many months would
he work?


John Anderson Fraser: I am not sure, but I think about five months in the whole year. The duties start in about August and they end in the beginning of the year when the fruit season is over. The stock car inspection work, I imagine, continues throughout the year. The salary which he should receive for this work but of which he is denied payment amounts to from $15 to $20 a month. He was appointed first as a stock car inspector, receiving an average of $15 to $20 a month. Afterwards the Civil Service Commission advertised for a junior fruit car inspector for the Kamloops district. This is a seasonal occupation lasting about five months. This gentleman, as I say, was at that time occupied as inspector of cars of live stock at a salary of $15 to $20 a month. When the position of junior fruit car inspector was advertised he sent in his application and he stated on it that he was temporarily, part-time employed as stock car inspector. The application was accepted with that statement on it, and he was appointed as fruit car inspector at a salary of $125 per month for the season, which I understand is about five months of the year. This information was before the department when the appointment was made. He carried on both of these duties for the five months and he was not advised until after the expiration of the five months that he would not be paid

the amount he was earning from time to time for the inspection of stock cars. That has been refused from that time till now. The gentleman, as a matter of fact, has been discharged by the department for some reason. I do not know what the reason is and I am not inquiring about it. It may be a very good reason for all I know. The point I am making is that when his appointment was made it was definitely stated to the commission and to the department that he was a part-time employee and they raised no objection to that at the time. They allowed him to go on for five months making these inspections of stock cars and they now refuse to pay him something like $146, which he has earned. They also neglected to notify him that he would not be paid for the inspection of the stock cars. Had they so advised him, he would have refused to inspect them. The department is absolutely satisfied in regard to the inspection of the cars. The work was well done and yet they r.efused to pay him. Under the circumstances the department surely cannot refuse to pay this gentleman. The minister quotes the Civil Service Act as his authority for refusing to pay this sum, but my interpretation is that there is nothing in the section to prevent the payment.


Mr. ROBB:: Before the minister replies,
may I point this out generally for hon. gentlemen who are supporters of the government as well as for our opponents politically, including my hon. friend who has quoted the Civil Service Act in support of his argument? There is another regulation under the Civil Service Act which might be very helpful for the house on all sides to remember, and that is that any employee of the government, in any capacity, who lobbies through a member of parliament runs the risk of losing his position.


John Anderson Fraser: That has no application
to this case because the man has already lost his position. He has lost it for some work in regard to an election which the government says is objectionable.


James Alexander Robb: I thought he was lobbying
for an increase.


John Anderson Fraser: No, he is lobbying for money that he actually earned and which the officials of the department say they are absolutely willing to pay, and the man should be paid, but the minister refuses to pay him.


William Richard Motherwell: It is some time
since I reviewed the case, therefore the details are not so clear to me as I would like to have

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
them in order to maike a specific statement, but I remember this much, that the accountant of the department claimed that this claim could not be paid. I suppose it could be paid by bringing down a special appropriation, if we decided to do it, but under the law and under the regulations that govern the accounting, the accountant claimed that it could not be paid. In any event-I do not want to take advantage of it-this difficulty about stock cars and an appointment to the fruit branch does not come under this item, but under the next one. In the meantime I will give my hon. friend the assurance that as soon as the session is over-I cannot promise it before the end of the session because we are too busy to justify our taking on any more inquiries-we will have this alleged claim thoroughly reviewed and we will do the very best we can for my hon. friend's friend, but no more than is coming to him.


John Anderson Fraser: It is not an alleged claim.
I cannot allow the minister to get away with that. There is another point. I would not have brought up this case on the floor of the house had I not been working on it for two years and that is as far as I have been able to get yet. With all due respect to the minister and all due deference to his opinion, I think it is about time that a claim of that kind was settled. After having followed this thing up in two different sessions, and getting this information from the department, if I had any reason to believe that the claim was not founded on justice I would not bring it up on the floor of the house; that is a certainty. The man did the work, and that is recognized by the officials of the department.


William Richard Motherwell: We will look into
it.


John Anderson Fraser: They would have had to
pay somebody else if he had not done the work, and they did not advise him that he would not be paid until after he had done the work. He has only been paid $825 for the whole year, and then you deduct $146 for this stock car inspection. It does not seem fair to me, and the minister knows it does not seem fair to him.


William Richard Motherwell: We have no desire to hold anything back.


John Anderson Fraser: I agree that you do not
desire to do it, but just the same you have done it and you are doing it now.


William Richard Motherwell: No, we have not
done it.


Mr. VALLANCE:: This is rather a large
item and I notice an increase of $175,000. I would ask the minister if out of this $175,000, he is providing grants for class B fairs.


William Richard Motherwell: No, Mr. Chairman


John Vallance: I should like to ask the minister why he is dropping the grants for class B fairs.


William Richard Motherwell: The story is somewhat a long one, and it is pretty near lunch time, but I will do the best I can. The first year after I had the honour to have charge of this department I looked into the matter of grants to all the fairs quite thoroughly and I tabled a return this year dealing exhaustively with grants both for winter and summer fairs all over Canada.
Briefly, before the war there was a federal grant of $50,000 to a perambulating Dominion fair, which was held in practically every province. During the war that grant was stopped, and in lieu of it certain grants were given to the larger fairs throughout Canada, which were subsequently classified into class A and olass B fairs. This was done purely as a war measure because of the difficulty the fairs found in financing. During the war it was at one time thought of suspending all these exhibition grants in order that the federal government and the governments of the provinces might confine their attention more particularly to war purposes, but it was decided eventually to give grants to a number of the medium sized fairs and interprovincial fairs, running up to two or three hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate. That was done as a war measure and as a war measure only. In 1922 I gave notice to these fairs that the grant must be dropped off, but I promised that until their finances were in better shape we would continue to pay the grant for two or three years. That was done, but at the end of the two or three years, we extended the period, and in fact extended it on three different occasions. Now, ten years after the war, surely the smaller fairs, many of which are not entitled at all to a federal grant should be able to get along without our assistance. It was never intended that the federal government should duplicate the provincial grants for these comparatively small fairs. So the proposal is to drop the grants for these smaller fairs and continue the grants for the larger fairs that are interprovincial in character, such as those at Vancouver, New Westminster or Victoria, in British Columbia; in Alberta, Edmonton and Calgary; in Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon; in Manitoba, Brandon and I understand that Winnipeg is coming in before long, and when it does it will also be entitled to the grant; in Ontario, Ottawa, Toronto and London; in Quebec, there are three, and in the maritime provinces one each. After reviewing the whole field, that was the arrangement that we decided to come to in regard to federal

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
grants all over Canada, based largely on population. If we continue the grants to the smaller fairs of which Saskatchewan has some five and Alberta three or four, there is no place to get off at, and we might just as well give the grant to hundreds of similar fairs. In lieu of the $50,000 that was given iby the federal government to the perambulating fairs immediately before the war, we are now giving $85,000 to these seventeen class A fairs of an interprovincial character, while the other twenty-two fairs, which are the smaller ones, will have to be taken care of like other smaller fairs are by the provincial government. In the last ten years I notice that the provincial governments in anticipation of the government dropping the grants to these smaller fairs have increased their grants, in many cases by two or three thousand dollars.
Mr. GARLAND Bow River): The Minister of Finance gave us a statement of policy which was entirely new, I think, to the house; it was certainly new to me. I would like to have him clear the matter up a little more definitely. As I understood it he said that lobbying amongst the members for an increase in salary was liable to lead to the dismissal of the person lobbying. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: That is my understanding of it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does that
apply to organized efforts to secure increases of salary, for example, to the federal charwomen's association?


James Alexander Robb: Oh no.


Edward Joseph Garland: It does not apply to the organizations.


James Alexander Robb: To the individual,


Edward Joseph Garland: Does it
apply to judges lobbying amongst the members? I ask the minister for a straight answer.


James Alexander Robb: It may have prejudiced the case.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I think we had better confine ourselves to the case under discussion instead of trying to deal with several cases at once. We are discussing the matter of advances to fairs under this particular item. The minister says these grants were war-time grants. Well, in Ontario we would be rather inclined to ask the minister why such conspicuous fairs as the Kingston industrial exhibition, the Belleville exhibition, the Strat-

ford fair, the Peterborough industrial exhibition, the Renfrew fair, the South Victoria fair at Lindsay and the South Ontario fair at Osbawa, were absolutely overlooked.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Is the hon, member correct in saying that the Peterborough fair was overlooked? The hon. member for Peterborough told me two years ago his fair was not overlooked.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Two years is a short time to you, but a long time to most other people.
Mr. MtoLEAN (Melfort):	All the same,
Mr. Chairman, I submit that if the hon. member is inaccurate he should correct his statement. Peterborough fair was not overlooked.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We have only two minutes to discuss this matter; do let us have one minute to ourselves.


Malcolm McLean: You have had a good deal of the time of the house this session, and I do n'ot think you need complain if you are asked to correct an inaccuracy.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: These fairs give prizes of four thousand dollars in compliance with the act, but they are receiving no grant from the Dominion. But we notice that fairs in some other parts of the Dominion are being looked after; for instance, in Alberta. We find grants of fifteen hundred dollars made to the following fairs-Camrose, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Stettler and and Vermilion. We find in the other provinces a similar condition, fairs receiving grants, although those fairs by no means compare either in their prize list or public patronage to the least of the fairs that I have mentioned. Now, I claim that these outstanding fairs in Ontario should be given consideration and receive grants at least equal to those made to fairs in all other parts of the Dominion.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Agriculture-live stock, including grants to exhibitions, feeder shows, etc., $1,480,000.


Harry James Barber: As a representative of
British Columbia I wish to protest against the cancellation of the grant to class B fairs. We have not been receiving this grant in British Columbia, with the exception of the Victoria fair. I submit that we have not been fairly dealt with, but I do not wish on that account to see the grant withheld from the other provinces. We find that Lloydminster,

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
Melfort, Prince Albert, Weyfbum and Yorkton have all received a grant of 81,500 in the last two years. This money could not be better spent than in assisting these agricultural associations, and the only regret we have is that the grant has not been extended to the other provinces. The province I refer to particularly is British Columbia. Many of these class B fairs have had a hard struggle to exist during the last few years, and a grant of even 8500 or $1,000 represents to them the difference between success and failure. The fair in Fraser valley has had a very difficult time financing. This fair in our district and those elsewhere are important to agriculture, for they not only create an interest in agriculture in the districts concerned, but they act as feeders to the larger fairs. I am sorry that the minister decided to cut out the grants to these smaller fairs. Alberta and Ontario have received some grants and Saskatchewan has received a number. I wish the minister would reconsider his decision even if the grant were smaller. He should extend the grant to these small fairs.


William Richard Motherwell: Is the hon. member speaking of Kamloops?


Harry James Barber: Well, Kamloops might be
included, although my remarks referred to Fraser valley. I am speaking of the class B fairs. I understand that there is $4,000 worth of prizes. What is the qualification?


William Richard Motherwell: We have no record of any class B fair in my hon. friend's riding.


John Anderson Fraser: I am interested in the
Kamloops fair.


William Richard Motherwell: There is nothing in the return in respect to Kamloops.


John Anderson Fraser: There is none there; why
not?


William Richard Motherwell: That is the question. If we are to continue to certain fairs the grant made for ten years as a war measure, we are going to have the question from ' every quarter of the house, "why not?" until we have "why nots" all over Canada. The only answer in that event would be to give them the grant, duplicating the provincial grant.


John Anderson Fraser: What I am interested in
is this: what is the qualification for a grant to a fair of that kind-'the class B fair? What must the association do to qualify for the class B fair grant?


William Richard Motherwell: At the outset they had to put up $2,500, but they got so hard
up trying to qualify that a great many of them became broke and the directorate had to go bond or sign notes at the banks to carry the thing along. The result has been that in the last six years they have been given the grant unconditionally; we just asked them to go and pay their debts and square up their obligations with, the banks and elsewhere. That is the condition under which the grant has been given to the class B fairs. Now they have had an opportunity in the last six years, through these unconditional grants, to get out of the hole they got into trying to qualify for the grant.


Harry James Barber: Did the department experience any difficulty in British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: I aim informed by my deputy that there are no B fairs in British Columbia.


John Anderson Fraser: There has been no fair at
Kamloops in the last two or three years. I do not imagine there are any financial difficulties at all, such as the minister speaks of. They are proposing this year to put on a fair, and my question is directed to the minister for the purpose of ascertaining accurately what the qualification is now. What will entitle them to participate in the grant?


William Richard Motherwell: Just go and get
out of debt.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: What is the grant
to the class A fairs in Edmonton, Calgary and such cities?


William Richard Motherwell: $5,000, if they
qualify.


Michael Luchkovich: That is, to each of these cities?


William Richard Motherwell: That is the maximum for which they can qualify. If they do not qualify for that amount they get whatever- less is coming to them.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: What is the total
sum given to Toronto? I understand there is a grant every year of $35,000 extended over a term of years.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Michael Luchkovich: Are there any other grants given to this fair?


William Richard Motherwell: There is $35,000 for the royal fair over a period of twenty years; that was provided by statute last year. Then there is $25,000 for ten years provided by order in council of our predecessors in the year 1921.



Supply-A griculture-Exhibitions


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Did Calgary earn the
whole grant last year?


William Richard Motherwell: I think so; the
return will show it.


Mr. LUCAS:: Is the minister cutting out
all grants to B fairs?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. McPHEE:: Representing a district in
which there is a class B fair I protest against the cancellation of the grant to this class. The Yorkton fair board spent thousands of dollars establishing a plant which is a credit to the district and to the province as a whole. They give a large amount of money in prizes, and in the judgment of those who have attended the fair there as well as fairs in class A centres, these class B fairs, from an agricultural point of view, are superior to the class A fairs. I for one will protest against the cutting out of the grant to class B fairs. If the minister will let us go through this vote of $1,480,000 item by item I think we shall be able to cut it down sufficiently to enable him to continue the grant to class B fairs.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: What is the
annual total grant to Toronto?


William Richard Motherwell: The regular grant
to the Canadian National Exhibition, outside the special ones to the royal, is $5,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total of all the grants?


William Russell Fansher: The total of all grants, statutory and otherwise, which Toronto gets yearly?


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend mean the royal winter fair or the Canadian national exhibition?


William Russell Fansher: Take them
both.


William Richard Motherwell: The Canadian
national exhibition gets $5,000 and the royal winter fair gets the aggregate of those amounts which I gave, $35,000 for twenty years from 1927 and $25,000 for ten years from 1921.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does that cover all the amounts granted to both Toronto fairs?


William Richard Motherwell: In order to answer that question I would have to consult the return which was brought down.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not seen the return.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister say how much was paid last year to the class B fairs?
fMr. Motherwell.]


William Richard Motherwell: We paid $33,000,
twenty-two fairs at $1,500.


John Vallance: And how much to the class A fairs?


William Richard Motherwell: Roughly $85,000; if the seventeen fairs all earned a full amount, that would be the total.


John Vallance: It seems to me that if the Department of Agriculture are still determined to spend that $85,000 on fairs, I am with the hon. member for Yorkton in believing that this money could be spent to better advantage in giving assistance to class B fairs rather than to the class A fairs.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In rising to say a few words on this item I rather associate myself with the hon. members from British Columbia. I understand that these class B fairs were organized about ten years ago to assist certain small fairs. These fairs have been receiving that grant steadily every year since that time, but there is no chance for any other fairs to get into that class. If your constituency happened to be old enough to have a fair in existence at that time it was put in this class, but if that was not the.case you were left out and you mudt stay out in the cold. I happen to represent a constituency which unfortunately was not old enough to have a fair at that time, and we are left out. I do not see why these people should continue to expect that grant forever, just because they have been receiving it for the last few years. In my constituency we have two or three fairs now which are as large as the average class B fair and in fact larger than the majority, but we do not get anything. Either the department should set a standard by which to judge all these class B fairs and so let them all in, or shut them out entirely. If we are to have class B grants let all the class B fairs receive it.
Then with regard to the class A fairs, held at Toronto, Regina, Saskatoon, Brandon, Edmonton and Calgary, these fairs are not very hard up; they are making quite a bit of money every year and could get along very well without this grant. I am in favour of cutting them out also; cut them both out and put them all on the same footing. I do not see why the smaller fairs, such as I have in my constituency, should be unable to get any grant while the big fairs receive $5,000 which they do not need.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to add my protest against the grants to class B fairs being cut down or taken off altogether. These fairs are doing about as much good as any other fairs;

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
they are doing a lot more good than the smaller class C fairs, and their work is equally valuable to that done by the class A fairs. According to the minister's figures the class A fairs receive $85,000 per year, while the class B fairs have been receiving about $33,000. That covered twenty-two fairs, which are doing educational work as valuable as that done by any otheir fairs, and there is not the slightest doubt that if this grant is cut down or taken off altogether many of these fairs will be forced to drop to class C, and will be unable to continue with the valuable educational work they are doing at present Therefore I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision, and if he cannot give the amount given in past years let him at least give part of it. If he cannot continue the grant for any length of time let him tell this house for how many years he can continue it, in order to give these fair boards all over the country an opportunity gradually to adjust themselves to this condition.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend's presentation is so fair that I feel he is entitled to a reply. I am not going to quarrel with his remarks regarding the class B fairs and their relative usefulness, but the same arugment could be made as between class C fairs and class B fairs. Every fair is said to foe doing work equal to that of the fairs in the class higher, but you could go on with that argument -until you got to the end of the alphabet. Even then the class Z fair would make exactly the same claim, that it was doing work equal to that of the class Y fair. Where would you get off in this alphabetical enumeration of our fairs; where would you stop? I contend thait there is no place to stop as between A and Z except after A.
It has been said that we should cut out the grants to the class A fairs, but where would that leave us? Supposing we proceeded to do that with all these fairs from Amherst to Vancouver and Victoria; we would naturally start with the smaller ones, and out would go all the western, maritime and Quebec fairs. That would leave the largest of all, the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair at Toronto and it gets $60,000 a year now, $10,000 more than was given to all the fairs before the war. Therefore you would naturally gravitate back and have the $50,000 formerly spread over' Canada given to the biggest fair at Toronto.
It has been suggested that we should do away with grants to this fair, that we should finish with them all. Unfortunately we have promised them $35,000 a year for twenty years by statute. Are we going to default on that obligation? The government which preceded
56103-235i
us promised -them $25,000 a year for ten years, to start their prize list and to help them get on their feet. Are we going to default on that obligation also? So we find! that $60,000 is obligated to the Toronto winter fair, and we must live up to those obligations. Then, if you cut out all the rest of them, is this parliament to continue to expend the amount of money spent annually before the war, and $10,000 in addition, and concentrate that amount in Toronto? I can imagine what this house and what the country would say if we adopted that policy. Consequently, will anyone offer -a solution better than the one we have enunciated? I am open to suggestions; my staff and myself have discussed this question for six years, and while it would be a delightful sensation to hand out all the money all the fairs wanted, as head of the department I have some responsibility to the treasury and to the government as a whole as well as to the people throughout the country, to administer this money in such a way that I can justify the expenditure. I cannot justify the duplication of provincial fairs from one end of Canada to the other. While I am at it I will point out that it was distinctly understood, when the original grants were given to these B class fairs, that it was a war measure. I would point out the policy of the government regarding this war measure assistance in other respects. One of the first grants eliminated was -the one under the Agricultural Instruction Act (an immediate prewar measure) at the termination of a ten year period of administration. The amount of the annual grant was $1,100,000 and that was eliminated in two years. The same thing may be said with regard to the road grant, running over a period of ten years. This was eliminated in two years and there was no prolonged process of probation to get the people familiarized with it. Then the federal loans wth regard to the building of houses were eliminated, and the Prime Minister has stated that the technical education grant will be eliminated. What we are proposing to do with regard to B fairs is exactly in line with the government's policy on the other war measures to which I have referred. As I have said many times, if we do not eliminate these grants there will be no getting off place on the down gradle to the smallest exhibition in this Dominion. If you start cutting off A fairs you land up against the only one left, the one in the city of Toronto, and that is granted by statute.
I know it is not an easy thing to take things from people. We know what that is when we -try to take tariffs from the manufacturers. Whether it be a -manufacturer or an agricul-

Supply-Acpiculture-Exhibitions
tural exhibition, they are all hard to wean. They all object to being weaned, and you know what we say about the manufacturers when there is a little cut downwards in the tariff. They hoiler and we say: "Oh, you are hard to wean; whenever you get hold of a nipple you want to hang on to it." These exhibition associations-B fairs-apparently want to put themselves in the same position; because we give annual assistance for ten years they want to hang on to that down to eternity. They are putting themselves in exactly the same position as the manufacturers who complain about tariff reduction. There is a time for weaning both infants and calves, and manufacturers and exhibition associations. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, and I am speaking seriously now, if this is not done now it will mean further procrastination. You will not have twenty-two B fairs, you will have one hundred and twenty-two before two or three years have passed. I have four of these fairs in my own province. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has spoken for the fair at Assiniboia; the member for Assiniboia could speak for Este-van, the hon. member for Humboldt could speak for Humboldt, and I could speak for one at Melville. You would naturally think I ought to have some say in these matters, and especially with regard to the B fair in the town of Melville.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How did Toronto come *to get such a hold on the dipper?


William Richard Motherwell: Because it is an exhibition representing the whole Dominion. Practically every province pays one-half the freight rate on exhibits to Toronto; they recognize it is the outstanding exhibition of the Dominion of Canada, both the Canadian national and the royal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is also international.


William Richard Motherwell: This was pointed out last year when we were putting through the bill authorizing the grant to the royal winter fair. It was not being paid) to the pure bred Tories of Toronto, but to the owners of pure bred cattle in this Dominion. We had to have the fair somewhere, and there was no city which had proved its right to it as much as the city of Toronto. That city has the size, the hotels and the buildings to lend itself to a fair of this kind. I know it was not an easy matter, Mr. Chairman, to get it through, but I recognized that it was the best and proper place. It is not my fault if they are all Tories.


William Russell Fansher: I am not
in accord with increasing the grant to the Toronto fairs, as has been done yearly. To my mind there has been no attempt made to wean these Toronto calves. It is like the tariff, when they are situated in the large centres there is no attempt made to wean them. We remember that the grants were increased to Toronto last year, but what was done? It seems that the Department of Agriculture had only a certain sum of money at its disposal, and in order to give so much extra to Toronto certain things had to be lopped off. What was lopped off last year? Among others, the grant under the pure-bred sire policy was cut off, the policy which laid the very foundation of the exhibition we are trying to establish in Toronto. The Minister of Agriculture was like a farmer who would sell his seed grain to build a granary.


William Richard Motherwell: We have a much
better substitute for that policy.


William Russell Fansher: We lopped
off the grant to the pure-bred sire policy, and we took the money saved there and gave it to Toronto.


William Richard Motherwell: That is not so.


William Russell Fansher: We only have so much money to spend, and that was the net result of it anyway. My plea is that there should not be the centralization that we are having to-day. If we need more money let us have more money spent by the Department of Agriculture, and not cut off these B fairs or abandon such policies as the pure-bred sire policy in order to be able to give a larger grant to Toronto.


William Richard Motherwell: That has been said so frequently that apparently my hon. friend believes it to be a fact. It was decided, and they accepted the decision six years ago, that the grant would be eliminated by a gradual process of reduction. This was extended three times, and here they are at our door again through the medium of our hon. friends. I do not object to that-they must keep themselves right with their constituents, as I must keep myself right with the whole country-[DOT] but to say that we lopped off-to use my hon. friend's own terms-the grant in respect of the bull loan policy to build a fair at Toronto, or to increase the grant, is nothing but absolute nonsense. If my hon. friend desires to know where this extra vote is going, he will find that we have provided a substitute policy for the one which was elim-mated, and which proved to be unsound.

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
It performed a good work, but any good thing eventually becomes capable of being abused, as that was. There is another policy substituted whereby any province may come in. This policy provides male animals, whether it be bulls or rams or boars, to the people of the respective provinces and we are prepared to carry half of the loss up to 15 per cent. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec are now in line to take advantage of this policy, which is a much better one. As far. as Toronto is concerned, is my hon. friend really proposing to repeal the act we passed last year? We cannot repudiate what we did last year with respect to Toronto, even if we wanted to.


William Russell Fansher: My whole
argument is that the Minister of Agriculture seems to have so much money to spend, and in order to give more to Toronto he takes it from other well deserving fairs and well deserving works in connection with his department.


William Richard Motherwell: That has nothing
to do with it at all.


William Russell Fansher: I am not objecting particularly to Toronto getting what she does, but these other grants should not be wholly eliminated in order to benefit the Toronto fair. The others should receive attention as well as Toronto. The minister should pay more attention to that and not so much to centralization.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
seems to talk reasonably. How would he suggest that we solve the problem? There are these fairs spoken of by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mir. Donnelly) and many others. Two hon. members from British Columbia want further recognition and if we continue these grants to class B fairs, nothing in the world can prevent the grants being extended to all the smaller fairs until they are all covered throughout the Dominion. The other method is to cut them all out. I pointed out how impossible that was because one of these grants was authorized by statute, and we cannot cut them out without repudiating our statute of last year and the order in council which was passed by my hon. friend the member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) and his government with respect to the prizes. I think it was a very creditable thing to do and it gave a start to one of the finest exhibitions not only on this continent but anywhere in the world.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I would ask the minister how the grant to the Quebec exhibition compares with the grant to the Toronto exhibition?


William Richard Motherwell: They would be the same if Quebec had the exhibitions, bait I believe they have a lesser number. Of course we can have only one royal fair. We cannot have two fairs of that description in Canada. We must concentrate on one and make it an outstanding one, and it happens to be in Toronto.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: What is the amount
of the grant for the Quebec exhibition?


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon. member mean the city of Quebec?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: We have only one exhibition, the Quebec provincial exhibition.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a $5,000 grant. They have attained the maximum and there is a special grant of $3,000 for restoring the building, the same as was done in the case of Amherst. '


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Does the minister know that the Quebec provincial exhibition asked for this federal grant on many occasions? A number of the other provinces got the grant twice but Quebec never got it. When the time came to hold the Dominion exhibition in the province of Quebec we were told that the government had decided to discontinue the grant. Owing to that fact, would it not be possible that the grant for the Quebec provincial exhibition be increased this year?


William Richard Motherwell: Of course Toronto did not get it until last year either.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: They got it before.
We never got it.


William Richard Motherwell: The live stock men were desirous of having one big live stock exhibition and it had to be somewhere. It could not be up in the heavens very well, as it was in Toronto. It could not be down in the bowels of the earth, because Toronto is recognized as "Toronto the good". It had to be somewhere and I do not know of any other city than Toronto that has earned the right to it by its record of the last fifty years in holding exhibitions.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Owing to the fact that Quebec was refused the federal grant of $50,000 of some years ago, when the turn of Quebec came for the Dominion exhibition, would it not be possible to decrease the grant to the Toronto fair this year and to increase the Quebec grant?

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions


William Richard Motherwell: When the only Dominion exhibition was a perambulating affair, the grant of $50,000 was given and I understand Quebec got that grant.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: No.


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy is not
very sure whether they did or not, but if they did not, it was because they did not at the time have an exhibition large enough to entertain the crowds. Montreal has never, in my time at least, taken a very active interest in holding these exhibitions and when the big commercial centre of Canada did not take it in hand, of course they may have passed up the grant. But my understanding was that they got the Dominion exhibition. I know British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and all the rest of the provinces got it except Prince Edward Island, and they did not have accommodation for it.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The province of Quebec never got the federal grant. The reason why Montreal does not recognize an exhibition is because we have these provincial organizations in the city of Quebec. It is a provincial exhibition. As I stated a few minutes ago, when we asked) for the federal grant, it was the turn of the province of Quebec to have the Dominion exhibition, but we were told that the government had discontinued the grant. After the other provinces had received the grant we were refused it. Under the circumstancs it is only reasonable that the grant to the Quebec exhibition should be increased to some extent.


Mr. McMILLAN:: At this point I should like to make a protest. I made it before to the minister and the department and I was promised favourable consideration, but so far I do not know that it has been given. I refer to the holding of the royal winter fair. It is being held at the very worst [DOT] season of the year so far as the farmers are concerned and if there is any one class which we should expect this fair to benefit, it is the farming community. It is held every year just about the time they are housing their live stock and this makes it impossible for them to get there in sufficient numbers.


William Richard Motherwell: There are a number of exhibitions being held and the situation is just the same as that of the circuit in any other part of Canada. Some of them have to be first and some of them have to be last. That is a law you cannot get away from. Chicago fits in with Toronto and they fit in also to some extent with Ottawa and the other winter fairs that are held about that

time, for instance, at Chatham and the ones in the maritdmes. You cannot disregard the interests of other fairs and other countries, because many of the exhibits go' from Toronto right to Chicago and before a circuit is arranged all the boards are taken into consultation. It is the same as any other circuit of fairs, these class A fairs or other fairs. Certain attractions come to the fairs and we have to arrange with them so that they can be circuited with the least possible expense and the best results all round.


Thomas McMillan: This is a consideration but it is not very encouraging. Is it not a fact that a most vigorous protest has been made on the part of many of the live stock men?


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Thomas McMillan: It would appear that
not very much consideration has been given to the protests made by the live stock man. In aid the explanation the minister has given there is no reason why the date should not be changed by a week or so.


William Richard Motherwell: The matter was
thoroughly threshed out from every aspect particularly because of the advanced time of the year-the 34th of November last year -when it started. That is wintertime with us. You have to make the circuit to suit the convenience of as many fairs as possible, but bf course it is not possible to please everybody. Would my hon. friend rather have the royal winter fair earlier?


Thomas McMillan: Just before the Chicago fair.


William Richard Motherwell: That is when it is now. After the royal winter fair, they load up their cars and away to Chicago.


Thomas McMillan: I think some time
elapses between the two, and that was considered by the live stock association when they entered their protest.


William Richard Motherwell: My deputy informs me that what I stated is correct, that there is just enough of an interim between the Toronto fair and the Chicago fair to allow the exhibitors to get their cars loaded up at Toronto and get nicely settled in Chicago.


Arthur Edward Ross: I find it rather
difficult to distinguish between the class A and the class B fairs, and I think the only way I can get the information I want is to ask the minister as to each of these fairs I see mentioned in the Auditor General's report.

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
I would like to ask the minister if the fairs mentioned here will continue to receive assistance from the federal department. The first is the Cobourg horse show.


William Richard Motherwell: No; that was not
a B class fair, just a special horse exhibition.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Eastern Canada live stock union?


William Richard Motherwell: That is not a fair. It is the corresponding association in the east of the organization they have in the west.


Arthur Edward Ross: This item in the
Auditor General's report is headed "Exhibitions and Fairs." The next one I would ask about is the London and Western fair.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Central Canada?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Ottawa winter fair?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Peninsula winter
fair?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is at
Chatham. It was not held for a year or two, but I understand they are holding it now.


Arthur Edward Ross: Peterborough industrial?


William Richard Motherwell: No. That was one of the B class fairs.


Arthur Edward Ross: Canadian national?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: The feeder cattle
show?


William Richard Motherwell: Where?


Arthur Edward Ross: It does not say.
That is wbat I want to know.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that grant
will be continued.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where is the show held?


William Richard Motherwell: One at Winnipeg,
one at Moose Jaw, and one at Calgary.


Arthur Edward Ross: I thought these
grants covered only Ontario.


William Richard Motherwell: Winnipeg is not in Ontario.


Arthur Edward Ross: The open air horse parade?


William Richard Motherwell: That is in Ottawa.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that grant continued?


William Richard Motherwell: It may be. It is
a very small contribution.


Arthur Edward Ross: The provincial
winter fair?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not recognize
it. by that name. Will my hon. friend say where it is?


Arthur Edward Ross: It gets $6,000. I
hope it is in Ontario.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not know it by that name in the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: This information
came from the department to the Auditor General.


William Richard Motherwell: It has not been
christened properly there.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not responsible for the christening. What about the royal agricultural winter fair?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, that is in
Toronto.


Arthur Edward Ross: The bacon hog
competition?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: The horse-breeders club, is that grant continued?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. DUNNING:: You have done very
well.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Minister of
Railways says that we have done very well, but I would point out there are only twenty-four little items here for Ontario whereas there are seventy-nine for Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: But read the total of the Ontario items, including the royal winter fair.


Michael Luchkovich: When the hon.
member for South Huron spoke of the royal fair I recalled the bill which the Minister of Agriculture brought down last year, in speaking to which he said that his chief purpose in introducing it was to extend further assistance and encouragement to the live stock industry of Canada. It would appear that the only encouragement to the live stock industry in Canada is given through the Toronto fair, but I think that the agricultural industry in this country receives just as much encouragement, if not more, through the large number of small fairs that we have out in the west, especially the B circuit fairs. One of the members in a little conversation I had
3720	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
referred to the Toronto fair as a national fair, but so are all these fairs national in that they are doing a good work and helping a national industry in this country. We have a fair in Vegreville, which is a national fair to my way of thinking, in that it does help considerably a national industry in this country. I do not know when the minister first gave these people intimation that the federal grants would be discontinued, but I do know that the Vegreville exhibition association has got into pretty bad straits because of the financial obligations it has incurred, and which it is not able to meet at the present time. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which most of the members have made here to-day, because it would be superfluous. But I do say that it is very unfortunate that these grants are being discontinued to the B circuit fairs. They are doing a great work, and a work that is just as much national in its character as the Toronto fair.


William Richard Motherwell: I wrote to the
departments of agriculture in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to find out what they had done with respect to their respective fairs in anticipation of the federal grants being dropped. Everybody knew that this adjustment was going to take place, because they had been given warning, and in anticipation of our dropping these grants the provincial governments in some cases were raising theirs. That was not done in all cases, because some fairs had got into hard circumstances, trying to keep up with the Joneses, and they could not earn a larger grant from the provinces. I would point out to my hon. friend that Vegreville got S985.83 in 1918 from the provincial government, and in 1927 it received also from the provincial government 82,426 for its exhibition alone.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to say
one word on this subject, which I think is rather important. As I understand the minister's contention, and I recognize the difficulty of his position, these grants are being withdrawn on two main grounds. The first is that they were given in the first place as a war measure, when conditions were not normal, and now ten years after the war these grants are being dropped. The second is that continuing these grants would make it almost impossible to draw the line between B class fairs, C, and so on all down the line, and would involve the minister and his department in a tremendous amount of obligation. I have had a little experience, as most of us have had, having been in the west for forty years or so; I have visited the different

kinds of fairs we have, and I know the work they are doing. We have in my constituency a number of small fairs, in addition to one B class fair in Red Deer. I also have been glad to attend the larger fairs in the larger centres whenever I had the opportunity, and I have been endeavouring to see to what extent the money has been spent to the best advantage, and' generally what value the country has been getting from the money expended under these grants.


William Richard Motherwell: You mean federal
grants?


Alfred Speakman: Yes, to see where the
money was spent to the greatest advantage; not for providing amusement, but for actually improving the quality of our live stock and the standard of farming throughout the country. As I understand it, that is one of our greatest national works. From that point of view I do not think it is very difficult to differentiate between what we call B fairs and those further down the list. I suggest it would be well to set a certain standard to which those B fairs must attain or else lose the grant. My experience is that the smaller fairs are purely local in their character; they are attended by the farmers in the district, who bring in their stock for competition. But the B fairs are more than local, they draw their exhibits from all over the province, and sometimes from other provinces. In other words, as an object lesson in quality of stock they stand pre-eminently above the smaller and purely local fairs. In that respect they come more nearly to a parity with the large provincial fairs whose grants are being continued. From that point of view I believe it would be sound policy within reasonable limits-and no one can say that $33,000 in grants to the smaller fairs throughout a country like Canada is an unreasonable expenditure-to treat as permanent the grants to those fairs which are endeavouring to improve the! quality of our stock and our methods of farming.
Then there is another thing to be taken into consideration-and undoubtedly it was regarded at the outset-the financial position of these fairs and their opportunities of obtaining money from other sources. Those sources are very few, and the principal are of course the gate receipts. Those gate receipts are becoming more and more dependent on the side shows, the grandstand performances and other circus features, which, regarded from the proper point of view, are not educational agriculturally. The more nearly the fair approaches the proper type, the type

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
intended as an educational factor, the type intended to give an object lesson to the whole country as to the class of farming carried on and the quality of stock raised, the more nearly it approaches the ideal. And it follows that the less stress laid on what I term the purely circus features, the side shows and so on, and the more on stock judging and the other important factors, the smaller, as a whole, will be the gate receipts. At Calgary and Edmonton we find the gate receipts running into the tens of thousands of dollars, paid for the most part by people not five per cent of whom ever go near the stock and farming exhibits. Those people attend to see the grandstand performances and to look at the side shows, the circus and the fireworks. But those two fairs are allotted grants which they do not require in anything like the same degree as the smaller shows, because the very nature of the extraneous attractions at the big fairs swell the gate receipts.
I recognize the difficulty confronting the minister, but in the interests of the Dominion he should do his utmost to build up the basic industry to the highest point possible by encouraging the production of better stock and the bringing together at these fairs of samples of that better stock from all over the province and from the other provinces as well. To this end I suggest that it would be sound policy to make permanent what was commenced purely as a war measure; and to do away with or lessen the difficulties of the smaller fairs I suggest he should stipulate the conditions under which grants will be made, thus giving all possible encouragement to those fairs to develop stock-judging competitions, which would be of great educational value to our agriculturists and stock men. This policy in my opinion would be preferable to the policy that is being pursued right now of putting a premium, so to speak, on the side show and circus features of these fairs to the disadvantage of the great basic industry of agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: What would my
hon. friend do with such a case as that referred to by another hon. member, the Willow Bunch fair, which has grown up from infancy-would he let that class of fair in?


Alfred Speakman: Instead of the $33,000,
I think $100,000 would be well spent in grants to fairs that live up to the proper conditions, that is, so conduct their operations as to educate the people in improving the quality of their stock and their methods of farming.


William Richard Motherwell: But would he permit such fairs to come in as B fairs?


Alfred Speakman: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: You would have
them by the score.


Alfred Speakman: Well, I would welcome them if they lived up to all the conditions that I have stated, and I think the money would be better spent.


William Richard Motherwell: Another question.
Every time I have a conference with any agricultural association, particularly provincial, I am implored to cut out overlapping of activities. Well, the further we go with these grants the more we overlap the provincial grants. That is the one outstanding complaint from the provincial departments of agriculture, that our work is overlapping theirs. Now, if I take the advice of my hon. friend, good as it is, I would be overlapping more and more every year. And I want to assure my hon. friend that we could not stop at the point he indicates-the C fairs think they are as good as the B, and the result is that in a democratic country such as this, where you have to hearken to the electorate, there is no place to stop until you get to the bottom, the smallest and most humble exhibitions in the Dominion. That is my experience.


Alfred Speakman: I realize the objection to overlapping. I realize, too, that if that objection was carried to its logical conclusion there would be no federal department of agriculture at all. But to my mind that overlapping could be better avoided by the minister saying:	We will take over as a
federal obligation those fairs that reach the proper standards, and the provinces can devote their whole attention to the smaller fairs. In other words, subdivide the territory. Then each authority could do better work, and there would be no overlapping.


Mr. MALONEY:: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) is quite sound in his views. The weak spot of the ministers' policy appears to be that by encouraging Toronto and the other large exhibitions he is centralizing the whole system. If you consider the exhibits at, say, the Toronto exhibition, you will find that eventually, if this policy is continued, the small! breeder will be forced out, because he cannot compete with any hope of success against the millionaire who to-day takes up stock-breeding as a hobby. The idea of making grants to the large centres rather than
3722	COMMONS
Hup ply-A gricul ture-Exhibitions
to the small is in my opinion not in the interests of agriculture. The hen. minister spoke wisely when he stated that if he continued giving to one fair after another he would he accused of overlapping; but I think he might very well overcome that objection by handing his grants to the provincial ministers of agriculture, with the stipulation that they must be distributed among a certain class of fairs. In that way he could not be accused of overlapping provincial work. I will give him the experience of Renfrew. He has in that county one fair which is decidedly class B and which is perhaps, next to Toronto, one of the best and most representative fairs in the province of Ontario. It is in the town of Renfrev^. That fair never received a grant from this government as a class B fair. When I see towns in the west, one-third the size of Renfrew, with fairs whose prize lists do not compare at all with the prizes given at Renfrew, but who nevertheless receive grants, I can say only this, that the policy that has been, pursued has been indeed unfair. There has been no overlapping so far as Renfrew is concerned. In the town of Arnprior-


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon. member consider that it is the towns cr the agricultural districts that are entitled to such a system?


Martin James Maloney: I am speaking now of exhibits, the total value of exhibits.


Malcolm McLean: Agricultural or industrial?


Martin James Maloney: This is related to live stock. It is an agricultural fair, but this particular branch has reference to live stock exhibits. What I have said with regard to Renfrew applies with almost, equal force to the town of Arnprior. Neither of these fairs ever received any consideration from this minister, or from any other minister for that matter. After all, it is the small breeder, the man who takes an interest in the breeding of 3toek in the small centres on different farms, to whom we must look in the long-run, and not to the millionaire who is interested in stock breeding as a hobby. If we wish to encourage the breeding of stock broadcast, then I say to the minister, hand over to the various departments of agriculture in the provinces a certain sum each year, that money to be distributed in conjunction with grants given provimciailly, and let the class be stipulated. If the minister continues as he has been doing in the past, we will make a demand

for Renfrew, and many demands will be made from this province for fairs which dpserve and have deserved grants which they have not received.


William Richard Motherwell: Is my hon. friend in favour of Renfrew receiving a federal grant?


Martin James Maloney: Absolutely.


William Richard Motherwell: That proves what I say. If we continue these grants to B fairs every fair like that of Renfrew will want a grant.


Martin James Maloney: I have advised you how you may overcome the difficulty. Give a substantial grant to each provincial department and let them distribute the money. If you do not feel equal to distributing it, leave it to those who know the situation and let them distribute the money.


William Richard Motherwell: That would be an unusuail Way.


Malcolm McLean: I have a great
deal of sympathy with the minister in the position in which he finds himself. He is suffering to-day and has been for some time, as the result of an unwise economic policy adopted in the past, a policy which in my opinion cannot be justified on its merits. I refer to the policy of assisting certain fairs and withholding assistance from others. That is something that developed out of conditions over which probably no one had any considerable control. I agree with the minister that the condition should be remedied, but where I object, to the procedure of the minister is in the method he seeks to adopt by which to remedy the injustice that exists. I find myself in much greater accord with the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fan-sher). That hon. member enunciates a principle which is absolutely sound throughout the country; that is, that it is not to those who need assistance the least that assistance should be given, but rather the centres which are doing genuine agricultural development work, and who stand most in need of assistance. There is and has been for many years in this country a tendency to encourage large places and large enterprises at the expense of smaller and growing communities, whether rural or urban. By this means a great deal of the wealth of Canada has been concentrated in cities and problems have arisen, from that concentration, in connection with industrial development. And we are now threatened with the same condition in relation to the development of agricultural fairs. It is abso-

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
lutely wrong for us to give large sums of money by way of assistance to fairs which financially do not require any assistance at all, while at the same time we cut out the aid to smaller places which are functioning well in the interests of improved agriculture, particularly as regards stock and grain growing. The fairs which are receiving assistance under the head of class A fairs have not been enumerated, but we are told that the Toronto fair gets $5,000. Now, everyone knows that the Toronto fair has been earning profits, not at the rate ,of $5,000 a year but something like from $40,000 to even $200,000 a year for many years back. One or two years ago I put on record in this house the net earnings and profits of the Toronto national fair. Not long ago I saw the figures brought up to date, showing that the profits have increased largely in the past two years. They do not need that $5,000 in the slightest degree. The royal fair at Toronto is probably in a different position, but even here we see the result of a wrong system-the concentration in one city of $60,000 per annum for the promotion of agricultural interests of the Dominion. At the same time we are cutting out the smaller sum of $33,000 spread throughout the Dominion. The statement has been made by the Minister of Agriculture to-day-and it is right-that $50,000 was spent before the war in a perambulating fair. Possibly that was entirely justified. If I remember correctly, though, it was the intention that after the perambulating fair had visited every province in Canada that branch of endeavour should not be continued.


William Richard Motherwell: I don't think it.


Malcolm McLean: That is my
memory; I do not argue the point however. I accept the word of the minister.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand from
my deputy that you are right.


Malcolm McLean: Yes; generally
I can trust my memory to a certain extent at least. The province of Prince Edward Island was not able to take advantage of that grant by reason of local conditions. Now, what situation do we find to-day? We are told that the $33,000 must be cut down because there is no stopping place. I agree with the minister that there would be no limitation unless restrictions and1 regulations were framed in regard to the number of these fairs. But in connection with the larger fairs, what is the situation? Something like $275,000 is being spent now in the encouragement of the larger fairs. The hon. member for Red
Deer a moment ago observed-I cannot recall his exacts words, but I will give his meaning -that these larger fairs consist largely of industrial exhibits, sideshows, entertainments, stampedes and other features perhaps worse than any of these I mention, while the agricultural element constituted the minor feature. Anyone watching people going into these large fairs will see them make at once for the sideshows, the grandstand, the horse races and that class of entertainment. But if he visits the barns, as I invariably do when I go to a fair, he finds within a short distance of them the absence of any crowd. There is no competition there; no one is jostling anybody off the sidewalk. The crowds do not concentrate around the barns. Yet we find that to-day these fairs, where this condition prevails, are getting the sum of $275,000 as against $50,000 voted once in each province in connection with a perambulating fair. If the argument is sound that grants to the class B fairs should be discontinued because the assistance was given as a war measure, the argument is five times as forcible in relation to these other fairs. I think it would be a wise move either to abolish the grants altogether or to continue them on the basis of a perambulating grant to the provinces, to be repeated every nine years, at approximately the rate paid before the war. The minister has a serious objection against the smaller fairs increasing in number so as to become an embarrassment to the Dominion treasury, yet I find that to-day he is inviting another city to stage a fair and apply for this grant. The minister says he understands Winnipeg proposes to come into this class later on, and that if she does she will be entitled to the larger grant. I suggest that in view of the very important work being done by the smaller fairs, this grant should be continued. It is very small, hardly worth fighting over, but these fairs are doing good work and they should continue to receive this assistance.
Before I sit down perhaps I should draw a contrast between the larger and the smaller fairs. In the district which I have the honour to represent, a district 180 miles wide by 500 miles from north to south, there is an area of about 100 miles by 60 miles which is well settled agriculturally. In that district there is one class B fair to which stock are brought from all over that district. Farmers and their families and associates can come to that fair on any one of the three days for which it lasts. It costs a man living fifty or sixty miles away very little to put himself and his family into his car, drive to town, pay the admission for himself and his

Supply-Agriculture-Exhibitions
family and have a full day's enjoyment and entertainment. I regret that even small fairs seem to think they must have entertainment, but at any rate a man visiting that fair has a long day's entertainment and education in viewing the stock and exhibits. Then he goes to his car and drives home with his family, arriving there in plenty of time to take up his work the next day.
Contrast that with the fairs in the large cities. If a man desires to go to the fair he finds it very difficult to take anyone but himself; it is expensive both in time and in money as well as inconvenient for himself and his family to be away from home for so long. The smaller fair overcomes that difficulty entirely. The argument is made that the larger fairs are interprovincial, and that their exhibits are received from the different provinces. That is so, but the smaller fairs obtain exhibits from provinces just as far distant. Many exhibitors at the smaller fairs make the statement that they are able to do much more business in the selling of live stock than is the case at the larger fairs, because the farmers from the surrounding districts come to the small fairs and devote their time to a study of the live stock, and they are much more at liberty to discuss business and consider the purchase of live stock as foundation stock than are the farmers who attend the large fairs.
I think it is important that we continue for some time this assistance to these fairs. I do not think the department can go on indefinitely increasing the grants to any fairs whitih may apply for them; personally I should like to see the grants cut down, because I think this is a provincial responsibility. However, so long as the large fairs receive something like $275,000 a year I object to the smaller fairs being cut out of the $33,000 they now receive. Two years ago these grants were reduced about forty per cent on the ground of economy and because the money could be used to greater advantage elsewhere, and very little objection was made. If the grants to the larger fairs were reduced in the same way and abolished next year I think it would be all right, because then the provinces would have to attend to this matter. No doubt there is considerable overlapping, and I agree with the minister that it is a bad policy for the government to be spending money on the same objects for which the provincial governments are spending money, but I do not think this is the best way to stop the practice. Something should be done, and I should be glad to see a definite policy of reduction put into effect.


William Richard Motherwell: I think if we are
to abide by the understanding which was

reached we should either pass this vote, and apparently we are not ready for that yet, or ask that the committee rise and report progress, which I now do.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have some further remarks to make, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.20 p.m., until Tuesday, June 5.
Tuesday, June 5, 1928