1929-06-10

QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeGIBBON:
1.	Did the Interwoven Stocking Company, of New Brunswick, New Jersey, ship any of their products into Canada last year?
2.	If so, what was the nature of same?
3.	What quantity was imported and at what .price?
Mr. EULER:: 1,	2 and 3. It is contrary to the practice of the Department of National Revenue to give information which would disclose the business of an individual concern.


COPPER BOUNTIES
Mr. COWAN:: .
1.	How much was paid out of the consolidated revenue fund during each of the years 1923 to 1927, inclusive, under chapter 40, 13-14 George V?
2.	Where were the industries located which received such payments?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1. (a) The expenditures for administering the Copper Bounties Act are made by fiscal years and are as follows:-
Expenditure
1923-24 			 Nil
1924-25 			 S180 00
1925-26 			 314 00
1926-27 			 376 65
1927-28 			 329 00

Questions
(b) The bounty rates on copper vary for different years, ending on June 30 in each case. The following shows the amounts paid during
these	periods:-	Rate	AmountPeriod	per lb.	paidJuly	1, 1923	to	June	30,	1924.. ..	lie.	-July	1, 1924	to	June	30,	1925.. ..	lie.	$ 14,551 75July	1, 1925	to	June	30,	1926.. ..	lc.	108,086 27July	1, 1926	to	June	30,	1927.. ..	|c.	122,904 39July	1, 1927	to	June	30,	1928.. ..	ic.	62,572 24
2. Only one company has been paid bounty on copper: The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, Limited, Trail, B.C.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did the government appoint a committee of the civil service to deal with the subject of superannuation, and make recommendations?
2.	Did said committee meet and make a report and recommendations?
3.	Is said report now before the government, and will same be acted on at this session?
4.	In view of the long delay in action regarding increases to the professional class, is the government aware of the urgency of the matter as respects superannuation?


Mr. ROBB:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Several reports have been received from the committee. These have either been aoted upon or await the consideration of the treasury board.
4.	An inquiry containing an allegation would not appear to call for an answer, in view of rule 44 of the house.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 336, for the relief of William John Blight.-Mr. Neill- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1

Marriage dissolved.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This is one of the cases to which I took exception the other day. I have read the evidence and I cannot see that on the evidence the charges have been proved. I should like to have from the sponsor of the bill a short outline of the case.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not propose to read the evidence in this case. Every member has a copy of it and can read it for himself. The
hon. member who asks me to give a resume of the case, says that he has read the evidence. What more can I give him than what he has already read himself? This is neither the time nor the place to go into all the details. This .case has been carefully considered by the senate committee and unanimously passed. It has also been carefully considered by the House of Commons committee and unanimously passed. I submit that the thing for us to do is to follow the example adhered to in the other two hundred cases we have deait with and pass the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was this carefully
considered by the private bills committee?


Alan Webster Neill: So I am informed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 345, for the relief of Edith Speneley.-Mr. Hepburn-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Mr. HEPBURN:: There are four children. This is a bigamous ease. There was one child by the first wife and there were three by the second. The children are now in the custody of the two mothers. They are not asking that any provision be made for the children at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 346, for the relief of Annie Farrow.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. WOODSW ORTH:: May I ask if there are any children in this case?


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):: There are
two children residing with the petitioner, the mother, and they are being supported by the father, the respondent, under an order of the court, the amount paid being $10 a week.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 347, for the relief of Evelyn Mae Warren.-Mr. Speakman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Procedure Respecting Divorce
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this case and is provision being made for them? The sponsor of the bill is present and I think he might give us the information as has been done in other cases.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I find just at this
moment that I am the sponsor. I believe there has been an error in putting my name to the bill without my knowledge. I sponsored one bill of a similar nature which has gone through and with which I familiarized myself. I do not know anything about this bill and I did not know until this moment that my name was attached to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I object to
this bill passing with no sponsor's name attached.
Bill stands.


LOUIS COIT DARGAVEL
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 348, for'the relief of Louis Coit Dargavel-Mr. Casselman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-(Marriage dissolved.
Mr. SMOKE:: Looking over the evidence in this case, I have come to the conclusion that the bill should not be passed on the evidence which has been presented. There has been no fair trial. The petition is dated February 7, 1929. The charge against the respondent is concerning an offence alleged to have been committed on or about June 1, 1928, at Fayetteville, New York. No attempt was made to prove this charge. No evidence whatever was adduced concerning it. A paid detective was allowed to give evidence concerning other occasions of which the respondent had not the slightest notice and in regard to which she had no opportunity to defend herself.
The respondent was without funds. The insignificant sum of $75 was advanced to her on the order of the committee-a sum totally inadequate to enable her to prepare for trial -and the sum of $75 was advanced to pay counsel-an amount not sufficient to fee a solicitor, much less to pay counsel on the hearing.
The petitioner adduced evidence to show that the respondent and corespondent were registered at a rooming house called Traymore Apartments, in Rochester, N.Y., under the name of " Mr. and Mrs. Rudd." The respondent and corespondent deny this positively on oath, and after a few days' adjournment of -the case the corespondent was able

to produce the man, Guy L. Rudd, who was actually registered at the said apartment house and living there with his wife, and who came before the committee and refuted the evidence o-f petitioner. One of the witnesses who swore that Rudd and wife were the respondent and corespondent recanted and after returning to Rochester made an affidavit that the evidence she had given before the committee was incorrect and that she had never seen the respondent or corespondent until she saw them at the trial before the committee.
The committee refused a further adjournment in order to allow the respondent -to call this recanting witness who admitted that her evidence was untrue, and refused to allow the affidavit to be read before the committee. The corespondent proved that on occasions when the petitioner's witnesses had sworn he was at various places with the respondent he was actually confined to his bed by illness in another town altogether and that it was a physical impossibility for him to have been where the respondent's witnesses swore they saw him. So much of the evidence adduced by the petitioner having been positively shown to be perjury, none of the evidence on behalf of the petitioner is worthy of credence.
The respondent swore-see page 34-that the petitioner proposed that she coftimit the necessary offence upon which to obtain a divorce. This proposal she refused. There was no contradiction of this evidence on her part.
Without doubt further adjournment should have been granted in order to allow the respondent and corespondent to meet the charges that were made against them. In the short time at their disposal they utterly refuted some of the charges and proved the evidence given on behalf of the petitioner to be perjury. Given a reasonable time to check up the other evidence, there is every reason to suppose it also could have been shown to be perjury. Two of these charges were sprung on the respondent and corespondent without notice. They were able entirely to refute all those which could be said to be sufficient ground upon which to grant the petition. As to the remaining occasion, there is not the slightest direct evidence of impropriety. Both the respondent and corespondent gave clear and unequivocal explanation of the circumstances and deny on oath any improper relations either at that time or at any other time.
To grant this divorce on these proceedings would be highly improper. No court of law would permit a case to be presented and tried

Procedure Respecting Divorce
as this one was. In any properly conducted divorce trial, the offence as alleged must be proved. Evidence of offence alleged to have been committed on "divers occasions"-which is the stereotyped language of such petitions- is never allowed by a court except to show the general conduct of the respondent and in a manner as corroboration of the evidence as charged. If the offence as charged is not proved by the evidence no court will grant a divorce.
Where the charge as alleged with particularity, giving place and date, cannot be proved, and petitioner desires to prove other charges, it is the invariable practice to have the petition redrawn alleging definitely the charges it is desired to prove, and to have the petition re-served giving the respondent an opportunity to prepare a defence and to obtain from the petitioner all particulars of the charge.
This primary rule of procedure-to disregard which would be a decided injustice- was altogether ignored by the committee, and neither respondent nor corespondent has had " fr*lr opportunity of making a defence.
This was a contested case, Mr. Chairman, and the evidence is rather bulky. After I had read the evidence I looked back with some anxiety to see whether the divorce committee had really recommended the passing of a divorce bill. It did not seem to me possible that they should do so in view of the fact that Rudd and his wife were not the respondent and the other woman. It c.;ems to me that the case turns very materially on that point, and it strikes me, with all deference to the divorce committee of the Senate-we all recognize that they are human and that everybody makes mistakes, even the courts-that this particular bill should be referred back to the private bills committee for further consideration.


Mr. CAHAN:: I agree with what has been said by the hon. member. The only charge made in the petition against this respondent was proved to have been a case of perjury. Then other charges were made which were not included in the original petition. As I read the case, no due time was given to the respondent fully to meet those subsequent charges. If a respondent comes before the committee and swears clearly and positively that she has not been guilty of the charge made against her, and, if the original charge as made in the petition is proved to have been founded upon perjury, then any subsequent charges which may be made during the course of that hearing should be made by amendment to the petition, and a re-hearing should be allowed to the respondent in order that she may have opportunity to prove her innocence of these other charges of which she had no previous notice whatsoever before she appeared before the committee.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I am rather surprised that this bill is being opposed in the house. Just a few minutes ago there was placed in my hands the same brief that has just been put on the record by the hon. member for Brant. With many parts of that brief I cannot agree. It would appear to me that when -this matter was before the private bills committee the other day, if any investigation was desired it should have been made at that time, rather than allow the bill to come back here to the committee of the whole house and then ask to have it referred back. I do not wish to suggest that the parties who are opposing this bill are not doing so in good faith, but I think it would have shown better faith on the part of the parties who -are responsible for this action being taken if .they themselves had appeared before the private bills committee.
With regard to the statement that the charge in the petition was not proven, I would suggest that the charges in the original petition covered the offences which were pioven. I have an interest in this case, knowing the parties, and I therefore sat for several days in the committee when this case was being heard. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that this applicant had just grounds for divorce. I therefore oppose any move to have the bill sent back to the private bills committee.


Franklin Smoke: In answer to the hon. member, I am not a member of the private bills committee; I have other committees to attend, and in any event I was not -put on that committee and I did not consider it my duty to go there and present any argument. I assumed that the private bills committee would look after their own business. That is all I have to say on that point.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to support the position taken by my hon. friend from Grenville-Dundas. I have read the evidence carefully. I know the parties. The applicant is a resident of the town in which I reside. His wife has not resided with him for a period of fifteen years. This case was contested before the Senate divorce committee, where every opportunity was given to produce evidence, and there was a further opportunity before the private bills committee. It seems

Procedure Respecting Divorce
to me that the position now taken is one of obstruction, at this late date in the session.
I submit that we ought to follow the regular procedure, and as this case has been thoroughly investigated by the Senate committee and in the private bills committee that we ought to adopt their report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to call attention to
the fact that although these parties had not been living together they had been living separately under a separation agreement since April 17, 1915, and there is a clear suggestion that the object of these divorce proceedings is to allow the husband to escape paying the annuity which he agreed to pay under that separation agreement. In a charge of adultery there should be some time and place mentioned in order that the respondent may be upon her guard and may be able to show where she was, in what company she was, and under what circumstances she was living at the time the alleged adultery took place. In this ease there is only one specific date mentioned, and that is June 1, 1928, and the place mentioned is Fayetteville, in the state of New York, and the charge with respect to the adultery alleged to have been committed on June 1, 1928, at Fayetteville was proved to be utterly false.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Referring to the separation agreement which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has just mentioned, it contains a clause that the payments were to be made only so long as the respondent remained of chaste character. There was that limitation, and there is an exhibit of a letter sent by the respondent to her husband in which she herself offers in consideration of $3,000 to consent to divorce and to produce the evidence that will support the divorce.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: As a member of the
private bills committee I wish to say a word in regard to this case. One hon. gentleman has suggested that it is the business of the members of the private bills committee to go into these cases. Personally, I may say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into these three hundred divorce cases. This is just another illustration to show what a farce this divorce business is so far as consideration before the private bills committee is concerned. I hope the Prime Minister will implement his promise that next year there will be a different arrangement with . respect to divorce.
As regards the remark that was made by one hon. gentleman that bills that have passed the private bills committee should not be considered in committee of the whole house because the private bills committee should at-

tend to their business, I would ask what is this committee of the whole for? Have we just to give a perfunctory approval to the bills that come from the private bills committee? I say that if any evidence has come out since the private bills committee sat on this case, it is the duty of this committee to consider such evidence and to listen to what may be said.
Section agreed to: Yeas, 41; Nays, 30.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.


VERA MAUD GENDRON
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 349, for the relief of Vera Maud Gendron-Mr. Hepburn-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: There are no children in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 350, for the relief of Lillian Ainsworth-Mr. Law-son-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this case?


Alexander James Anderson: On behalf of the hon. member for West York, I wish to say that the records show that there is no family in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 352, for the relief of George Frederick Wilson- Mr. McGregor-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. SPENCER:: Are there any children in this case?
Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park) No children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

Procedure Respecting Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 296, for the relief of Charles Edwin Walker.-Mr. Sanderson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mr. IRVINE:: I wish to make a comment
on this bill. On the second reading of the bill the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) went over the evidence, pointing out its weaknesses, and it was assumed by the committee of the whole that when the bill was referred back to the private bills committee special consideration would be given it. As a matter of fact, when the bill did get before that committee no particular attention was given to it. It is time that consideration of the billwas postponed for two days, and the officers of the committee were instructed to inform the respondent when the case would come before the committee. The so-called agents of the respondent were not present; in fact, it happened that the respondent had no official agent, for the lawyer had received no instructions: in other words, the woman had no money and there was no way of going on with the matter. The result was that nothing was done. When the bill came up I endeavoured to present the petition to the committee, but it was another "I'm Alone" case; nobody paid any attention to it. No investigation was made and no evidence seriously presented.
I wish once more to make a plea on behalf of the respondent. First, let me say that I do not know the respondent at all. I would point out that the most material witness in favour of the respondent was unable to give evidence before the senate committee for the reason that she had passed through a very serious operation. There was no doubt about the serious condition of the witness, for there [DOT] was evidence to prove that clearly. Counsel or the lesipondent asked that t'he case be postponed or that an opportunity be given for this material witness to appear. The chairman of the committee in reply said something to the effect that it was very difficult to ensure that the same personnel who had heard the evidence in the first instance would be present on a subsequent occasion, and for that reason a postponement of the case was not granted. The result was that this witness was not heard.
I understand that this witness proposed to prove an alibi; that is to say, at the time and in the places where the illegal acts were sup-78594-220
posed to have been committed it could be proved that the respondent was not present at all, thus substantiating her claim that the case was a frameup. She denies the charge, claiming that there was a frameup, and the most material witness was unable to give evidence.
There is another feature of the case. I believe there are three corespondents mentioned. The respondent, not knowing of course the methods which would be adopted by the petitioner, did not know how many corespondents would be cited and consequently did not have an opportunity to call them. It must be remembered also that this is a poor woman who has been working for her living; she received S75 by order of the committee in order to carry on the case but could not afford to add enough to that sum to pay for her lawyers and to see that the case was properly conducted. Furthermore, if she was advised that our committee was to reconsider this bill-and I do not know whether or not she was so advised-she was working and if she had given uip her work and come down here she might have lost her position.
In view of the circumstances and in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot suffer very much if this bill is left over for another year, I do not see why this committee should not give this woman the benefit of the doubt and kill this bill for the time being; it can be brought up again next year and all these further points considered. That seems a reasonable request, and in view of the fact that perhaps not over two per cent of the members of this' committee know anything about this bill I think it would be a very serious responsibility for us to pass it now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I also carefully read the
evidence in this case and I am confident that if I were sitting as a judge I would not grant a divorce on the evidence which was presented. Furthermore the respondent, in this case a woman, came before the committee and swore positively as to her innocence, and when it was found impossible to prove the first charge that was made, if I remember correctly an amendment was allowed. Where a respondent comes before a committee and swears positively as to her innocence, in my opinion no new charges should be allowed to be presented against her without an amendment being made to the petition and ample opportunity being given the respondent to bring her witnesses in respect to the new charges. The evidence, to me, is quite consistent with being a frame-up and therefore I think there should be further investigation


BBYISED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Procedure Respecting Divorce
in this case and that the respondent should have a further opportunity to bring a witness who was proved to be ill at the time and present her defence to the amended charge. I intend to vote against this bill.
Upon the yeas and nays being called for:
Section 1 agreed to: Yeas, 40; Nays, 34.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 347, for the relief of Evelyn Mae Warren-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On the preamble:
Mr. GARDINER:: Who is sponsoring this bill.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: In view of the lateness of the session, with the consent of the house I would be pleased to sponsor this bill.


The CHAIRMAN:: If the hon. gentleman will take the responsibility of sponsoring the bill and if he is prepared to give all the necessary information I do not see any reason why that should not be done.


Robert Gardiner: Then I would suggest
that it be reprinted on the orders of the day.


John Frederick Johnston: That is for the committee to decide.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I would like to explain that apparently this is a very deserving case, since the Senate committee has recommended the remission of the fees payable. It would be unfortunate if at this time the petitioner should lose out because of a technicality of this kind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, this bill must be sponsored, and I object on principle to any transfer of this kind. If a bill is sent here with no name attached to it, it seems to me that we cannot possibly proceed with it; surely that is a rule of order. Permission has been granted on occasion, when the sponsor was absent, for another member to act in his place, but there is no, precedent at all for permitting a bill to come here with no name attached to it. The hon. member whose name is attached to this bill denies responsibility for it ; now some other member puts his name to the bill, but I do not think that can be done without having the bill reprinted.


John Frederick Johnston: I am informed that
there has been some error in the committee branch and that this bill formerly was sponsored by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys). Through some error the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) has been attached to the bill. .


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
On the title:
James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of
order, I object to' this bill being proceeded with at this time.


John Frederick Johnston: I have declared sections 1 and 2 carried and I think the committee should decide whether or not I should deciare the title carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of
order, I object to this bill being presented without the sponsors name appearing on the bill. I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not know that
there is any rule which states that even though one name appears on the bill as sponsor, it may not bn sponsored by some other bon. member of the house. It is for the committee to decide, rather than for any one member of the committee or the chairman. I am asking the committee to decide whether or not we shall proceed with this bill.


Robert Gardiner: I have never heard you make a decision of this kind before. Mr. Chairman; whenever any controversial point came up you have always found a precedent on which to base your ruling, and I ask you now to rule on this point.


John Frederick Johnston: I would point out to
my hon. friend that, as we all know, the session is drawing to a close and the question of urgency enters into the matter. Therefore I think I am not asking the committee to do anything unreasonable when I ask them to decide this point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
direct attention to standing order 116, which is as follows:
Except in cases of urgent and pressing necessity, no motion for the suspension or modification of any standing order applying to private bills or petitions for private bills shall be entertained by the house until after reference is made to the committee on standing orders or to one of the committees charged with the consideration of private bills, and a report made thereon by one of such committees.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
In commenting on this standing order, paragraph 900 of Beauchesne states:
So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
I suggest thait in this particular case we have the regular rule that each bill must be sponsored.


Mr. BENNETT:: Where is the rule?
owing to the approaching prorogation of the session, it is quite in order for us to proceed with this bill even though the name appearing on the bill is not the name of the hon. gentleman who is now sponsoring the bill.


Mr GARDINER:: Will you give me the
number of that rule?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a ruling of the Chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. gentlemen dio not like this sort of thing, but quite apart from these divorce proceedings I do not think we can afford to let a ruling of this kind go unchallenged; I challenge the ruling of the Chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is a rule that
has come down from time immemorial that when a bill comes before the house it must carry the name of some hon. member, and I object to this general rule being disregarded.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: We have listened this
session to the obstruction of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to the
word "obstruction"; it is not parliamentary.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I did not know what
else to call it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that word.


John Frederick Johnston: I must ask the hon.
member to withdraw the word "obstruction"; it is not parliamentary.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I bow to your decision, but I say that any one holding the radical views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre Should not object to establishing a precedent if that is necessary in order to put this bill through. If he has any of the milk of human kindness in his heart he will withdraw any objection ho may have to this bill. The respondent in this case not only committed adultery but is now confined in a Michigan penitentiary, and the financial position of the petitioner is such that the senate committee recommended the remission of the fees. Surely my hon. friend is not going to have this bill ruled out on a technicality.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
Acadia suggested that I rule on this point of order, and I am now ready to do so. My ruling is that, as this is a case of urgency 78594-2204


John Frederick Johnston: That is the hon. gentleman's privilege; this will necessitate a report to the house.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made fjie following report:
When Bill No. 347 was under consideration in committee of the whole, Mr. Hepburn moved,- That section one be carried. Objection being taken that Mr. Hepburn was not the sponsor of the bill, the chairman ruled that in a case of urgency any member other than the one whose name appears on the order paper could sponsor a bill.
Whereupon, Mr. Woodsworth appealed from the ruling of the chairman.
The question being put by Mr. Speaker: shall the ruling of the chairman be confirmed: it was decided in the affirmative on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Bancroft,
Barber,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Blanchard,
Bock,
Bouchard,
Bowen,
Bradette,
Cahan,
Casselman,
Cayley,
Chaplin,
Dickie,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Elliott,
Euler,
Eiset (Sir Eugene), Forke,
Foster,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton),
Geary,
Glen,
Gray,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Hall,
Hepburn,
Jenkins,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria),
Ladner,
Laflamme, MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), MacLaren.
MacLean (Prince),
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McRae,
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Neill,
I'err a*

Procedure Respecting Divorce
Pettit,
Plunkett,
Ralston,
Rennie,
Robb,
Robinson,
Roes (Moose Jaw), Rowe,
Sanderson,
Senn,
Simpson,
Sinclair (Queens), Sinclair (Wellington North),
Smoke,
Spence,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Stewart (Leeds), Stirling,
Telford,
Thompson,
Thorson,
Tummon,
White (London), Young (Saskatoon), Young
(Weyburn).-71.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Adshead,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Coote,
Evans,
Fansher (Last Mountain), Fansher (Lambton East),
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Irvine,
Kellner,
Kennedy,
Lucas,
Luehkovich.
Macphail (Miss), Speakman,
Spencer,
Woodsworth.-18.



[Stage Direction]
*
The house again in committee on Bill No. 347, for the relief of Evelyn Mae Warren 

Mr. Hepburn-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 357, for the relief of Isabella Henderson-Mr. Heaps-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Alan Webster Neill: As the precedent has been set in the case of the other bill, I suggest that we extend the same courtesy to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in the case of Bill No. 357. As this is the only one left on the order paper, I would be glad to sponsor it.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall I report the bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On the motion to report the bill. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there should be a clear understanding. So far as I can ascertain from my experience in this house, when a bill is in committee any member may move thait a clause be adopted or struck out, and that it is not necessary that the person whose name is printed on the bill should make a single motion before the committee.
Bill reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-REPORTED
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Kenneth Blackwood Gibb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Sarah Berko-vitz.-Mr. Sanderson.
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Roy Franklin Beattie.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of John George Laney.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Albert Nott. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 356, for the relief of John Thomas Legge.-(Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Emil Henry Hornlburg.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, when the Kellogg treaty was being debated in this house I made a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it might be a good thing to call a disarmament conference if, as we hoped, all the governments that signed the treaty were sincere. I find now that such a conference, is being suggested by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the new Prime Minister of Great Britain. In this morning's newspapers it is announced that probably Mr. Mackenzie King will be invited to accompany Mr. MacDonald in his conference with Mr. Hoover. I should like to ask if any invitation of this character has been received by the Prime Minister, and what his intentions are in r.espect thereto.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is now receiving a delegation, I shall direct his attention to the inquiry made by my hon. friend, and possibly he may be able to answer it at a later stage in the day or to-morrow morning.


REPORTS OF HARBOUR COMMISSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the order's of the day :
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) if he can make any reply regarding his telegraphic communication with the harbour commissioner of St. John.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: At the request of my hon.
friend I wired the commissioners in regard to the report, and the answer I have received is that it is being printed.


FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 26, to amend the Fisheries Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries Act Amendment
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may explain, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has been before the committee on marine and fisheries on several occasions, and as now presented1 it is in the form accepted by that committee.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: The
committee recommended that trawlers be licensed. Where does that recommendation appear in this bill?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Clause 7.


Edward Joseph Garland: Another bill is now being handed around. There was an amended bill on the commons bills file which did not contain what is in the bill now being handed to us.


Finlay MacDonald: Which
portion of clause 7 deals with the licensing of trawlers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Clause 7. Let me read it:
7. The said act is further amended by inserting the following section immediately after section sixty-nine thereof:-
69a. (1) Every person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall incur therefor a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, recoverable with costs upon summary conviction, who at any time, except under license from the minister,-.
And the following section indicates in what circumstances a license may be obtained. There is also subsection 4 on page 3:
(4)	The minister may determine the number of such vessels that shall be eligible to be licensed.
(5)	Regulations may be made under the provisions of section forty-six of this Act,-
(a) Prescribing the form of license;


Finlay MacDonald: I desire, Mr. Chairman, to offer a few comments on the bill. This bill, I fake it, represents the government's intention in the matter of implementing the findings of a commission appointed to inquire info the difficulties, problems and disabilities of the fishermen of the eastern section of the maritime provinces. It must be a matter of deep regret to those of us who come from fishing communities, as I know it must be to the fishermen themselves, to find that this is the only piece of legislation that the government has to offer in connection with the findings of a commission which has coat this country upwards of $100,000. As a remedy for the deplorable conditions depicted by this commission this bill is practically valueless. There are upwards of seventy recommendations made by the commission. The government had this report in its hands for over a year, and I regret to see that after a year's consideration the only legislation that the government was able to
bring down is this bill, which is entirely innocuous and leaves the situation in exactly the same condition as it was when the commission was appointed. The only difference is that, as the hon. minister has said, the words "licensing of steam trawlers" are inserted in this bill.
Among its many recommendations the commission recommend that the fishermen should be properly organized so that they might be able to get more of the consumer's dollar for their product. They also recommend the etablishment of co-operative organizations to be assisted by the department, and that an organizer be appointed and paid by the federal government for a period of time in order to start the work. This is the crux of the situation and yet the government has done nothing.
The royal fisheries commission states that if the inshore fisheries in the maritimes are to succeed, organization and co-operation are absolutely essential among our fishermen. On page 81 of the report the commission recommends that in certain districts or zones, cooperatives should be formed and supplied with small brine or rapid freezing plants, having small auxiliary cold storage buildings in connection. These should be placed within a days transportation of a larger cold storage plant, the latter having a waste fish product plant in connection. This would take care of the surplus from the smaller plants. They also recommend a marketing sales board to control the output of the product to various sections and that selling agents be appointed in the larger communities to control distribution and protect the market. Equipped with this organized power of bargaining, the fishermen could dictate reasonable prices to the consumer as well as secure a reasonable profit for their labour. Under such a plan long term loans for the purchase of boats, equipment and also insurance of fishermen's property could be arranged through the fishermen's organization. The royal commiasion believes that these suggestions would solve the fishermen's problems, and would establish a profitable industry and secure for him an assured market and a bargaining power which he has not thus far possessed, and a greater portion of the consumer's dollar than he has hitherto received.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as I can see, those recommendations have not been carried out. As regards section 5 of the old bill, I take the stand taken by the fishermen in the eastern section of Nova Scotia, that the beam trawler is to a large extent responsible for the condition that now exists in our maritime
Fisheries Act Amendment

province fisheries, and I claim it is the duty of this government to accept the majority report of that commission if they are going to do anything for the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
I am unalterably opposed to the beam trawler fish landing in Canada, and I ask this government what it has done to protect our north Atlantic fishing grounds from the depredations of the foreign trawler. The fisheries report has asked for a conference of the nations concerned in reference to this destructive method of fishing. Thus far nothing has been done. Mr. Chairman, I claim that the use of the beam trawler is one of the most destructive methods that could be devised; firstly, for the reason that large quantities of immature and inedible fish are caught through this method and are destroyed. These fish are either thrown overboard dead, or taken to a fish meal plant for reduction and placed on the market as fish meal or fertilizer. Secondly, the beam trawler destroys the spawning fish, thus seriously interfering with fish propagation. Dr. W. L. Fulton, superintendent of scientific investigation in Scotland, claims that thirty per cent of the trawler catch consists of immature inedible fish. The spawning fish taken by the beam trawlers on our banks are not taken to any extent by the methods employed by the inshore fishermen, as sick fish spawning will not readily take the hook and line. I submit that means should be taken to restrict the trawler method if we are going to conserve our fisheries in the maritime provinces, and especially our north Atlantic coast fisheries. Thirdly, the beam trawler net with its iron shod doors drags the bottom of the sea and disturbs and destroys the algae and the fungi on which the fish depend for food.
My contentions are borne out by the fact that in the North sea fishing grounds off the coast of England where beam trawling originated, the fish catch is decreasing year by year on account of the employment of the trawler method. Where formerly they fished an area of 152,000 square miles, they are now compelled to extend over an area of over 700,000 square miles, and are not supplying an amount equal to that of former years.
Spain, Portugal, France and English beam trawlers are to-day compelled to come to our north Atlantic waters and fish on our banks, by reason of the depletion of their own fishing grounds. The United States consuming public are becoming disturbed over the depletion of haddock in the north Atlantic and are today advocating a conference between Canada, the United States and all nations operating beam trawlers in order to arrive at ways and means whereby this most valuable fresh fish
 *
product may be conserved. The beam trawler method of fishing gives to the consuming public an inferior product. Fish are by far the most perishable of all foodstuffs and if they are not frozen by the rapid freezing, or what is sometimes known as the brine freezing, method as soon as they are taken from the sea, they lose their texture, that is they become soft; they lose their flavour and also become a prey to bacteria, resulting in rapid deterioration, giving rise to ptomaine poisoning.
The fish taken by the beam trawler are injured by their own weight and by the foreign material taken into the trap. The lower portion of the catch are bruised and crushed by the great mass of material in the trap before they reach the deck of the trawler. This fish is placed in bulk in the hold of the ship or in pens or on shelves and there iced, and the melting ice pours down on the fish below, further softening it, and carrying with it products of bacterial decomposition. The greater part of this fish is kept from five to nine days sometimes longer before being landed. This fish is then placed in cold storage to be frozen by the slow method. Depending upon the amount landed by each trawler, some 200,000 to 300,000 pounds, this requires some two or three days. The fish is then held in storage for three to six months before being placed on the market for human consumption. The product is much inferior to our inshore catch, which is generally marketed the day it is caught. The inshore fish retains its texture, its flavour, and is a very much superior product. The condition in which the beam trawder fish reaches the consumer is the reason it is so difficult to retain the market of central Canada.
In my opinion the greatest objection by inshore fishermen to the beam trawler method is the glutting of the market by over production, giving to the inshore fisherman a very restricted market and consequent low prices -prices which will not permit of an adequate livelihood. Our shore fisherman is thus compelled to give up his occupation, close his home, move to the United States and engage in the American fishing industry, which to-day gives him a livelihood denied to him in his own country. Since 1912, ten thousand fishermen have left the maritime provinces. In one school section alone thirty-three children left with their parents and moved to the United States in a little over three months, and in March, 1929, practically five hundred fishermen left the small section of Isle Madame for the United States to engage in the American fishing industry. Some two hundred have left the river Bourgeois section of Richmond county during the past

Fisheries Act Amendment
two months. The result is that the New England fisheries are to-day almost entirely manned by Nova Scotians. Would it not be a better policy to try to do something for our own fishing industry and retain our native sons instead of spending $20,000,000 as we have done in eight years to bring aliens into Canada?
The mass beam trawler production of which I have spoken has driven our inshoreman from his customary rights,, rights which have been his from time immemorial. Our inshore fisheries have played the most important part in the colonization and development of the maritimes. The thriving, happy and contented fishing villages of earlier days are now a thing of the past, and in their places are to be found ruined fishing establishments, boats and gear decaying, homes closed, their former occupants to-day in a foreign land, lost to this country forever.
The problem to-day is a choice between the dividends paid to a group of capitalists who are operating a destructive method of fishing, producing an inferior article, employing some two hundred and forty-nine men, with an invested capital of $990,000, and the livelihood of sixteen thousand fishermen, with an invested capital of $24,000,000. One or the other must go, and it is up to this government to protect the interests of our native born inshore fishermen.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the sixteen thousand fishermen my hon. friend refers to be shore fishermen only? There are some forty thousand altogether.


Finlay MacDonald: That is, in Canada. The friends of the beam trawler claim that the inshore fishermen cannot supply the demand. That is their only claim, and I would ask the minister whether this government has ever given the inshore fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia an opportunity to try to supply the demand for fresh fish. The government has not done so. In 1928 the inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia furnished about one half of the fresh fish marketed by our various corporations, and they have also sent to foreign markets, in its dried and salted state, almost double the quantity supplied by the beam trawlers. The fishermen in that province have not been given an opportunity, and under this legislation-although we have spent $100,000-we are receiving no consideration. I regret that, in spite of the conditions which have been described by the royal commission, this government has treated the situation in the way it has done.


Edward Joseph Garland: With much that my hon. friend has just said I must agree, though not with all. The condition of the fishermen in the maritime provinces is a great blot on the economic life of Canada to-day; there is no other class of the com-munitiy I know of which is in such a pauperized state. I have not lived in that country long enough to know just what has brought this about, but I had the opportunity of going down there twice in recent years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And caught a salmon.


Edward Joseph Garland: Thank you;
I was fortunate enough to do that. The hon. gentleman is not a fisherman, I take it, or he would enjoy with me the thrill I had in catching it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It 'was the first you
caught.


Edward Joseph Garland: No; I had caught several on the Pacific coast before that. I found that in some districts many of the fishermen were wholly illiterate. Even to-day some families are growing up without education. The average fisherman, in Cape Breton at least, is fortunate if he has an income of $500 in the year. I wish hon. gentlemen would just try to fix their annual budget on the basis of $500 a year. These men, for years, for generations, have lived by such a low standard that their intelligence and aggressiveness have poured out of that country into other countries or into other parts of Canada, or have been completely sup. pressed by the economic conditions under which they exist. I see now, however, a ray of hope in the fact that they are at last beginning to think cooperatively, and if the government could find any means whatever of helping to ignite that little spark that has just started they would have performed splendid service.
Travelling up the west coast of Cape Breton you will find at the north end of one shore the old Scottish Hectorians, if I may use that term, the descendants of the first Scottish people who came to Canada. These people have not only retained their original facial appearance and general physical structure, but even their tongue is as pure to-day as when they came here. I was a little alarmed on one occasion in this house, Mr. Chairman, when a barbaric sound broke out from immediately to your left; but after visiting Cape Breton I find that these hon. gentlemen who on that occasion started some Gaelic songs were simply carrying out the
Fisheries Act Amendment


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. Do I understand that he is in favour of the majority recommendation of the royal commission with regard to the abolition of beam trawlers?


Edward Joseph Garland: Sentimentally, yes, but as a practical proposition I do not see how you are going to abolish a trawler which is international in character. That is the difficulty I see; you have beam trawlers coming from all parts of the world, from France, from Portugal, from Spain, from England, from Norway and from the United States, and it seems to me it would be a very stupid thing to destroy Canadian trawler fishing unless it were done by international agreement, and so apply to the trawlers of all nations. I think there should be a limitation, and you should try to build up the morale of the shore fishermen and give them more confidence in their future. You should do what you can to help them market their fish at a better price.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get them trawlers.


Edward Joseph Garland: The way to help them get trawlers is to assist them in organizing first and then lend them the money, taking security on the trawler itself. I believe the trawlers cost from $135,000 to $150,000; that is not a very large sum of money, although it must appear a tremendous sum to the shore fishermen. To a government it is a mere bagatelle which is chucked away here and there several times in the course of one day when we are passing estimates sometimes without even decent consideration. If you can only get the fishermen to organize
3 ISO
Fisheries Act Amendment

they will be quite willing to undertake the responsibility in these matters if they see an opportunity of ever getting their heads above the economic slough in which they are immersed at present. Frankly, I would hesitate to picture to the house conditions down there, as I saw them. They were deplorable. I went into one home where there were five children, the eldest of whom was a girl of seventeen, very polite and very pretty. I had heard that she had never been to school, but I wanted to find out for myself, and when I asked her she told me that that was the case because her mother had to go to work in order to make fifty or seventy-five cents per day to keep the home going, and so the girl was required to look after the other four children. The next child was a boy of eleven years of age, and when I asked him if he had ever been to school, he told me that he had not because his father was getting along in years and required his services in the boat in order to steady it while he set the lines for fishing. It is necessary that these boats go out from five to ten miles from the shore, depending on the condition of the weather and the fish, and someone is needed to steady the boat and the sons, and in many cases the daughters of the fishermen, are taken along to do this work because the fathers cannot afford to hire any help; the result is that we have in Canada in the year 1929 a condition of illiteracy which is a disgrace to the country. This is brought about as a result of economic conditions which the minister -would be well advised to look into to see if this question cannot be solved in some way.
I must say quite frankly that I am puzzled as regards the trawlers. If I thought it would save the lives of ten or twenty thousand fishermen and keep them in Canada and build up their business, and if I thought it would not damage the Canadian fishing industry, I would be in favour of abolishing the trawler, but I am in doubt as to just what the effect would be. In Great Britain and other places where the trawler has been used for many years the fishing has become almost non-existent, or at least it has been very largely destroyed. Any hon. member who comes from that part of the world knows that that is the case. Reference was made to agricultural machinery and it was said that it would be just as foolish to prevent the use of the binder as it would be to prevent the use of the trawl, but that is not a fair comparison to make, the binder does not destroy the land, nor does it destroy the grain, and it has been stated on fairly accurate authority 
that the trawler does both; it destroys the fishing beds and destroys a lot of immature fish. On the other hand, other authorities state that that is not the ease, so I find it impossible to arrive at an intelligent answer to this question. 1 think the minister should take the whole matter into consideration and give it his personal attention, as the conditions which prevail in that part of the country are not a credit either to his department or to the Dominion of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: During the recess, would the minister be good enough to secure the file in connection with the Ellis royal commission. The report was tabled a short time ago, but one of our members is very desirous of having this report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The report has been tabled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not the file connected with it. There are some matters antecedent to the report which some members are very anxious to inquire into, as it affects their ridings.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may cancel license.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A number of licenses are issued by the minister under the provisions of chapter 73 of the revised statutes. For instance, under section 9 of that statute there is a license in respect of whale fishing; in the same section there is a license for whaling in Hudson bay and northern waters. Under section 10 there is a license for manufacturing fish meal; under section 20, a license in British Columbia waters for boats and buyers of fresh salmon; under section 22, a license in British Columbia for the herwing fishing; under section 23, a license for lobster canning or curing; under section 28, a license for lobster pounds, and so forth. Again I am not suggesting any Amendment expressing want of confidence in the minister, but the proposed new section 8A provides:
The minister may cancel any license issued under the authority of this act, if the operations under such license are not conducted in conformity with law'.
That leaves the cancellation as a mere exercise of discretion on the part of the minister. It does not provide for any evidence

Fisheries Act Amendment
being presented to the minister of any violation of this statute. I suggest that, in case of its being alleged that any holder of a license has not acted in conformity with the law, ae should have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of his innocense of any such alleged violation. These iicenses are held in many cases by persons and companies who have invested many thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars in the particular fishery for which they have obtained a license, and it seems a hardship that their licenses should be cancelled without an opportunity being given them to be heard. Therefore I move this amendment:
That section 3 be amended by inserting be-ween the words "if" and "the" in the seventeenth line the following words:
"It has been ascertained by the report of a commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, that"
The clause as amended will then read as follows:
8A. The minister may cancel any license issued under the authority of this act, if it has been ascertained by the report of a commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act, chapter- 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, that the operations under such license are not conducted in conformity with law.
We are now laying down the law for future time with regard to such cancellations, and this amendment provides simply that the licensee, in case a charge is made against him, may be heard under the Inquiries Act. I would be willing to adopt any other method of inquiry that might seem more suitable, but this is the form of inquiry which we have provided for by statute. I have shown my amendment to the minister and I trust that, after due consideration, he will be prepared to accept it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend was kind enough to communicate to me the amendment he proposed to make to this section of the bill. After looking into the matter, I am quite agreeable to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend and to incorporate his amendment in the section.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I think this amendment should be considered a little. I should like to ask the minister if the licenses referred to include licenses granted to lobster and other fishermen under the Fisheries Act?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All licenses.


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend who moved the amendment should take into consideration the fact that when we issue
licenses to lobster fishermen, it is simply a matter of regulating the fishing and seeing that they obey the law. One of the most objectionable features in connection with that fishery is the difficulty of getting the fisherman to leave the spawn lobsters in the water. We give him a license and if he is found to disobey that regulation, which is important to the industry, his license is cancelled. That is the only control that we have over him. You could not get a commissioner under Inquiries Act to investigate a case of that kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not.


John Ewen Sinclair: Are you going
to send him out on the water to watch the men? That is impossible. If the department is satisfied from the evidence that the fishermen is not acting in conformity with the law, then the word of the inspector or police officer or whoever is enforcing the act should be sufficient to have the license cancelled.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How do you manage it
now?


John Ewen Sinclair: It is now in
the hands of the department.


James Dew Chaplin: What do they know about the evidence against him?


John Ewen Sinclair: They have the word of the officer who is enforcing the law.


William Irvine: Would not the commissioner have that?


John Ewen Sinclair: The commissioner could only investigate the case afterwards. I think the amendment is entirely unworkable from a practical standpoint.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no reason why you could not appoint the officer who is enforcing the law as a commissioner to investigate the case. It is certainly not an objection that the commissioner cannot be on board one of these boats because the fishery inspector is not on the boat either when it is on the water, and he must decide on hearsay or other evidence of some sort.


John Ewen Sinclair: Evidence, but
not hearsay. A commissioner under the Inquiries Act would not decide on hearsay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course not, and I wish to avoid the possibility that any partisan or any person who is personally hostile to this particular fisherman can merely by writing a letter secure the cancellation of his license. In some cases these men have thousands of dollars invested and the cancellation of the

Fisheries Act Amendment
license destroys the entire property value. Therefore, there should be some method whereby, before the license is cancelled, the particular licensee complained of should have the opportunity to be heard on oath or to present the evidence of his witnesses on oath. That is what I aim suggesting. I quite agree with the hon. member that if the fishermen do not conform to the law their licenses should be cancelled, but the cancellation of the license should depend upon an inquiry at which those who are opposed to its cancellation may have the opportunity to be heard; and the minister should have a (report from the person who conducts that inquiry on oath, upon which in the exercise of his full discretion he may cancel the license. I aim not proposing to take away .the discretion of the minister to ,cancel.	I am simply providing
that he should have evidence on both sides, if available, before such cancellation takes place.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have heard of no complaints from the fishermen or from the officers enforcing the law with regard to trouble in getting information. I think the law is being administered fairly to both, but the amendment of my hon. Mend would set up too much machinery and there would be too much expense connected with it. You might as well take away the license to fishermen altogether, so far as preserving the industry is concerned, if you enact such an amendment into law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot possibly understand that, because under the law as it is at present this license may be cancelled by order of the governor in council, and it is proposed now to vest the sole discretion in the minister.


John Ewen Sinclair: As it is now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, as proposed by this amendment.


John Ewen Sinclair: As it always has been.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not so. Under the law, as it stood before, the minister had molt that discretion. In exercising his discretion the minister was acting under an order of the governor in council authorizing it, and the governor in council assumed full responsibility for every such cancellation.


John Ewen Sinclair: It would be cancelled upon the recommendation of the minister of the department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but there was full governmental responsibility in the exercise if that power of cancellation. I am simply 
trying to ensure that those who hold licenses shall not have their licenses cancelled without being heard in their own defence as to whether they have violated the law or not. We are now enlarging the act so that it refers not only to lobster fishing. The old act refers to whale fisheries and a great number of fisheries conducted by large undertakings, and we are how making the act apply to licences for trawling and tihe like, under which business is done in a large way. I think there should be opportunity given to these people to be heard, before their licenses are cancelled. That is my suggestion.


Alan Webster Neill: Rather than see the amendment pass in the form suggested by my hon. friend I think it would be better to drop the section altogether. I can see the point he makes as regards the large vested interests being injured if licenses are cancelled, but the member for Queens and myself have in mind the operation of the law as it applies to the fisherman's license, the one dollar license. Out in British Columbia the Japs get a license and they farm it out. They get a license in their own name and sell it to somebody else; it may be to someone in a remote fishing place,, and if we have to put into operation the clauses of the Inquiries Act before we can take that license away, the fishing season will be over. The amendment would also involve an enormous expense because there would have to be advertising, and notice given of the time and place where a meeting was to be held. It would be of no use whatever in protecting the individual fisherman, and would be a great burden on the department in administering the law. No one has ever heard of anyone having been unjustly treated, and I really think it would be better to drop the section then to accept the amendment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the amendment may at first give rise to some suspicion, but I believe it is workable. There is no objection to it that I or the deputy minister can at present see, and no objection to our fishery officers being appointed commissioners to make these investigations. I think that can be easily done under the law.


Mr. VENIOT:: Is the decision left to the
minister after the evidence is taken?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

Fisheries Act Amendment
On section 6-publication.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the law as it now
stands and under the proposed amendment the regulations go into effect on being published in the Canada Gazette. In addition to that, under the statute as it now stands, these regulations are subsequently published with the volume of statutes for the year. Nearly every country justice of the peace has access to the statutes of Canada as published from year to year, and it gives greater publicity I think to these regulations if the statutes for the year can be examined, as they are now examined, to ascertain the purport of the regulations made from time to time. The sole difference is the very slight cost of publishing these regulations with the annual statutes. The regulations come into full force and effect immediately upon publication in the Canada Gazette, but at present in order to give greater publicity they are also published in the appendix to the statutes for the year. Throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion few people have access to the Canada Gazette; but in almost every country village they have access to the annual statutes and the information contained therein as to such regulations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amendment has been
suggested to us by the Justice department. Their contention is that the publication of these regulations in the appendix to the yearly statutes has on many occasions unnecessarily delayed their publication. So we have decided to act on that recommendation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Penalty for using trawls, etc.
Mr. QUINN:: Subsection 2 provides:
No such vessel shall carry on fishing operations from or to any Canadian port or ports, unless such vessel is registered as a British ship in Canada.
I move that subsection 2 of section 7 be amended by adding after the word "is" in the third line the words "built and." The subsection will then read:
No such vessel shall carry on fishing operations from or to any Canadian port or ports, unless such vessel is built and registered as a British ship in Canada.
I move this amendment because of the fact that for years criticisms have been made in this house and elsewhere that our shipbuilding plants have been allowed to remain idle. When the government was building the merchant marine ships several tenders were let to the Halifax Shipyards and other shipbuilding plants throughout the Dominion, and the
ships they turned out, were equal to any built in any other part of the world. I was very much surprised When tenders were let to British concerns for the ships for the West Indies service. The reason given was that they could be built so much cheaper on the other side of the Atlantic. I do not consider that a sufficient reason. We have been spending millions of dollars on immigration and colonization, and this expenditure has been criticized on many occasions on the ground that facilities were not granted to our people to produce what they consume and use. Here is one means of helping to solve our immigration problem. If we want ships for our mercantile marine, let them be built in Canada, and so give our workmen an opportunity to demonstrate what they can do. We ought to make ourselves as far as possible a self-contained nation. Let us give every advantage to the Canadian producer; that is real protection. Let us enable our Canadian workmen to demonstrate their ability to build fishing trawlers, instead of giving advantages to workmen abroad.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Although I am in sympathy with the policy advocated by my hon. friend from Halifax in regard to encouraging our shipbuilding industry, I cannot accept his amendment. It would have the effect of practically confiscating a certain number of vesesls which are now in operation and have been for a period of years. We are not losing the benefit of that operation, because most of these vessels are fishing from Halifax. As to the future, the recommendation of the committee on marine and fisheries, which we are accepting by this bill, provides a remedy. If my hon. friend will refer to paragraph (c) of subsection 5 of section 7, he will see that regulations may be adopted to fix the conditions under which a license shall be issued. Then we may make any other provision respecting licenses. So that in so far as the future is concerned, the bill empowers the minister to meet the situation suggested by my hon. friend. I submit, however, that it would be most unfair at the present time to provide that no licenses shall be issued to an existing trawler on the ground that it was not built in Canada. I hope my hon. friend realizes the position in which his amendment would place us; it would bring about an injustice. I would ask him, therefore, to withdraw it, assuring him that the views he has expressed with respect to encouraging shipbuilding in Canada are shared absolutely by the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Fisheries Act Amendment


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have listened carefully to
what the minister has said and I wish to impress upon him my motive in proposing this amendment. We have been studying, year after year, the problem of maintaining our Canadian citizenship, and how best to meet the immigration question. I have looked over this bill carefully and have come to the conclusion that the amendment I suggest is one way of making a beginning. We are anxious to give employment to Canadian men and women, and if th& minister wishes to make a beginning in this direction the amendment I have offered suggests a modest way. Millions of dollars in the way of contracts have been awarded to shipbuilders in other countries notwithstanding that' we have in Canada craftsmen, mechanics and builders who have demonstrated clearly that they can build ships the equal of any produced in any other part of the world.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No doubt.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The minister agrees. In my own native province we had many years ago a splendid record for shipbuilding; we could build wooden ships from our own native material, and manned by our own people, and filled with the products of our own province, sending them to the seven seas of the world. But because of what I was going to describe as an unfortunate, but perhaps I had better say a fortunate agreement arrived at in 1867, the province of Nova Scotia, realizing its duties as a British possession, entered confederation, threw in its lot with the other parts of Canada, and became part and parcel of this great Dominion. It has been shown beyond question that Nova Scotia has lost, has suffered as the result of that agreement. We have not been able to convince the people, particularly of the western provinces, of the sacrifice Nova Scotia made in 1867; they do not realize the important part Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces have played in this great confederation. We have been the sufferers, the losers, and I regret to be under the necessity of pointing out the fact that the western provinces have failed to realize the position we occupy and the contribution we have made to confederation. Our duty as representatives of the maritimes in this parliament is to bring this fact to the attention of the people; other members from those provinces realize their responsibility as fully as I do, and it is important that this government should do something to place the maritimes in the position they occupied previous to confederation. At that time we had control of our own resources and revenues 
and we played an important part in the commerce of the world. But we have been gradually going back, suffering as a result. Now here is an opportunity to give the maritime provinces a chance. In my native city we have a shipyard which has demonstrated' that we can build ships equal to any turned out anywhere in the world. In proposing this amendment I say in all sincerity that if trawlers are to be used on the Atlantic and on the Pacific the shipyards on both coasts should be given an opportunity to construct these vessels.
I have nothing further to say except once more to emphasize the sentiment generally prevailing in Canada to-day that every effort should be made to give Canadian workmen the right to produce the goods which -we consume. We should do that to the greatest extent. Turn to the country south of us: will they give us any opportunity to build ships for them? Do they give contracts to Canadian shipbuilding firms? No chance. They build their own ships, giving employment to their own workmen. I am asking that the same consideration be shown Canadian workmen and that in every case our own people be given an opportunity to build the ships which are required for the development of our fisheries and other lines of commerce.


Mr. SHORT:: I thought this matter had been all threshed out in the committee and had been agreed to almost unanimously.


Felix Patrick Quinn: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Well, there were three out of twenty or thirty members who disagreed. In my opinion subsection (c) covers the situation thoroughly and I agree with the explanation made by the minister. I do not see how we can possibly accept the amendment because we have already a number of trawlers that are noiw registered in Canada. These trawlers were not built here and what what will be done with them? They are to be found on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Will they be confiscated? The government has already accepted them and given them Canadian registry. If the amendment were adopted what would happen? This subsection fixes the licenses for future vessels and it is for the department to decide then whether such vessels shall be of Canadian build and register. But under existing circumstances it would be ridiculous to accept the amendment as introduced by the junior member for Halifax because it would affect a number of ships built in Great

31S5
Fisheries Act Amendment
Britain and other countries, operating both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and registered in Canada. I submit, therefore, that we ought to accept the section as passed by the special committee almost unanimously.


Finlay MacDonald: As a
member of the committee which passed this amendment, I might tell my hon. friend from Digby that the committee was not unanimous.


Harry Bernard Short: I did not say it was unanimous; I said about three members voted against it, out of a membership of thirty.


Finlay MacDonald: If more
members of the committee were better acquainted with conditions on the Nova Scotia coast there would have been more than three votes against that recommendation. I did not intend to speak at any great length in connection with this matter but I notice that the minister has changed his attitude very recently and that the look on his face now is not the look which, was there before we adjourned at noon; he has discovered that he has a recruit from Nova Scotia. The position of my hon, friend from Digby is well known to me and to every fisherman in the maritime provinces, and when my hon. friend the minister smiles and applauds him in this house when he takes a certain stand, I feel that any member who supports him is a friend of the capitalists and not a friend of the fisherman of the maritime provinces.
The amendment w'hieh has been moved has to do with a great deal more than merely the building of ships in the maritime provinces; it means a great deal more than giving work to our shipbuilders who are to-day out of work. It means to every fisherman in the maritime provinces an opportunity to live, and I make my appeal on behalf of those people. If these ships were built in the maritime provinces to-day we would have mo trouble with the ten beam trawlers operating on our mast; we would give the 16,000 fishermen of ; he maritime provinces an opportunity to live, ind we would probably throw 249 men out of work, which would mean that some of the rorporations in the maritime provinces would not be able to pay dividends.
Since we can get no other legislation put through this house it is my intention to support this amendment in order that we may curtail to some extent beam trawling in the maritime provinces. If the amendment is adopted, incorporating the words "Canadian built" only one of the trawlers now operating on the Nova Scotia coast will be allowed to continue at work, and for that reason I support the amendment now before the committee.


Mr. RALSTON:: I think my hon. friend
is quite right when he says the amendment has to do with something other than just the question of building ships in Canada. I do not think the Fisheries Act is so much concerned with the question of the construction of ships as it is with the interests of the fishermen, and I am afraid my hon. friend from Halifax who lays particular emphasis on the fact that we should have Canadian built ships ha^ perhaps missed the real purpose of the legislation now before the committee. I am just as much in sympathy with the idea of building ships in Canada as is my hon. friend from Halifax, but I am not sure that my hon. friend should select fishing vessels as being the only ships which should be required to be built in Canada.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I mentioned others.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has
selected the Fisheries Act as the place tc insert this particular provision, but I say that this bill relates to fisheries rather than tc shipbuilding. At present I am anxious for legislation which will assist the fisheries. Shipbuilding can be dealt with in connection with general legislation respecting the industries of this country, arid that might be done instead of picking out the fishing industry alone as the one which will have these restrictions imposed upon it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I simply suggested that a
start must be made somewhere.


James Layton Ralston: I do not oppose the idea of having these vessels built in Canada but I want to point out to my hon. friend that, under section 5c, it could be a matter of regulation to provide that vessels which were entitled to a license under this act should be required to be buiilt in Canada. I want to remind the committee that we are facing a problem which is at least eighteen years old; it has existed ever since the first trawler was introduced in Nova Scotia, I think in 1910 or 1911. To-day we have on the table of this house the first bit of legislation to be introduced to limit the operation of trawling out of the ports of Nova Scotia, and in that respect I think hon. members should feel that we have made a substantial advance.
In that connection I want to point out that there was a fisheries commission which travelled through the maritime provinces taking evidence, and that commission received a great many different suggestions with regard to the trawler. These suggestions were gone into very carefully, and a majority of the commission brought in a report favouring the abolition of steam trawlers, as they put if
Fisheries Act Amendment

until the demand for fish became such as to necessitate the use of these means for production. As I have understood since, and I think my information is correct, their idea was that if only the domestic market was to be served, then it was questionable whether or not steam trawlers were necessary, while on the other hand a different situation might arise regarding outside markets. The chairman of the commission, in a minority report, recomended that trawlers should be limited to those of Canadian registry and Canadian ownership. A very serious complaint was made before the commission that firms were permitted to go to Great Britain to charter trawlers for a comparatively small amount and bring them over here as Canadian vessels to engage in the fishing industry, so the chairman proposed that trawlers should be of Canadian registry and ownership.
I would also like to remind the committee o-f something which I think probably has been lost sight of in connection with the discussion and the report. The chairman of the commission pointed out that in his opinion the number of trawlers in use should not exceed the number which would produce from time to time the market requirements in excess of tlhe production of fish from boats and vessels; in other words, he recommended that the trawler production of fish should be auxiliary to the production by boats and vessels and, in addition, the minority report contained a recommendation that some international body be created to regulate fishing by trawler.
Those are the recommendations which were before this house, and the minister introduced a bill which went further than the minority report but not as far as the majority report. The bill which was introduced, which was bill No. 26, required that any trawling vessel operating out of Canadian ports should be of Canadian ownership and registry and, where it was owned by a company, that the majority of shares should be bona fide owned by Canadians. That was not recommended by either the majority or the minority reports of the commission; that meant a very sweeping change in connection with trawlers, and I submit that it made a very substantial limitation as to t'he number of trawlers which might operate.
That bill went before the special committee, to which representations were made and I want lion, members to realize that everyone is not of one mind in connection with this matter; everyone is trying to find the best solution in the interest of shore fishermen. The representations which were made to the committee took.different aspects;
tMr. Ralston.]
one recommendation, which had 'been made before the fisheries commission, was that over and above the present trawlers, future trawlers should be Canadian built. That recommendation recognized the situation which has been mentioned already, that a certain number of trawlers were operating out of Canadian ports which were not Canadian built, and it was intended that regulations should be made so that over and above those trawlers, the remainder should be Canadian built. Another recommendation was the one which I mentioned a minute ago, namely, that trawlers shall be Canadian owned and registered and furthermore that if they are owned by companies, the majority of the shares in the company shall be owned bona fide by Canadians. Another suggestion before the committee was that the number of trawlers which could operate from Canadian ports was to be limited for this year to the number which operated last year; a very drastic limitation. That last suggestion was made by the subcommittee but it was very strenuously opposed by a number of those interested in the province of Nova Scotia, who felt that if such a limitation were put on a monopoly would be created in favour of those who already had trawlers and against those who might want to operate brawlers in the future. As a result of those representations, the main committee changed the recommendation of the subcommittee and brought down a provision recommending that regulations should be made by the governor in council for the limiting of the number of trawlers and for the regulating of the issue of licenses to trawlers; in other words making it absolutely impossible for a trawling vessel to leave Canadian ports without a license from the minister, and putting in the hands of the governor in council the power to make regulations as to the conditions under which these licenses would issue. Further than that, and it is in the bill, it was provided that trawlers should not operate within twelve miles of the shore. The committee recognized what is set out in the report of the royal commission at page 97, which puts it in this way:
It must not be forgotten ithat the shore fishermen are proprietors of the inshore sea, proprietors not in virtue of actual possession, but in having made it their own from the earliest days of Canadian coast settlement or colonization.
The provision is in the bill that trawling vessels shall not operate within twelve miles of the shore, leaving that area to the inshore fisherm en

Fisheries Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think
that the foreign trawlers can be controlled in that way?


James Layton Ralston: It is made an offence for a man to land his catch at a Canadian port when he has made that catch within the twelve-mile limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister given
any thought to the effect upon international relations with respect to the outstanding conventions as to the use of sea ports?


James Layton Ralston: Foreign trawlers are
limited in this way: a duty of one cent per pound is imposed on fish which is landed by them. It all comes down to the question of limiting and regulating what we know as Canadian trawlers. That is the recommendation of the committee, and that recommendation has been embodied in the bill. This is not the last word in connection with trawlers; it is the first. It is an endeavour to meet a very difficult situation, a situation which is fraught with all sorts of troubles. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), who I know has a very sympathetic interest with those engaged in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, was sincerely puzzled in connection with the matter of trawlers. He saw that there were difficulties in connection with any of the remedies which have been suggested, and most of them have been suggested by representatives of the fishermen. He saw that there would be great difficulty in carrying them out, but at the same time a sincere and honest attempt has been made to making it possible to get together those who were interested in this industry and have them place before the minister the representations which they had to make with regard to a practical way of limiting these trawling vessels. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the bill is a sensible one. It is very difficult for the house or the committee to arrive at a solution of a problem which has proven practically insoluble for the last eighteen or twenty years, but I think a fair opportunity has been provided to everyone concerned to present his views. If there is any formula which can be suggested whereby the limitation or regulation of these vessels can be effected, an opportunity is given to those who have that formula to present it to the minister. I believe that those who are members of the committee, and I believe that the members of this house feel that after all, if it ever should come to be a question between the trawlers and the inshore fishermen, the inshore fishermen should have the advantage and be the ones for whom we should legislate. That has been the spirit in 78594-221
which members of the committee approached this question. It is far more important for us to have prosperous villages along our shores, to see happy and contented people, rather than to pile up profits for corporations, and it was in that spirit that this legislation was brought down.
The hon. member for Bow River very honestly and fairly and candidly said that he was doubtful as to whether or not it was possible to do away entirely with the trawler but he thought that there should be some method whereby they could be limited and regulated. The limitation is provided for in this bill, keeping them outside the twelve-mile area. The power is given to the governor in council to make regulations under which licenses will be issued, and suggestions have been offered which can be followed as the principles upon which such limitations or regulations can be laid down. Those recommendations have been made by the committee of the house, and have been adopted by the Minister of Fisheries, and I believe they are a distinct step in advance.


William Irvine: How many cruisers will be employed in policing the twelve-mile limit?


James Layton Ralston: If the hon. member will read the act he will see that a penalty is provided for landing fish which has been caught within the twelve-mile limit, and the burden of proof in connection with the catch is upon the trawler. In other words, a man may be required to make an affidavit that the catch was taken outside the twelve-mile limit.


Finlay MacDonald: This is also a discrimination against the Canadian trawler, because the foreign trawler can operate up to within three miles of the shore.


James Layton Ralston: Does the hon. member say that he is against the twelve-mile limit?


Finlay MacDonald: I am not against it.


James Layton Ralston: I would like the hon. member to take some definite position in regard to it.


Finlay MacDonald: I am not in favour of the beam trawlers. I differ from my hon. friend in that respect; he is in favour of a certain growth-


James Layton Ralston: I am in favour of this act as being the first step in connection with the regulation of trawlers.

34SS
Fisheries Act Amendment


Finlay MacDonald: The foreign trawler can operate up to within three miles of the shore.


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member for or against the twelve-mile limit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not answering
the question.


Finlay MacDonald: That has nothing to do with my question. I am in favour of the total abolition of the trawler, but under this act the Canadian vessel has to fish outside the twelve-mile limit, while the foreign vessel can fish up to three miles.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say is that the Canadian or the foreign trawler is prohibited from landing its catch, if it has been made within the twelve-mile limit.


Harry Bernard Short: No trawler fishes within
twelve miles of shore. They all fish away off
the coast.	.


James Layton Ralston: While I am dealing with the matter of fisheries, may I say a word to my hon. friend with regard to cooperation? When he speaks about there being no effort toward cooperation with the fishermen, I think he knows there are between eighty and a hundred fishermen's federations and the government has been and is taking steps toward assisting in connection with the cooperative movement among the fishermen all over Nova Scotia. I agree thoroughly with my hon. friend in regard to the desire to see that cooperation is encouraged among the fishermen of Nova Scotia and that the fisherman is made sure of a substantial market and bargaining power.


Finlay MacDonald: The minister stated that we have between eighty and a hundred cooperative societies in Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: I said fishermen's federations.


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.
Could the minister say where they are located?


James Layton Ralston: I could not give my hon. friend the list. They could be given very easily if my hon. friend wants them.


Finlay MacDonald: I am
acquainted with, the majority of the fishermen's federations in Nova Scotia and I do not think there are more than twenty.


James Layton Ralston: That is simply a statement of fact which can easily be verified. The third matter which has been brought up

is one in which I am intensely interested and one which has to do very seriously with the question of trawling. It is the endeavour to bring about an international conference with regard to not the regulation of trawlers coming into a particular port but the regulation of foreign trawlers which, of course, have a right to fish on the banks regardless of any regulation we may make, so that for the benefit of all concerned, the fish supply may not be depleted. That is receiving and will receive the attention of the department in connection with future measures which may be considered.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The Minister of National Defence has stated that this bill is the first step in the regulating the trawlers. I ask him whether it is in conformity with the recommendations of the fisheries commission. I submit that it is not. When I moved my amendment, I had in mind the conservation of Canadian trade, Canadian work for Canadian workmen. That is the argument I adduced in my previous remarks. This bill does not conform with the report brought down by the royal commission on fisheries. The Minister of National Defence wonders why I should bring up under this particular item an argument in favour of Canadian-built ships. This is one opportunity that 1 have and on every opportunity that presents itself I will urge that Canadian ships for Canadian trade should be built in Canadian shipyards by Canadian workmen. In the last two or three years we have awarded contracts for five ships for the West Indies service. Notwithstanding the opposition that might be raised to my ideas, I submit that these ships could be built in Canadian diipyards, I will confess at an enhanced price, but what would have been the result? We would have been giving work to Canadian workmen, and that is the policy the party on this side of the house been advocating all along. Even if we pay a little increase in price, we should give these contracts to our Canadian shipyards and our own men.
At the present time we have two destroyers being built in England shipyards for the Canadian navy which is under the department of my hon. friend, the Minister of National Defence. In these times of peace when we have no expectation of going and no desire to go to war, we do not need shell-proof destroyers, and therefore an opportunity should be given to Canadian shipyards to build these destroyers for the Canadian navy, even though this might cost us a little more. The only argument against it is that the cost is a little higher; but with the extravagant ideas of the

Fisheries Act Amendment
government which holds the reins of power today, a few hundred thousand dollars here or there would not make mudh difference. Therefore, when they are in that extravagant mood, why not give the advantage to our Canadian workmen by permitting them to build these ships and thus keep our workmen on this side of the line instead of having them go to the United States through lack of opportunity in this country.
I have a deep interest in all Canadian fishermen, but particularly have I at heart the interests of the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Therefore I say:	Every opportunity should be granted to these men to carry on the industry in which they are born and brought up, the conditions of which were so well demonstrated toy the hon. mem'beT for Richmond-West Cape Breton and the hon. member for Bow River this morning. They are such that it is not necessary to point out to the Department of Fisheries that something must be done to alleviate conditions among the fishermen, particularly in the maritime provinces. I would repeat what I said the other day when I was criticizing the present incumbent of the office of Deputy Minister of Fisheries, namely, that if he would devote his time to the industry and to the people who participate in it, he would make to the government a report which would bring about better results. The whole responsibility for the present condition is upon this government and if they do not bring in legislation that will produce better results and conditions among the fishermen of the maritime provinces, they will have to pay the price.


Harry Bernard Short: The statements made by the hon. junior member for Halifax and the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton would lead the committee to believe that the firms which are operating trawlers are not in sympathy with the shore fishermen. They would also lead the committee to believe that because I am not in sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. junior member for Halifax, I am not a friend of the shore fishermen. I want to tell both of those hon. gentlemen that I am a friend of, and have perhaps done more for, the shore fishermen than either of my two hon. friends has done. The firms that are operating trawlers out of Nova Scotia have done more for the shore fishermen than any of the other firms that are carrying on the fish business there, because they have created throughout the country a market for their fish. They have spent thousands and thousands of dollars advertising fish throughout Canada and have found new markets for fish where the small concerns were unable to do so. They would not be operating trawlers out of Nova Scotia ports to-day if they were able to get a regular supply from the shore fishermen. As everyone knows, there are seasons of the year when the shore fishermen do not operate. We do not have any fish on the shore during the winter months, and that is when there is the greatest demand for fish throughout the country. The maritime provinces had no fresh fish market until we were able to give the cities of the upper provinces a regular supply of fish every week. Previous to that they were supplied from the United States, from Portland, Boston and Gloucester. Fish used to come in from those ports all the year round, but in 1910 we started to establish a fresh fish market in the cities in the upper provinces by giving them a regular supply the year round, and that trade is increasing year by year.
The concerns that are operating the steam trawlers would not be operating one of them if they could get a sufficient quantity of fish from the boat fishermen because it is a well-known fact that the fish landed by the boat fishermen are of a better quality than that landed by the trawlers, but during the winter months it is impossible to get a regular supply of fish from the boat fishermen along our shores in Nova Scotia, and we have to use modern methods in order to ensure a regular supply. The report of the royal commission shows that the operators of steam trawlers purchase over fifty per cent of their shipments from the boat fishermen. These trawlers do not operate out of Canso during the summer season at all. It is only in the fall and winter when the weather is bad and the supply is not equal to the demand that they are obliged to use modern methods just as they do in the United States and other countries. I repeat, if the supply of fish could be guaranteed by the shore fishermen, there would be no trawlers operating at all. My hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton talks of the big dividends paid by these corporations. The large fishing corporations of Nova Scotia have made no money in the last four or five years. Like other concerns they did make some money during the war, but since 1921 they have made no money and several that I know of have not paid a dividend for four years. So the big interests that my hon. friend talks about are not making the money that he thinks they are. Their
Fisheries Act Amendment

sympathies are entirely with the shore fishermen, and they would not be operating these expensive trawlers if they could get sufficient supplies from the shore fishermen. I see no reason why this amendment should receive consideration from this committee at all.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I know nothing about trawlers on the Atlantic coast or their operation, but I am in favour of this amendment because I am in favour of its principle, that all vessels operating in Canadian waters should as far as possible be built in Canadian shipyards by Canadian workmen out of Canadian materials. I think when the order for the vessels for the West Indies trade was given to outside shipyards a great mistake was made. Even if it had cost a little more, I think the work should be done in our own country.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: The Minister of
National Defence has stated that whenever the question comes up as between the shore fishermen and the steam trawlers he would take his stand behind the shore fishermen. I wish to congratulate him on that statement. .It is exactly the stand I take. I am not going to say that the steam trawlers should be completely abolished. That is a very difficult question, and I can appreciate the position of the Minister of National Defence when he was speaking in the house on this matter, but we had a commission appointed by this government, which cost this country $100,000, to investigate this and many other matters that were referred to it in its terms of reference. This report is signed by the .majority of that commission, by Doctor Cyrus MacMillan and his colleagues, exclusive of the chairman, who sent in a minority report. At the bottom of page 98 of that report I find the following very startling statement made by these commissioners, and I take it for granted that these men were competent to deal with the various matters referred to them by the government. If they were not competent to deal with them, they ought not to have been appointed. They say:
We believe that one of the remedies for the present situation is the total prohibition of steam-trawlers from operating from Canadian ports, landing their catch in Canadian ports, or obtaining in Canadian ports coal or supplies. And we recommend that such legislation be enacted as to make such prohibition effective on and after June 1, 1929.
Then I turn to page 97 of the report, where they say:
The problem seems to be largely one of choice between the steam trawler and the shore fisherman.

I read that for the information and edification of my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence in the light of his statement, that he was prepared to stand behind the Shore fishermen, if it became a question between them and the steam trawlers. The commissioners say plainly:	.
The problem seems to be one of choice between the steam trawler and the shore fishermen. One or the other must remain, and one or the other must go.
There is the finding of commissioners appointed by this government-one or the other must remain and one or the other must go. It seems to me that the commissioners put it up pretty plainly to the Minister of National Defence and1 myself and all others who should take a stand as representatives of the people on this question. That is a very serious statement by the commissioners, and in view of the statement of the Minister of National Defence I would ask if he has given it due consideration. Evidently the minister does not believe that that statement is true or this legislation would not have been brought in. If he does believe it is true, then the only stand that the Minister of National Defence and I and others can take is to stand foursquare behind the shore fishermen because human values are the values that must be considered in this matter. If, as these commissioners say, one or the other must go, for my part it would seem that the government should indemnify the owners of these steam trawlers for any losses they may incur as a result of the passing of these trawlers. And if the continuation of these steam trawlers in Nova Scotia is to be permitted, and if their continuation means that the shore fishermen must go, I say 'that it is the duty of this government t.o protect the shore fishermen, for human life is more valuable than any steam trawler or any other machine that the mind of man can invent. If the statement of the majority of the commissioners is correct, the steam trawler should go, and not the shore fishermen, and it "should not stand upon the order of its going."


Mr. MALCOLM:: Is the conclusion of the commissioners correct, in the opinion of my hon. friend?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What conclusion?


James Malcolm: The conclusion that one or the other must go.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is not a matter for me to decide; it is up to the government which appointed this commission.


James Malcolm: Not at all.

Fisheries Act Amendment


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The government have that recommendation from their own commission, a commission of their own creation, and it reports back to the government in terms unequivocal that one or the other must go. That commission reports back to them directly in unequivocal terms that one or the other must go. I say to my hon. friend with his ingratiating smile that he cannot put the onus on me. He must puit iit on the government of which he is a member, and he must bear his part of the responsibility.


James Malcolm: Apparently my hon.
friend is not willing to assist .in the matter at all.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The government have the power, and consequently are responsible.
M r. BROWN: As a private member who does not know anything about this subject, I should like to ask the hon. member for Inverness-


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: After I have concluded my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to answer any questions my hon. friend from Lisgar may wish to ask. My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said he also was interested in legislation for the fishermen. Well now, here we have the report that has been in the hands of the government for over a year, the report of its own commission, a commission which made in all about seventy recommendations. This government kept that report in their possession for over a year, and then in the dying days of the session they bring in a bill to keep steam trawlers from operating within twelve miles of the coast of Nova Scotia, when as a matter of fact they were always precluded from operating within that distance.
That commission also recommended longterm loans to the fishermen to enable them to purchase boats and equipment in order satisfactorily to prosecute their calling and to supply the amount of fish that my hon. friend from Digby said the corporations wanted, so that the steam trawler might automatically abolish itself. According to the evidence taken by the commission, the fishermen of Nova Scotia to-day are not able to equip themselves properly to carry on that important calling. As a result they have to abandon it and the commission found a pathetic condition of affairs in the fishing districts of the province. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), who also visited the province, found a similar condition of affairs. He found that children were not being sent to school because the returns from the fishermen's work were not sufficient to enable them properly to feed and clothe their children. The commission also found that not only were those conditions deplorable, not only were the men not getting a fair return from their hazardous toil, but that hundreds of them were compelled to leave our fishing villages, and the commission saw houses boarded up and villages depopulated.
One of the cures for this calamitous state of affairs would be the introduction of legislation to provide long-term loans to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. Since my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence says he is interested in legislation to assist the fishermen, it may be proper to ask him why that was not done since the government had the whole session in which to do it.
There is no doubt whatever that the fishermen need to cooperate. They should be taught cooperation, because cooperation requires a great deal of study. But I hope the government will not follow the practice of sending down political heelers to organize the fishermen. I believe the organizers should be appointed by the fishermen themselves and paid by the government.
The situation revealed in the report of the fisheries commission is a serious one for Canada, It will be remembered that when confederation was in the offing the great leaders of public opinion at that time, Macdonald, Cartier, Brown, Galt, Tupper, all stressed the importance of the maritime element in confederation. They said that Canada could not be formed unless it had a *'maritime element." Well, a "maritime element " does not consist merely of harbours and ports of call. It has to do with the hardy men who carry on maritime pursuits, and if we allow their livelihood to be placed in jeopardy, whether by the steam trawler or any other factor, then the government that is in control of the situation is remiss in its duty when it does not come to the assistance of these people, who have played such an honourable part in our history and who are so important in our national development.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend began his speech very frankly and very candidly by saying that he himself was not wholly in favour of the abolition of trawlers. If he knows anything about the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia at the present time, he must be aware that the fishermen are not advocating the total abolition of the trawlers. He
Fisheries Act Amendment

knows that the fisheries committee has not recommended their total abolition, but has realized that regulation is necessary. He knows that such a good friend of the fishermen of Nova Scotia as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who spoke this morning, does not advocate the total abolition of the trawlers. My hon. friend has endeavoured to play on words, but as yet he has made no declaration of his own in regard to this very important matter.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Oh yes.


James Layton Ralston: He says the responsibility is on the government. Well, the government is taking the responsibility of bringing down this legislation. My hon. friend speaks of this bill being brought down in the "dying hours" of the session. It was first introduced on February 14, 1929. I was not a member of that committee, but my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Macdonald) was, and he knows what occurred in the committee. The committee's recommendation is being dealt with by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries within a week after it was submitted to the house. So my hon. friend can find no fault with the government for delay in the matter. This talk about the dying hours of the session is simply an endeavour to draw a red herring across the trail, and to give him an opportunity for making a speech -something that my hon. friend can do very cleverly indeed-to give the fishermen the idea that he is in sympathy with them-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: My hon. friend does not seriously wish to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: -but failing absolutely
to make any concrete or practical suggestion for helping in the solution of a problem which, as I say. has baffled our people for the last seventeen or eighteen years. This legislation is an endeavour to arrive at a solution of the problem. It will enable the people interested to make representations, and afford the minister an opportunity to weigh those representations and to lay down some principle which will be of benefit to the industry. And when I speak of the "industry" I do not mean the trawlers, I do not mean the companies, I do not mean the corporations; I mean the men and women who day by day are engaged in earning their livelihood in this occupation.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I think, Mr. Chairman, this question should be considered very calmly and coolly. There is no question of doubt that the problems surrounding the fishing industry of Nova Scotia are of a very

acute character. But how any person in these modem times could conceive of abolishing absolutely the trawler-the instrument that has made the Nova Scotia fishing industry broaden out in the Dominion-is more than I can understand. It would be like the western country abandoning the gang plough in favour of the one furrow plough, or our textile manufacturers reverting to the spinning-wheel. It is regrettable that certain fishing districts in Nova Scotia are to' some extent suffering on account of the operations of the steam trawler, but if the steam trawler were completely abolished the province generally would suffer. Take the coal industry, for instance, approximately $100,000 worth of coal is sold to steam trawlers annually, and that coal is mined in Nova Scotia and these trawlers are also provisioned in Nova Scotia. Therefore I think we should approach the discussion of this question not provincially or parochially but on the basis of a broad national question. Our fishing industry as it is now being developed finds an expanding market all over the Dominion.
It has been said that the fishing corporations are making excessive profits. I am told they are not. An hon. member of this house, thoroughly conversant with the fishing industry and also following that business, claims that they have not made anything like excessive profits in the past four or five years. This question should be considered and debated in a calm, sensible way in the light of modern science and advancement in all our industrial pursuits, including fishing. The steam trawlers do not operate within twelve miles of the coastline of Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the good of the bill?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am merely discussing the question of the steam trawler, which seems to be the paramount issue before the house at the present moment. The hon. member for Bow River stated this morning that the steam trawler had disastrous effects on the fishing industry off the Orkneys in the old country. The royal commission appointed by this government to investigate and study the fisheries in the maritime provinces held, both in the minority and in the majority report, that the operations of the steam trawler have not had a disastrous effect on the fishing industry of the maritime provinces.
I do not think we should have any desire to cripple an industry which is developing and making considerable headway in Canada. We have had sufficient evidences of coopera-

Fisheries Act Amendment
tion with regard to the marketing of our products; I need refer only to the Maritime Provinces Association in the city of Toronto and another one in the city of Montreal, both endeavouring to assist us in the marketing of maritime products in central Canada. If, therefore, we should make any move which would cripple an industry of such importance and with such far-reaching ramifications as the fishing industry, it would simply be tying the hands of those who are willing to assist us, who have been assisting us, and who in the future will give us more in the way of assistance than we can do for ourselves so far as finding outside markets for maritime provinces products including fish.


Mr. J. ETIENNE DUSSAULT (Levis) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before the
vote is taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn), I wish to give the reason for the vote I am about to cast. The hon. member moved an amendment to Bill No. 26, an amendment which bears on the Fisheries Act, that a clause be inserted in the act so as to provide that licenses be refused to owners of vessels unless such vessels are built in Canada, and the reason given by the hon. member for Halifax in support of this amendment was that he wants the workers interested in the building of vessels to be employed. In my opinion, the hon. member for Halifax could have found a more appropriate circumstance to help these workers. He told us a short while ago that we could in Canada, as well as anywhere else, build vessels as sound and as cheap as those built by English firms. This is not so. On every occasion that the Canadian government requested our ship-builders and those of English firms to submit tenders, Canadian firms had to ask 30 per cent more than the English firms, and- the contracts which, under these circumstances, were awarded to Canadian builders, brought ruin upon them. Last yea.r, the Dominion government had to build two ice breakers, only Canadian firms were asked to tender. What was the outcome? Both contracts were awarded to firms in the Maritime provinces, and I can safely assure beforehand the hon. member for Halifax that these two contracts will hinder instead of fostering the development of ship-building industry in Canada. The Minister of Marine should not be obliged after having asked for tenders, to award the contract to the lowest tenderer. Certain owners of shipbuilding yards are so anxious to find work for their men that they put in tenders even at ruinous prices. It would be better to have the cost of the vessel, on which tenders are sought estimated and refuse to award the contract
should the tender submitted be below the estimates of the department's engineers. The question may be asked why the Canadian shipbuilders cannot compete with those of Europe. This is easily explained. First, the workmen's wages must be taken into consideration. All know that wages paid in Canada to workers in ship-yards are at least double those paid in Europe. We have no blast furnaces or rolling-mills in Canada to produce steel plates which are needed in shipbuilding. These steel plates are imported from England. The freight on these plates must be taken into account. Moreover, the English and European shipbuilding yards have been established for nearly a century and have always been -given the preference on orders from governments or large shipbuilding firms, they therefore have been able to expand more than our Canadian shipbuilding yards.
There are in my riding ship-buiding yards operated by the Davie Shipbuilding Company. The latter were requested, during the war, by the government, to erect a special plant in order to build vessels. This plant has cost more than six million dollars. During war -activities work was plentiful, but since then it has often lacked. It has been rumoured that the Davie Shipbuilding Company, as then organized, made large losses on their shipbuilding contracts during the war. Ever since then, this company has worked mostly for the Canada Steamship Company who are the owners.
During the war the price paid to shipbuilders was $140 per ton, and even at that price Canadian firms could hardly balance their budget. To-day the price has dropped to $60 per ton. How -can we therefore hope that this Canadian industry, whose development has been so costly, can, to-day, compete with that of Europe which has developed gradually and was assisted both by contracts and bonuses from various governments. Simply by giving to this industry the assistance needed and paying a fair price for 'its work. With that end in view the hon. members of this house must impress upon the Minister of Marine the advisability of awarding contracts only to those whose tenders show reasonable profits. It>
is not by fostering competition such as it exists among Canadian builders that we shall find a remedy to our ills.
Take, for instance, a shipbuilding yard whose workers are out of work; you request its owner to tender for the building of a vessel and at the same time you make the same request to the owner of a shipbuilding yard in full activity, immediately you give rise to
Fisheries Act Amendment

competition which will force the former to tender at a price which will allow him to carry on but to carry on miserably. I cannot see any other reason that can explain the ridiculous low prices which the Minister of Marine has received in tenders for the building of the two ice-breakers in question. Can the minister be blamed for accepting those tenders? Evidently not. Had the minister acted otherwise the opposition would not have let slip the opportunity of blaming him for taking the public's money to make a gift of it to a company. For instance, the minister would have been blamed for having made a gift of 1250,000 to the Davie Shipbuilding Company if he had awarded to this company the contract for the building of the first icebreaker, instead of awarding it to the Halifax Shipbuilding Company. It would have been said that the government in acting thus had no other aim but making themselves safe in the Levis riding. Yet our workmen were more in need of work than those of Halifax. And I feel certain that the passing of the estimates of the Marine department would have been delayed for weeks, as it recently happened, for smaller items, when the estimates of the Postmaster General came up. For these reasons, I cannot vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax.
I have but a few comments to add in connection with the contracts awarded to European shipbuilders for the building of two cruisers. The hon. member for Halifax is wrong in blaming the government for not having these two cruisers built in this country. And this is the reason: The Canadian shipbuilders already own machinery which has been very costly to them. Now, to build cruisers, special equipment is necessary, and the ordinary machinery at the disposal of our ship yards is not sufficient for this work. The plates used in the building of cruisers are made of steel in which enters an alloy of chrome and nickel, an alloy so hard1 as to resist boring, cutting, heating and bending with the machinery at present in use in our ship yards. All our shipbuilders would have been forced to order beforehand entirely new machinery which< would have been only used again about ten years hence when the government would have had to replace the cruisers that are being built at present.
To utilize with profit such equipment, it would be necessary for Canada to decide to build a navy. I feel sure that it is not the intention of the hon. member for Halifax to advise the government to take such a

step. I entirely agree with the minister for not having asked our shipbuilders to make a further outlay of SI,000,000 or more 90 as to purchase and erect machinery which would have been utilized exclusively in the building of these two cruisers, the cost of which will not amount to $1,000,000.
If my hon. friend sincerely wishes to help the workmen of our shipbuilding yards, I think it would be better for him to withdraw his amendment and await a more favourable opportunity. I shall then be very pleased to vote with him in favour of any measure which will facilitate the minister in carrying out the promise which he has just made to the house, that is fostering in all possible way the industry of ship-building in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just one brief observation to make. The Minister of National Defence suggested that the government was taking a stand on this question, and that the question was very simple. The royal commission on fisheries decided by a majority of four to one against steam trawling, but the government decides in favour of it. What lead is that to the House of Commons with respect to commissions? Either the commission was composed of men who knew their business better than anyone else or it was a commission which should not have been appointed; it was either a commission of experts or it was not; the experts knew their business or they did not. If they knew their business, then four of them have recommended, in the language of the report, as follows:
We believe that one of the remedies for the present situation is the total prohibition of steam-trawlers from operating from Canadian ports, landing their catch in Canadian ports, or obtaining in Canadian ports coal or supplies. And we recommended that such legislation be enacted as to make such prohibition effective on and after June 1st, 1929.
That commission cost this country $100,000, and that recommendation is made by four of the five commissioners. What lead is it to the House of Commons when the government comes along and says these four men do not know their business but that Mr. Justice Maclean, who is not a fisherman at present, says we must have the trawlers?
That is the real question before this committee. The government tried to divest itself of responsibility by appointing a royal commission. The Minister of Finance said the other day that this country is sick of being governed by commissions, although a few days previously he appointed a commission to deal

Fisheries Act Amendment
with the salaries of technical men in Canada. The Minister of National Defence, confronted with the Duncan report, succeeds in having the government of the day appoint a commission on fisheries composed of five members, of which Mr. Justice Maclean was chairman, with four other members who were said to be gentlemen of wide experience, highly qualified by political and other associations to deal with this problem. Those four gentlemen were Cyrus Macmillan, H.R.L. Bill, Joseph Mom-bourquette and J. G. Robichaud. I am not in a position to place my knowledge against theirs and I ask my hon .friend from Lisgar, who asked a question a moment ago, whether he does not think that those four gentlemen, who were selected by the government which he supports, know more about this matter than we know.
What can I say to my constituents with respect to this matter; what can I say to the public of this country, when four gentlemen named by the government and selected, as I say, because of their wide knowledge, One of them being a college professor, say that steam trawlers should be abolished, while on the other hand a judge of the exchequer court says that action should not be taken? What is this committee to do? The majority is four to one, but now the Minister of National Defence, representing the province of Nova Scotia in the cabinet, says, "I am for Judge Maclean; I agree with him." I leave it to the members of the committee and the country whether or not they think that is giving a lead to public opinion in Canada.
Now I desire to ask the minister one other question. Is it not true that we have renewed the licenses of American fishing boats and that we allow them to enter our Canadian ports to coal, victual, outfit, and land their fish, by an order in council passed within the last three months? I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if that is not so?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not on the Atlantic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only on the Pacific?
There has been no renewal of the modus vivendi with respect to American fishing boats out of Gloucester?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is clear that they cannot land their catch on the Atlantic?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor ice their ships?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor obtain supplies of
any kind?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Formerly that was the
case, but now that only applies to the Pacific?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fisheries on the
Atlantic being pretty well cleaned up, now we are to continue this practice until they are wholly cleaned up on the Pacific. In other words, the halibut are to be entirely annihilated, as they have been partially annihilated already, and now that the great fisheries of the Atlantic are becoming exhausted we are to have the same principle applied to the Pacific.
When my hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton and my hon. friend from Inverness are asked as to the position, all they can say, all I can say and all any other Canadian can say is that the government saw fit to select a commission of five members to consider this question, four of whom recommended a certain course of action. The fifth commissioner recommended another action, and the government has taken the opinion of the one commissioner in preference to that of the four. Now what are we to do? The government and the minister will tell us what we must do now. I do submit that this is but an evidence of what you get when you have a condition of this kind in a country like Canada; the sacrifice of principle for the purpose of maintaining power by groups scattered throughout the country. When the groups had been brought together a commission was appointed, and then when the commission made its report, the government did not accept it; the government said that one commissioner was right and the other four were wrong. The hon. minister says that this is but the beginning; it is but the beginning, but it is the beginning of the end of this government.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. leader of the
opposition is very optimistic.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not ready to take
too seriously the observations made by the hon. leader of the opposition. I do not think that anyone has ever contended in this house or in the country that every report made by a commission must 'be implemented in its entirety by legislation.	These reports are
merely recommendations which must be studied and looked into by the government
Fisheries Act Amendment

and by the officials of the department. I cannot bring to mind any particular instances, but when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and my friend the leader of the opposition was supporting that government, there were many reports made by commissions, which reports were not adopted in their entirety by the government of the day. I will admit that that is no justification, but it proves that the principle which has been advocated by the hon. leader of the opposition is not possible of application to every case. These commissions are bodies of investigation, that is all, and when my hon. friend says that the minister and the government have chosen between four commissioners and one commissioner, that is not exactly the case. This legislation is the recommendations of a committee of this house. The committee on marine and fisheries dealt with the report of the Atlantic fisheries commission; they dealt with the question of trawlers, and the bill embodies the conclusions arrived at by that committee. The government is merely following the recommendations of the majority of a committee of this house.


Mr. GEARY:: The note on page 2 which
indicates the purpose of section 7 reads as follows:
This section is necessary to carry out a recommendation of the committee.
As I understand it, the recommendation was to the effect that steam trawlers should be abolished.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The word "committee"
refers to the committee on marine and fisheries.


George Reginald Geary: As I understand it, the committee recommended that all ships should be owned either by Canadians or by corporations the majority of whose shareholders were Canadians.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


George Reginald Geary: Some committee made that
recommendation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


George Reginald Geary: Then I am quite in error.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The clause in the bill
expresses the conclusions of the committee on marine and fisheries.	.


George Reginald Geary: The Minister of National
Defence (Mr. Ralston) referred to some report having been before the committee-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The minister was referring to the report of the Atlantic fisheries commission.


George Reginald Geary: -that all these ships should be owned by Canadians.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That referred to a bill
which was first introduced in the house but which has been amended by the committee on marine asd fisheries.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Mr. Chairman the remarks
of the Minister of National Defence would tend to give the impression that I was opposed to the beam trawler, when the words of my amendment were not meant to convey that impression. To a certain extent I am in favour of the beam trawler, but the amendment which is now before the committee proposes certain limitations. The hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out that a commission was appointed for the punpose of investigating the condition of the fisheries in the maritime provinces. That commission consisted of three gentlemen who were actively engaged in the fishing industry, a college professor, and a judge of the exchequer court. The three gentlemen who were actively engaged in the fishing industry-


Harry Bernard Short: And who were divided in their opinions before they heard the evidence.


Felix Patrick Quinn: along with the college professor, made a certain finding, but the fifth member of the commission, who occupies an independent position, presented a minority report. That royal commission made a report to this government and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that report should have been implemented by this government. But what did they do? Bill No. 26 is brought in, and that bill is discussed by the fisheries committee and a report presented to the house. We have the matter in three successive stages: a royal commission, consisting of supporters or friends of the government; the fisheries committee, which consists of a majority of representatives of the government; and then this committee of the house, which has a majority on the .other side. I am not opposed to the beam trawlers because I believe that they are necessary to the fishing industry, but I am primarily in favour of the shore fisherman. He is entitled to every consideration from this government or any other government; he is entitled to every assistance in the way of protection of the industry by which he earns his livelihood. If the beam trawler is allowed to operate then I say that it should be the product of Canadian shipyards and be built by Canadian workmen.

Fisheries Act Amendment
It may take a little time to bring that result about, but in the interim the question as to whether or not the Shore fishermen can produce sufficient fish to satisfy -the Canadian market can be settled. If they cannot, then there is a justification for the beam trawler, and if the beam trawler is necessary, then it should be the product of Canadian shipyards and of Canadian workmen. The whole responsibility lies upon this government as to whether o-r not they satisfy the fishermen. If they do not make a success of that, it is their responsibility.


James Layton Ralston: 
Felix Patrick Quinn: It is non-political.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does not
seem to be trying to make it so. He says that it may take a little time to have these vessels Canadian built. I would point out to him that we have to be practical in connection with these matters. If it is going to take a little time, is it not the best course to pursue to give the governor in council power to make regulations, to lay down principles under which licenses may be granted and to consider the very proposal my hon. friend is making, as to whether or not a limitation of time cannot be imposed-my hon. friend does not suggest how long-after which period trawling vessels should be Canadian built? As I said a little while ago, the proposition was made before the fisheries committee that over and above the trawlers now operated, new trawlers should be Canadian built. There cannot be any better method to pursue than to afford an opportunity for the inclusion in the regulations of such a principle if it is considered practical, and if it is not practical, then as my hon. friend says, in the interim- and that- is the word he used-the question whether or not this principle should obtain can be further investigated.
I do not agree with some of the hon. members who have spoken on the other side. They have said that trawlers are absolutely necessary; they lay that down as a basic principle. My opinion is t-hat trawlers are necessary only if they are required to supply the excess demand after the shore fishermen have brought in their supply. That question may have to be and may be considered by the minister in connection with the granting of licenses. If my hon. friend from Halifax is looking at the matter from the practical point of view, this is the best way to bring about the possibility of putting into effect any such suggestion as he has made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries not think that to place in the hands of the minister the power of determining the number of licenses he shall issue, is going contrary to the modern ten-
Fisheries Act Amendment

deney? The Chief Justice of England has recently declared in very strong terms against bureaucracy, the bureaucracy that consists in orders in council being passed and government by order in council. Here we have a discretion given to a political minister-and all ministers are political; I am not referring to this minister more than others-a political appointeee, to determine who shall have a license and who shall not. Is that quite right? I think the minister will see where that leads- the pressure of his friends, the opposition of his opponents, and in the end the minister is placed in a position where his efforts will be destroyed. One has only to pick up the daily press to see what happens to men who fearlessly enforce the law; they lost their positions. I put it to the minister whether or not it is a fair thing, in view of what his colleague has said, namely, that this is an experiment, to place the success or failure of that effort in the hands of a minister who necessarily must exercise his power in favour of his political friends and against his political opponents, being in that respect like all other ministers as regards a matter of this kind? The effect of the pressure will be that this experiment, so-called, will be nothing more or less than political effort. Those of us who know the capacity of the Minister of National Defence in dealing with patronage in Nova Scotia know what the inevitable result will be.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I fully realize the difficult
position in which the minister may be placed later on bj- the adoption of this legislation; but somebody has to decide; somebody has to be given the responsibility of deciding a matter of this kind. I think it is for the government to assume the responsibility when they are placed in a position to exercise their judgment. I can assure my hon. friend that the regulations which are provided by that section governing the issuances of licenses to the trawlers, are not going to be drafted without giving the proper consideration and without looking beforehand for advice from all parties concerned in the fishing business. I do not propose to recommend to the governor in council any regulations without having first obtained the advice of and given full opportunity to all those who are interested in the business of fishing to express their views as to the form of these regulations and as regards the power that the minister is given, according to that section, of issuing or refusing licenses. So far as I and the government are concerned, we are not looking towards increasing the number of licenses to trawlers; we are rather looking towards a reduction in the number of those fMr. Bennett.]
licenses. But we thought it would be aa. injustice, unfair, practically to confiscate the trawlers which have so far been operating. Unless very grave circumstances arise or reasons are given, no further licenses are going to be issued for trawlers. I quite realize this is going to be a hard job, but -may I say to my hon. friend with the short experience I have had in that department and in that branch of the service, with the very limited knowledge I may have of that business and the limited knowledge that previous ministers may have had with regard to these technical matters, it is no small affair to administer the fisheries of this country. As my hon. friend has mentioned, representations of all sorts are coming to the minister on every question which is put to him. We have the representations of* the dealers on one side and the fishermen on the other, and we have -to give consideration to the general good of both enterprises and to protect with greater care the interest of the fishermen. This is not a small job and it is not going to be a small job for the minister, but for the short period of time I shall be in that position, I am going to take the chance and I can assure my hon. friend that nobody need be afraid of political interference or of any injustice resulting from the influence of one party or another.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has seen fit to throw out an insinuation which I think was hardly worthy of him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to make it a
plain statement, not an insinuation at all


James Layton Ralston: I would welcome an
opportunity for discussing the matter of patronage in Nova Scotia and, indeed, elsewhere in Canada, a little nearer home to my hon. friend than Nova Scotia. If I had followed the example of his political friends in Nova Scotia, there might be some reason for complaint. Bu-t I endeavoured to deal with these matters on the broad basis of the -best interests of the country. If my hon. friend has any particular instance in mind, he is quite at liberty to bring it up. I am not going to weary the committee this afternoon, but during the last two or three years there have occurred in connection with political patronage on the part of the provincial administration, friends of my hon. friends, certain matters which might well afford an excuse for my friends to feel, as indeed they do feel and have so expressed themselves very often, that I do not deal with these matters as aggressively as they would like.	;

Fisheries Act Amendment


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no Civil Service Act there.


James Layton Ralston: There is no Civil Service Act there, my hon. friend says. That is the excuse that is given; there is no Civil Service Act there. My hon. friend mentioned the other day men who had a contract with the government, and who would be entitled to be paid for life even though they had their contract ended at the age of seventy-five years, but there were men in Nova Scotia who had the same sort of contract with the government and were appointed to hold office during good behaviour, who suddenly found that an act had been passed by the present provincial government changing their tenure to holding office during pleasure, and they were immediately dismissed without cause or investigation. That is the sort of thing we have had in Nova Scotia, and that is the sort of thing I have had to meet in connection with the administration of public affairs there. I want to tell my bon. friend that I would be perfectly happy if he would bring up any case he desires with regard to the administration of patronage or of public business in that province, where he thinks there has been political interference.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Garrison's case will
be here presently.


James Layton Ralston: I shall be very happy now to deal with his case. All I know of it is what I have seen in the newspapers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my hon. friend is
much belied because Mr. Garrison said that there was a telegram sent by the minister.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend picks up
anything that happens to be told him and retails it from his prominent place in this house as being the truth. That is an absolute mis-statement. My hon. friend does not know it, but he ought to take a litttle more care to investigate before he makes such statements because he occupies a position of considerable responsibility in this house and in this country, and it is not befitting his office or befitting himself to make these statements without at least some attempt 'at investigation.
So far as this bill is concerned, my hon. friend may be assured that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have all my best endeavours and cooperation in seeing to it that no political considerations enter into it whatever, but that when licenses are granted, they shall be granted on some fixed principle which applies to everybody and has regard to the best interests of the industry and of the men and women who are engaged in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that there is
nothing too small for the minister to interfere with in Nova Scotia. I say that deliberately, and if you want evidence of it we had it this session when at the public accounts committee he as a minister of the crown sat in that committee and watched its proceedings to protect MacMillan. We have further evidence-this is not the time and place, but the evidence will be brought forward before this house prorogues-in connection with the case of MacMillan, who is the political henchman of the Minister of National Defence, and is well known so to be. The minister's assumption of virtue in matters political is belied by the record, and I say that the people of Nova Scotia know it and they understand it and that is the reason he usually sits for one constituency for one term only and no more.
With respect to this particular matter, a large measure of power, life or death with respect to property is vested in the minister. The minister says what is perfectly true, that political pressure is exercised with respect to these matters. We have had evidence of it in this house within the last two weeks. In the one case when a minister was asked by one of his employees for an investigation, he referred it to his colleague whose signature had dispossessed that man of his position. Naturally, every government must play the game in that way. A minister must support his colleague, and when his colleague takes responsibility, he in turn must support his colleague's view, and that was what was done when the situation arose as it did the other day, and the man failed to obtain an investigation because the minister affected said no.
When the Lord Ohief Justice of England was directing attention the other day to these bureaucracies, he pointed out that legislation in parliament in recent years has taken the form of skeleton acts, leaving to the governor or king in council or to a department great powers, and that that was disastrous to democracy and the effect of it was ruinous. Political pressure is invoked, and the result is that a man to save his property must agree to support the administration of the day. That is What happens, and you see men who are Conservative to-day suddenly voting Liberal to-morrow and vice versa, because the government of the day makes it impossible for them to continue to support a party that is opposed to the government if they want to get what they desire and require. It is not a case at all of this one particular instance, for this is but one of many, and
Fisheries Act Amendment

when I point out the fact it is merely something that every man may see for himself if he studies conditions in this country, Regulations are passed, and these regulations permit the very thing that in my judgment must be stopped if we are going to preserve the democratic principles of t'he institutions that we are living under. To say that a man must support a government or he will not get what he wants is but a manifestation of a principle which is very, very destructive to our institutions.
Then there is patronage. The Minister of National Defence says that patronage in Nova Scotia arises because of the fact that there is a government in power in that province that does not support this government; that the provincial government exercises patronage against this government's supporters, and he is therefore pressed to do it as against Conservatives in the federal field. I pointed out that there is no Civil Service Act in that province. The minister says there is a provision in the Civil Service Act that if a man engages in political activities he loses his position. That provision is in the act, but the minister does not for a moment think that there is any difference in political parties with respect to this question of patronage. The pressure is the same whether it is a Conservative or a Liberal government. But what we are endeavouring to do is to remove the possibility of that pressure being exercised, and I say that it is improper for such a wide power to be left to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The Minister of National Defence, from Nova Scotia, says that he will do what he can, but when his friends insist on a certain thing being done, you will have exactly the situation that we have had many evidences of. Remember, we are not dealing with generalities. We bad a great commission that sat here, and we saw the very great .pressure that was exercised-members of parliament, ministers, pressure of that kind-and it will continue so long as you afford the means. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is only human, and when he is told that John Smith is out actively working against him and wants a trawler's license, he will see that he does not get that license because the Minister of National Revenue says that he must not have that license and carry on propaganda against the government as he is doing.


William Daum Euler: Not the Minister of National Revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not referring to him because he has nothing to do with trawlers. I should have said the Minister of National Defence. That is but human nature. When

a general election is on, governments are seeking support from all quarters. It is only human for them to do what they can to secure support from every quarter they can, and all this country's history, royal commissions and otherwise, whether you go back to the early days of 1878 or come down to 1926, show that the evidence is all the same. I admit that publie opinion is not very active about it. In support of that all you have to do is to take the report of the customs committee of this house, which was adopted by this house by a majority of ten, and which placed condemnation upon the Prime Minister by name. But what was the result? It did not affect the people-not in the least, although this house by a majority of ten had adopted that report. It may well be that what we are doing is putting public opinion to sleep by opiates and other means-drugging them with large estimates, with favouritism in the distribution of public moneys, by making ports here and harbours there, by dredging rivers, by rebates on salt and coal, buying aviation field sites, and matters of that kind. But there always comes a day of reckoning. It may not come in my day.
It is unfair to ask a minister who is human, who is anxious to get support for his party, who is one of the most active and successful scourers of support, if I may use that word, of any minister in this house or of any that have been here for a generation-he secures the support of friends and they tie themselves to him with bands of steel-it is unfair, I say, to ask him to put himself in that position. I am against such bureaucracy and against the exercise of these powers, which have done great injury to Canada and to other countries. It is no good to point out what our friends did or did not do. We make no progress in that way; it does not get us anywhere. If that had been the guide by which governments were to determine their action there would never have been a change from the rotten boroughs of England; there would have been no electoral reform, no -passing of bills for the amelioration of the condition of individuals. But we are trying to go forward, and we cannot go forward if we put that power in the hands of a minister under these conditions, with his political friends clamouring for the exercise of power.
With respect to the instance mentioned, the Minister of National Defence says that he is entirely guiltless, that Garrison had no authority for making the statement he did. I accept his word with respect to it. He says that I should make inquiries. All I know is this. Mr. Garrison occupies a very important

Fisheries Act Amendment
place with respect to the Liberal party in the city of Halifax, and on the occasion referred to the evidence indicates that he went to the customs authorities, accompanied by the representative of the Minister of Labour, a fair wage officer. He then made the statement to which I have referred, that he, the man charged, had received a telegram that morning from Colonel Ralston by which he was being recalled. That is as far as I know. The minister says, "You should make further investigation." Well, I made reasonable investigation. One cannot investigate anything more fully than can the government, and if the minister says he sent no telegram, I accept his word.


James Layton Ralston: Why not ask the man?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was asked, and he said a telegram had been sent.


James Layton Ralston: The man?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Garrison.


James Layton Ralston: Why not ask the man whom Garrison was addressing to ascertain whether he got the telegram?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same record shows that he says he did not.


James Layton Ralston: Then why does my hon. friend suggest that I did send a telegram when the man to whom it is alleged to have been sent says he did not receive it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The suggestion is that the minister is exercising his power of patronage in Nova Scotia, as every minister has to do, and that one of his henchmen in Nova Scotia, Mr. Garrison, is so sure of his position that he makes those statements.


James Layton Ralston: Why did not my hon. friend inquire and find out if they are true?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because Garrison is relying on such enormous power that he is in a position to say the minister will do this if he has not done it.


James Layton Ralston: It is purely imagination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On his part, not on mine at all. There is MacMillan's recofd. Why does the minister spend his time in the public accounts committee?


James Layton Ralston: I can tell my hon. friend if he will give me an opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well.


James Layton Ralston: In the public accounts committee there were no less than three privy councillors representing the opposition. The
only two members of the government who were on the oommittee were the Solicitor General and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was engaged in the agriculture committee, and the Solicitor General was away. As the only privy councillor available I was asked to represent the government. Why did three privy councillors on the other side take such an active part in the investigation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were allotted to the committee when it was struck. They had nothing to do with that, I understand.


James Layton Ralston: I am not finding any fault with them, but I say surely the government might be allowed to have one privy councillor present.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government have a majority at all times.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking of members of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought my hon. friend meant the government. Who were the two or three privy councillors on this side?


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for
Fort William, the hon. member for East Toronto and the late hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The latter was there part of the time; he was not there during the concluding discussions. The record indicates what the purpose and intention of the government was in respect to it. Why should the government desire in any way to impede the investigation of MacMillan's accounts?


Mr. McMILLAN:: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order. Are we dealing with the fisheries bill, or are we throwing slurs against each other across the floor of the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to assure my hon. friend that the MacMillan I referred to was not the hon. gentleman for South Huron.


Finlay MacDonald: A large American fish corporation has taken over two or three Nova Scotia fish corporations. If that corporation has not sufficient trawlers for its Canadian needs, is it the intention of the government under this legislation to grant it a license for American trawlers? To-day that concern is in a position to bring over the trawlers that it owns on the American side.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is not our intention to issue licenses for the purpose.
Criminal Code Amendment


Finlay MacDonald: It can
be done very easily under this legislation.


Harry Bernard Short: It could not be done; they
would have to be of Canadian registry.


Finlay MacDonald: It all
depends on the minister. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Subsection 2.
Amendment negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the criminal code.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend asks me to explain the bill. I would have thought this would be ratiher unnecessary, because it is absolutely similar to the bill which has passed this house three or four times only ta meet an unfortunate fate in another place. This house is committed to the bill after having adopted it, as I have said, three or four times.
There is perhaps much misapprehension as to the effect of the bill. It is far from having the effect of wiping out the crime of sedition from the criminal code. Its purpose is to replace the law as it was prior to the session of 1919. The crime of sedition existed then and wiil still be in the criminal code after this bill has become law. Under the present section 132 of the criminal code the crime of sedition is divided into seditious wiords, which are words expressive of a seditious intention; seditious libel, which is a libel expressive of a seditious intention; and, thirdly, seditious conspiracy, which is an agreement between two or more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention. As the house will observe, the seditious intention plays an important part in the crime of sedition, whether this crime consist in words, writing or conspiracy. The crime of sedition under the British law is a crime under the common law, and it has never been found advisable to define exactly what circumstances and what facts constitute sedition; this has been left to the courts, judges and juries. There was a disposition in the English draft bill to fix a definition, but it was found better not to do so; and here in Canada our criminal code,

as originally drawn and introduced into parliament, contained a clause defining a seditious intention. Blit after much debate in the Canadian parliament it was deemed advisable not to try to have a restrictive definition but to leave the offence of sedition as it was under the common law. And of course the meaning is very general. As has been stated, sedition embraces everything, whether by word, deed or writing, which is calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state. It was so general in its meaning, as first introduced, that parliament found it advisable to place in the code a section safeguarding freedom of speech. That section, which appeared in the criminal code until 1919, and which we are asking now to reinstate, is rather the most important part of this bill. Section 133 of the criminal code as it was in force before 1919, and which section 2 of this bill is intended to reinstate, reads:
No one shall be deemed to have a seditious . intention only because he intends in good faith,-
"(a) to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or,
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state; or,
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects."
I freely confess that I am at a loss to understand why this section was repealed in 1919. Surely nothing therein described could be an offence; the citizens of a country have the right to criticize measures of the government, and to try to show to the people of that country that the sovereign has been misled by his officers, or something to that effect. This safeguard we wish to reinstate in our criminal code.
The second purpose is to repeal the sections which are now consolidated in section 98 of the present criminal code and which were enacted at the same session in 1919, purporting to define certain acts, words or publications as being seditious. As I stated before, these are absolutely unnecessary because the offence of sedition as it exists under the common law, and as it is already in the criminal code, embraces all the things which might have been mentioned in that section. It did not improve the law; far from it. On the other hand, it has been strongly resented and found objectionable by a large section of the citizens

Criminal Code Amendment
of Canada. As a matter of fact, since I have been a member of the government it has been my privilege to attend every delegation which has met the government each year from the Trades and Labour Council, from the railroad brotherhoods and from other labour organizations, who have all represented to the government their strong resentment of this change in the criminal code. Indeed, they have called attention to the fact that the word "force" as used in that section has been interpreted by certain gentlemen as being applicable to a sympathetic strike. It has been argued that a sympathetic strike constitutes a kind of force, and organized labour, rightly or wrongly, believe that that section as it stands may be used as a means of putting obstacles in their way and denying them the right to strike when they deem it wise to do so. It has been represented to us that organized labour at times cannot find halls for their meetings because the owners are afraid that by renting the hall to such labour associations they may come under the provisions of this section. I may remark that it is rather extraordinary to give to the commissioner of mounted police, who after all is a police officer, the right without warrant to authorize his men to go and take hold of property, either real or personal, on mere suspicion. This, it seems to me, is an extraordinary provision which one cannot find in the code of any other country. I repeat that the law as it was, and as we want to reinstate it, is sufficiently strong to punish the crime of sedition in whatever manner it may be committed.
There is another misapprehension I would like to correct; far from this being done at the instance of or to please the communists, I may say that if I thought this amendment would have the effect of helping them I certainly would not be fathering this bill, but this change is requested not by the disorderly elements in the country but by organized labour, by the men who have been helpful in maintaining peace and order in our industrial relations, and that is why I am introducing the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have only one observation
to make. The legislation in question has been on the statute books of this country for ten years, and during that time no prosecution has been entered under it. Therefore it has adversely affected no interest, nor' has it done harm to any person. We are now asked to repeal it because, in my judgment, there has been a great misapprehension on the part of organized labour as to what it really meant.
In essence it is merely an effort to preserve the life of the state by making more definite and clear the conditions under which men may carry on propaganda of whatever kind they may desire to spread. There is no limitation or restriction placed upon legitimate propaganda; there is no restriction upon those who desire to criticize our institutions or to support by peaceful means any change in the conditions under which they live, but the section was drawn for the purpose of meeting a condition which was very real, not only in this country but in others, a condition which we hope has disappeared but which may recur. The essential subsection is as follows:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada, by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed pnrpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
Then follow subsections dealing with other phases of the same matter. It will be observed, therefore, that there is no limitation placed upon peaceful associations, upon propaganda, or upon any effort within reasonable limits to bring about needed changes in the body politic, but it does aim to prevent these unlawful associations from disseminating the doctrine of force in connection with our changes in our constitution or institutions, and I say it i3 helpful to have upon the statute books of this country laws which will protect us from that form of propaganda.
As ten years have passed without any charges being brought under this section it may be taken that the deterrent effect has prevented such propaganda. I recall reading in the newspapers during the last few years reports of gentlemen making speeches and saying, "Of course, we do not advocate that these changes should be brought about by physical force." I have no doubt that the reason for those statements was this section of the criminal code, and to that extent it has been useful; it has prevented the extremist from carrying on the operations which he might have carried on, and no injustice has been worked to any person. So it cannot be said that it has curbed reasonable criticism, lessened freedom of speech or in any sense deprived peaceful citizens of any rights which they should enjoy with regard to the carrying on of any reasonable propaganda having for

Criminal Code Amendment

its purpose the persuasion of other people to think as they think. For that reason I say this is not the time when there should be a change of this kind, especially in view of conditions which have been brought to our attention since this house met, conditions which we know and which the minister knows from reports made to him from time to time are not wholly absent from this Dominion but which we hope will become less as the days go by and men realize that no good1 purpose is to be served by an effort to subvert the laws of the state or reach their ends by other than peaceful means.
If I thought any good purpose could be served by repealing this section of the act I would support this action, but since no harm has been done by this section, no good will be done by its repeal. No useful end will be served by making it possible for those so disposed to carry on their propaganda in a more reckless manner, with less hesitation in the expression of their ideas as to the means necessary to attain their ends.
That is the only observation I have to make with respect to this legislation. If there were any limitation as to the power of expression by the humblest citizen of this Dominion as to the desirability of effecting changes in any industrial activity or in the government of the day, certainly I would not support any such limitation, but as this section aims to prevent the application of force to attain that end, it serves a useful purpose as a deterrent, and it should not be repealed.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Unlawful associations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to this bill I
might say that I .personally made an intensive study of the common law as it stood in 1918. I was then associated with the Department of Justice, and we found it impossible to secure convictions under the law as it then stood against those who were actively advocating the use of force to overturn the existing governmental institutions of this country. If this section is repealed I say with considerable confidence that those who desire to advocate force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic changes, within Canada, will have a great deal more freedom to do so. Those who advocate force, violence or physical injury for the purpose of bringing about governmental or constitutional reforms in this country should be amenable to the criminal [Mr. Bennett.3
law of Canada, because they are really the people who become responsible for rhe use of force for such purposes, by advocating it and inciting others to commit acts of violence for that purpose. Personally I am against the complete repeal of the present section 98, although possibly it might well be modified in some particulars.
While I am on my feet I might refer to section 133a. I do not see any objection to adding this section to the present criminal law of the country. I think we are all agreed that the matters dealt with in these several clauses should not foe deemed to indicate a seditious intent, but personally I think that a complete repeal of section 98 is not in the best interests of this Dominion. I have no animosity or feeling of hostility to the labour movement in any way, shape or form, but if we are to preserve in times of crisis the institutions of this country, it must be made a crime to advocate the overthrow of those institutions by force in a democratic country such as this where complete liberty of moral suasion is permitted and upheld.


Mr. WARD:: Has there been, at any time during Canada's history, an attempt on the part of any organization to overthrow any constituted form of government?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For a short time I was
associated with the Department of Justice with the nominal title of director of public safety, and I came in touch with scores of such cases. If the records of the department have been preserved it will be seen that there were many such cases.
Mr. WARD. What kind of governmsnt were they trying to overthrow?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were trying to overthrow the form of government which we have in Canada to-day, no doubt about it.


William John Ward: Civic, provincial or federal?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Civic, provincial and federal. There came to my attention evidence of foreign funds which had been supplied to a very considerable extent during the last years of the war; foreign agents and aliens, who were resident outside of this country, governmental and otherwise, were sending funds into this country to establish printing presses from one end of the country to .the other, for the issuance of propaganda inciting to force, and in saying that I speak from personal knowledge. There were very few prosecutions during that time, but I communicated with some of the leaders of those movements and asked

Fish Traps-Mr. Neill
them to come to Ottawa, and I told them in a most emphatic manner that unless they desisted from those methods they would have to be met with more severe enactments than were then upon the statute books of the country. Those who were propagating that incitation to violence were men who had come to this country from foreign countries provided with foreign funds to be used for such purposes.


William John Ward: Has the hon. member ever
seen any evidence of success on the part of those so-called foreign organizations?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Seditious words, punishment.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In many cases it is
within the discretion of a judge to impose a very severe penalty and it has been found that that option serves a very useful purpose, and I cannot understand why a reduction has been made from twenty years to two years.


Ernest Lapointe: It is for the purpose of
making the law as it was in 1919; two years was the penalty at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have been asked by
several members when they could receive their indemnity. I have given the necessary instructions to the accountant and hon. members may begin to-morrow to draw their indemnity cheques.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY-FISH TRAPS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house, I beg leave to present the sixteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.']
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss a matter of some importance to British Columbia as a whole and of very great importance particularly to a number of people in that province. It is a matter that I intended to bring up on the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), and I have sat here patiently, 78594-2221
or with such measure of patience as one can command at this season of the year, for three whole days from eleven o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night, for the appropriate item to be brought up. But there has been so much delay and so many interruptions that I may not be here when it comes up. Of course the matter can be discussed in committee when and if we do reach that stage eventually. I understand, speaking at this particular juncture, that I am entitled to speak for more than forty minutes and this would be my opportunity to get back at the advocates of the forty-minute rule and speak for a couple of days. But I want the support of the house generally and of the government and I understand this course would not meet with the approval of hon. members. Therefore, if I can get the attention of the house for thirty or forty minutes, I think I can confine my remarks to that time.
The matter to which I wish to refer concerns fish trap licenses for salmon in British Columbia. Some months ago the government appointed a commission to ascertain whether it would be in the public interest to allow the use of salmon traps in the northern part of British Columbia adjacent to the boundary line between British Columbia and Alaska. The commissioner has reported and I have his report under my hand. To put the matter briefly, he recommends the use of fish traps. I want to give a number of reasons why the report of that commissioner should not be accepted.
The essential objection is that the use of fish traps will eliminate the working fishermen of British Columbia. Last year 14,000 fishing licenses were issued in that province. It is well known that a man does not live to himself alone; it has been calculated that a working miner, between his own dependents and those who make their living out of his wages, supports seven or eight persons. If, therefore, those 14,000 license holders were put out of business, something like 100,000 people would be involved. I do not suggest that that would be the immediate result if the trap licenses were granted in this particular area to-day or this year; because probably there would be only fifteen or twenty traps and it might not affect more than a couple of thousand or twenty-five hundred men. But as surely as day follows dark, if the principle is once granted there it must inevitably be accepted elsewhere in British Columbia and this will lead to the ultimate elimination of those fishermen and of those dependert upon them.
Fish Traps-Mr. Neill


Edward Joseph Garland: The illustration is hardly a good one.


Alan Webster Neill: It is absolutely correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon. friend would have a lot of trouble shooting ducks with a machine gun. If he used a machine gun shot gun, it might be all right.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a pump gun which operates the same way as a machine gun. As long as you keep your finger on the trigger it fires, and its use has been forbidden in British Columbia.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am afraid my hon. friend is not thinking of the ordinary pump gun but of the automatic gun, which is prohibited by law. There was an automatic shot gun produced, but its use was prohibited


Alan Webster Neill: Possibly "automatic" is the
word .that I should 'have used instead of pump gum, but the principle is the same. If you go out shooting and use an automatic instead of an ordinary gun you can imagine the slaughter, anyone who was seeking to kill, regardless of consequences so far ns game preservation is concerned, would readily say that it was the
best weapon he could have because it is the most destructive. We know what would inevitably happen in a very short time if it were used by many people.
It may be said, and it has been said, that . they have traps in Alaska. So they have, in large numbers; and what has been the result? The almost total annihilation of the salmon industry. The conditions were such that a commissioner, Mr. O'Malley, a very capable administrator, was appointed with wide powers to do exactly what he liked. He was an autocrat. All he was required to do was to restore the fisheries of Alaska to some semblance of their old state. The first thing that he did was to turn his attention to traps. The cannery men saw it coming, and they got together and presented a nice little plan to him by which they would voluntarily cut down their traps. There was some dispute among them as to just which traps should be cut down, and the commissioner said, "I can settle this quite easily. I will cut them all out," and in that particular year he cut them practically all out in one particular district.
I have not the details, but in southeastern Alaska, the worst district in regard to being over-fished, he cut out I think over 100 traps, and he is going to do away with more next year. According to the Pacific Fisherman, an American publication, he is going to extend that principle to four other areas, which are the remaining areas in which trap fishing is permitted. He intends to cut out ninety-five in that area and reduce the size of the traps, and in another area he is going to cut out seventeen. He is going in very heavily for the reduction of traps, in some areas cutting them out almost entirely and in others reducing them extensively, because of the destructive, almost annihilative effects of trap fishing.
In British Columbia we do not need any more destructive weapons to take our fish; we have too many already. The catch is getting bigger every year, not by the increase of fish, but by more intensive fishing, and we certainly do not want to increase our weapons for fishing; on the contrary we find it necessary to restrict them.
The purse seine is very little better in its destructive operations than the trap, but still it is not quite so bad, and we have formed a large number of areas-last year eighteen were added-in which no person may use a purse seine, the waters being reserved entirely for gill net fishing and trolling, which give the fish a much better chance to get away. In addition to that, we have a regularly weekly close season of forty-eight hours. We
Fish Traps-Mr. Neill

have a further system of restriction which is known as the progressive weekly close season. The chief inspector sizes up a certain area and says from his experience, "I think the number of gill nets that that area could properly stand with a proper escapement of fish would be, say, fifty gill nets, or so many seines." He says, "If fifty gill nets are put in that area the weekly close season will be forty-eight hours, but if fifty-five are put in the weekly close season will be sixty hours." He goes on in that progression, so that if one hundred gill nets are put in, the weekly close sea>son would be seventy-two hours or more, and he is prepared to carry on that progression until, a certain number of gill nets being used there would be only one day's fishing a week, which would be entirely unprofitable to those doing it. That is what we are doing now without any fish traps. We .certainly do not need to add to our already overstocked weapons of fishing what is admittedly the most destructive method known to the human mind for catching fish.
To give you an idea of what people there think about this matter, let me read a wire that I have received from the chairman of a meeting that was held at Prince Rupert:
Be it resolved that we the citizens of Prince Rupert assembled in public meeting and representing all occupations and walks of life are strongly opposing permission being granted to operate any salmon fish traps anywhere in the northern British Columbia salmon fishing district No. 2 on the ground that salmon traps, if permitted to operate will endanger livelihood of large portion of British Columbia's population. Letter follows.
In addition to that, I have a petition here that I am presenting to the minister privately because, not being correctly worded, it cannot be presented formally to the bouse. It reads as follows:
To the Minister of Fisheries of the government of
The Hon. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Canada.
We, the undersigned citizens of British Columbia, do hereby petition your department to prohibit all fish traps in British Columbia and also prohibit all seining of salmon between Chatham Point light and Victoria, British Columbia, taking in all waters in the gulf of Georgia and inlets leading into same.
The object being to put a stop to the wholesale destruction of young salmon by these methods of fishing. All of the adult salmon can be taken by gill nets and spoons without the slaughtering of the immature.
The above mentioned area is a natural feeding ground for all species of young salmon for the first period of their lives.
Hon. members will notice that it goes even further than asking for the abolition of traps alone. That is signed by something like

eleven hundred people. The man who sends it to me says he is forwarding :by a future mail two or three more petitions much more fully signed.
Now we come to the report-such as it is. I want to say that if the government paid more than a dollar and six bits for the report then tile people of Canada are stung to the extent it exceeds that sum; it is not worth any more than that. It consists of twenty pages. I have not time to deal with it all; I do not need to. I will deal with the recommendations. I will quote two or three of them and show how those recommendations not only contradict each other, but contradict other portions of the report. A great deal of the report consists of commonplaces, which to people familiar with the fishing industry and the conditions there might almost be termed platitudes. It does show that at least the commissioner has failed to grasp the real genesis of the situation out there. He makes five recommendations. There is really only one; the rest of them are reasons for that recommendation or padding. This is the first one:
That traps for the catching of salmon to a limited number be permitted or allowed in the following described area:-
Then he gives the area by its geographical description, which I need not repeat. It will be noticed he says, "that traps for the catching of salmon to a limited number be permitted -V That, is, not the traps are to be limited; oh no; but "traps for the catching of salmon to a limited number".


Edward Joseph Garland: How under heaven could they limit the number of fish caught in the traps?


Alan Webster Neill: There is a close season, but
any limitation would have to be applied to all kinds of gear, and that will work a hardship to others engaged in the industry, as I shall point out later on. It is a wide word, "limited."	[DOT]
Now, the commissioner gives reasons. And I want to be fair. I am not trying to make out a case in the absence of the author of this document, so I am going to quote all his reasons. He says:
Canadian traps in the area above referred to will not appreciably curtail fishing by other gear.
Let me deal with that. I say most emphatically it will and it must curtail fishing by other gear. There are two ways by which curtailment will be brought about. First, nearly all these seines are either owned directly by the cannery, which operates a

Fish Traps-Mr. Neill
paid crew, or financed by the cannery, which equips the fishermen on a percentage basis. No cannery is going to put oeines into the water or finance fishermen if it can get traps, because traps are cheaper and more convenient for the cannery; just as it is obvious that a man out to make a killing among ducks or deer regardless of consequences would not use an ordinary gun if he were allowed an automatic. I would refer to the evidence in which a man came forward and said he had gone to some cannery and asked for a boat and net. That is the usual practice, the cannery supplying the boat and net on a percentage basis. But the manager refused the man's request, stating they did not care about gill netters now as they had traps. He gave this as an instance of the viewpoint of the companies-and a very natural one indeed. Why should they bother about outfitting men with gill nets and purse seines when they can have a number of traps? That shows it would curtail the employment of these other fishermen, because they would not themselves be able to buy gill nets or purse seines, and no company would be anxious to give them the necessary financial backing. The second reason why it would curtail the other gear is this. We are now restricting the areas. We are searching about to restrict the number of fish now being taken. We are cutting down the fishing sometimes to four days a week. Two years ago it was necessary in the middle of the fishing season to put on a close season of two weeks. The canneries and the fishermen were in the midst of their operations, they had to cease work and leave all their equipment idle. This involved a disastrous expense. It was found necessary two years ago-and I believe it was justified-to put on that close season. So you see, as I have said before, we are restricting them all we can, and now on top of that over-fished water- too much gear in the water-it is proposed to throw in unlimited traps. This is the most destructive method known. It will discourage the use of gill nets and purse seines, and the inevitable result must be more close seasons, because there will be too many fish taken and the fish inspector will come along and say, "We must put on an extra twenty-four or forty-eight hour a week close season." This would involve hardships, especially to the working fishermen, because an idle trap affects only four men, but if the fisherman has to be idle three or four days a week he cannot make a living fishing the other one or two days. It came out in the evidence that on
an average the traps employ four men. I calculate that one trap would replace twenty or twenty-five fishermen. But that does not mean there would be only twenty-five fishermen out of a job because, as I said before, he has his wife and family dependent on him, and he has other men incidentally depending on his wages. It is calculated that seven people are dependent on one fisherman; that would be something like 150 people would be out of employment for every trap that was operated; for you must remember, Mr. Speaker, that a trap does not have its hair cut, it does not buy clothes, it does not go to the movies; it simply stays there and does not cost anything when idle. But these other fishermen give other people work, all the inhabitants of the little towns depend for their living on the money earned by those fishermen.
To show that this is not only my opinion but the opinion of the commissioner, may I turn to page 17. This is not something I am twisting out of the document; these are his exact words:
The fishermen were able to convince me that traps would reduce the number of fish they would catch, and an elimination to some extent of the number of men engaged in the fishing business. This Mr. Hagar concedeslie is the manager of the company.
-the number so eliminated would naturally depend on the number of traps put in the water.
Naturally so. And he is going to allow unlimited traps; so the number of men thrown out of employment would be unlimited. After reading that statement, surely it is a joke for him to say that it will not appreciably curtail the number of gear now in the water.
Now we come again to his defence-I desire to be polite. He says:
Canadian traps. . . will result in catching a share of the salmon now being caught by American traps and which otherwise would be lost to Canada.
I call particular attention to those words, "otherwise lost to Canada." That, Mr. Speaker, is begging the whole question, because I may explain the cannery men's argument is that these would-be traps are placed on the border line between British Columbia and Alaska. In that particular place Alaska, we might say for the purpose of comparison, lies north of British Columbia. The cannery men contend that the fish go from the south to the north, and if we do not put in these
Fish Traps-Mr. Neill

traps, then the fish will go on into American waters and be caught with American traps. This, so to speak, is the "last chance" at them.
Now, the commissioner appears to have swallowed that argument, stock, lock and barrel. His acceptance is based entirely on a bald assertion by a cannery man that that is so. But the fishermen come along and say the opposite. They say that the fish are going south and that therefore Canadian traps would take fish which would otherwise go, not into American traps, but into the Skeena and other rivers in British Columbia to be caught by gill nets and trollers. Those are the two points of difference. The cannery men say that the fish go north while the fishermen contend that they go south, and the commissioner throws his whole weight into the argument of the cannery men.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But surely the facts are
known as to which way they go.


Alan Webster Neill: They are to some extent,
and I will explain that in a moment. But as between the two, what little is known is emphatically on the side of the argument that the fish go south. Here is a report on Pacific salmon migration by Professor H. Charles Williams, DSc., F.R.S.E., a technical and highly educated man, who is not going to throw his weight one way or the other but undertakes to record the facts as he sees them. He tagged 659 fish, and I may explain to those who are not familiar with it just what this means. They take the salmon when newly caught and put a clip into its tail or one of its fins and then turn it loose, and when it is ultimately caught valuable information is obtained as to where it has been in the meantime and where it is going. This is a new method only recently adopted. Now according to this report only 135 of the 659 were recaptured that season, and of that number 80 per cent were caught in British Columbia waters and 20 per cent in American waters. He actually gives us a map showing the course run by every fish from the time it was first tagged until it was finally caught. One was caught 100 miles south inside of twenty-four hours; in other words, it was travelling at an average of 100 miles a day. As I say, 80 per cent were taken the second time in British Columbia waters. This man's report ought to be good because it is a definite, unbiased and scientific statement, and he asserts that 80 per cent were taken in the waters of British Columbia, proving, so far as our knowledge goes, that the fish were going south. Therefore this theory of putting in

last chance traps is entirely unsound, and the argument that the fish would "otherwise be lost" is not based on the facts.
The third reason the commissioner gives is this:
The Department of Fisheries with traps in this area will be in a better position to carry on a more intensive system of tagging, and for the next few years study the run of fish from Wales island and Dogfish, that is, whether and to what extent they are making for Canadian and United States waters.
You will note that he says it will enable them to go in for more intensive tagging. He is proposing to put in traps-perhaps twenty -at a cost of $150,000 in order to catch a few fish to be tagged-a few hundred or a thousand fish which could be caught just as well with seine or troll. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we want roast chicken we do not burn down the hen house and its contents. Is there any need of investing $150,000 to establish a destructive method of fishing in order to catch a few fish to be tagged when experience shows that they can be captured just as well by seine or trollers? It is done off the west coast of Vancouver island; I have seen them do it with the troll and they have been quite successful. They did not need to use any traps. Further, it is stated, we shall be enabled to decide to what extent the fish are making for Canadian or for American waters. In that sentence is to be found proof of what I have said, namely, that the commissioner, with al'l due respect to him, has failed to grasp the situation as it exists. He is going to allow traps to be used for an unlimited period and in unlimited numbers for the purpose of taking fish by a very destructive method in order that some of them may be tagged to determine whether traps should be allowed or not. Do you grasp that? Traps, with their iniquitous capture of these fish, are to be allowed in order to determine by means of tagging the fish whether the traps should be allowed or not. The last time I heard reasoning of that sort was at a country fair and by a quack doctor selling patent medicines. Would it not be better to continue the existing system of tagging with a view to demonstrating whether the traps should be allowed or not?
Now we come to the other recommendations. No. 2 is, that applications for licenses should be open to all. Well, applications for licenses have been open to all for the last twelve years. That policy was adopted by the Conservatives in 1918 and has been continued ever since; it is known as the open door policy. So that when he recommends that applications be open to all he is merely re-

Fish Traps-Mr. Neill
peating a commonplace. Mind you, it is not a question of putting in two or three traps; the New England Fish Company would be content with three. But every other cannery man in that vicinity would also demand fish traps; and as a matter of fact they say plainly that if one gets them they will all get them.
The third recommendation is that licenses be granted only for a specified time until the results of the tagging operations have become known. Note that: a specified time. But what is a specified time? He does not say. It may be a year or a decade or fifty years. However, he recommends that the licenses be granted only for a specified time until the results of the tagging operations are known. He gives the show away in that sentence, because he admits he does not know whether the traps should be there or not. But he says, in effect: "In the meantime, let them operate with this destructive method until we find out by the tagging operations whether the traps should be allowed or not." Is that not putting the cart before the home? Why not let the fish traps wait until the present system proves conclusively whether or not the suggestion is correct that the fish are going south?
The fourth recommendation is that no license granted in any sense creates a vested interest in the owner for any period longer than is mentioned in the license. If that is not a platitude I have never heard one. If I rent a house for ten years I know that the house does not belong to me at the end of that period; but there is no need for anybody to tell me that.
The fifth and last recommendation is that the opening of areas specified in recommendation No. 1 is in no sense to be regarded as a precedent to be cited or acted upon in respect to any other areas or territories in this or any other fishing district in British Columbia. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would point this out: You cannot establish a precedent and then by a wave of the hand say it is not a precedent. If I commit murder and formally announce that the deed is not to be regarded as murder, I cannot get. away with it; the corpse is there, justice is demanded, and the law will step in and brush aside my sophistry. A precedent once established is there for all to point at, and it will be pointed to. A week or two ago I used an illustration which perhaps I might now repeat. Was it not said by the Conservative party, and properly, that their legislation in 1918, in regard to the good roads grant was not to be considered a precedent? Yet every member who spoke on the subject a few months ago sooner or later cited that very precedent. I will tell you why the
commissioner makes this statement. He wants to conciliate public sentiment and allay alarm, because the people are afraid that this principle, once established in the north, will spread to the south. And it is for that very reason that I take so keen an interest in the matter. This particular district is away beyond my own, buc our people are terribly afraid of thi3 thing called a precedent; because once it is established that it is right to have traps up there, the next thing will be to have them in the southern waters in the district I represent.
Now it may be said that I am unjustifiably suspicious, that I am an alarmist, that I am pleading a special cause and for that reason making the strongest case I can. Not at all.
I have evidence here to show that it will be only a matter of a very short time, if traps are granted in the north, before the precedent will be cited in the south. And here is the evidence to show that before that policy is actually adopted traps in the south are being recommended. I quote from a newspaper report of the evidence:
Mr. Hagar not only advocated the establishment of fish traps in northern waters, but also throughout the province.
There is the handwriting on the wall. Before ever traps are granted in the north, he says, "You have given them in the north and we must have them in the south as well." Am I not justified in asking, if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
Now, sir, it is up to the government. Some hon. gentlemen may ask why the government should not accept the report of the commission. Possibly that should be done in most cases, but not in the case of a wabbly, stillborn report like this, which contradicts itself in its own recommendations and in other ways. This afternoon one of the members from the maritime provinces was criticizing the government, and when a member of the government challenged him to define his policy in regard to the question under discussion the hon. member replied that he would not do so, that the responsibility must rest with the government. That was a politician's answer, of course, because it left him free to find fault with whatever action the government took. I am not afraid to take the responsibility or the blame for anything I advocate; I have the courage of my convictions. Of course it would pay me better in a political way to let the government go ahead, and do wrong, because then I could yell " crook and scandal " during the election campaign, but where would my district be
Fish Traps-Mr. Neill

left? I would rather see the government do the right thing now even if they get credit for it instead of myself.
Here is the question: As I have said, there are 14,000 working fishermen licensed this year; with their families and those indirectly depending upon them, including the farmers- because they do not eat fish exclusively; they must have eggs and butter and milk-and the town people who are also dependent upon the earnings of these fishermen, we might take it that 100,000 people would be affected. We want these people, Mr. Speaker; we have them now and we want to keep them because they are a sturdy, desirable class of citizens. Are we going to wipe them out and leave our shores barren except for a few fish traps placed at strategic points in order to swell the coffers of an alien corporation? I think I can safely say that I represent the views of every fisherman in British Columbia; they are a unit in their opposition to these fish traps. Practically all the people of northern British Columbia in the neighbourhood of Prince Rupert, irrespective of politics or occupation, are of the same opinion in this matter, and judging from the petition I have presented and from others which I could produce, there are a great many people in the southern part of British Columbia also opposed to these fish traps.
Now I have practically finished; the decision is up to the government. I beg and implore them-yes, I even warn them-to put people before pocket, men before money, in this case and let the decision be made on that principle.
I do not want to be melodramatic; I do not want to use sensaitional language, but I am trying to find words which will impress upon the government the seriousness of this situation. I am sorry if I am unable to emphasize sufficiently the importance of the matter, but I believe, and more than that I hope, that a curse will rest upon this government, certainly politically, if they take away the livelihood of these people in order to produce a few quicker and fatter dividends for an alien corporation, because that is practically what it amounts to, no matter how it may be wrapped up and regardless of how it may be explained or camouflaged. I might almost paraphrase the American orator-William Jennings Bryan, and say: We must not, we shall not and we dare not crucify our British Columbia fishermen on a cross of increased dividends.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry that this question has come up so prematurely, because it is a complex matter 
fraught with very great interest to thousands of fishermen on the Pacific coast. The commission which sat in Prince Rupert and Vancouver some weeks ago to consider the question of the advisability of allowing traps to be installed along the international waters in the northern part of district No. 2, was composed of one gentleman, Judge Ellis. I found it very difficult to get information with regard to the origin of this commission, as to who appointed it, who authorized it and so on. As far as I can gather, Mr. Speaker, it was done by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), who was anxious to settle once and for all the question of the advisability of permitting traps in these waters.
I have before me a letter which was handed to me by the hon. member for New Westminster, (Mr. McQuarrie), who is not here, with the request that I read it in the house. This letter refers to fish traps, and is as follows:
New Westminster, B.C., May 18/29. Mr. W. G. McQuarrie, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed to call your attention to the recent action of the Department of Marine and Fisheries with respect to salmon traps and to ask you to support the fishermen in their opposition to the same. Following are the facts as the fighermen know them:
Late in 1927, in October or November, a delegation of salmon eanners and fishermen held two meetings with Hon. P. J. A. Cardin and asked that a royal commission be appointed to investigate the salmon fishing industry in British Columbia with a view to recommending remedial action of some sort. This was opposed by W. A. Found, and the commission was not granted. After departure from Ottawa of fishermen delegates eanners put forward set of requests of their own, unknown to the fishermen. The man who arranged the two meetings of the joint committee with Mr. Cardin was an attorney of Vancouver named J. E. Ellis, evidently retained by the eanners, as the fishermen did not retain him.
Recently, without fishermen having the remotest idea that such a thing had been applied for, announcement was made in Vancouver that Judge Ellis was named as a royal commission to investigate and determine whether it would be in the "public interest" to allow the establishment of salmon traps in Canadian waters adjacent to the Alaskan boundary. In the "public interest" and "adjacent" were two terms that stuck in the craws of the Prince Rupert men. where the first meetings were held. Naturally, fishermen opposed traps and eanners favoured them. At the Vancouver meeting Mr. Ellis, when questioned who asked for the appointment of himself as a commission, said he did not know, he merely received word by wire from Ottawa to make the investigation and report thereon. However, A. L. Hager, president Canadian Fishing Company, was not so reticent . or ignorant, and stated his company probably was responsible for the appointment of a com-

Fish Traps-Mr. Brady
mission to see if his firm would not be allowed to operate traps at Wales island which they purchased some years ago from M. Desbrisay and were stopped from operating them. Therefore it appears to the fishermen that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has, under guise of a general investigation, appointed a commission for the specific purpose of giving the Canadian Fishing Company right to operate certain traps, and so that will not appear too raw to the proletariat, etc., a few more trap sites will be given to other concerns, and then the general scramble will be on again.
Wm. E. Maiden.
Secretary, B.C.F.P.A.
Then he asks that the hon. member for New Westminster support the fishermen in their contention that traps should not be installed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. members were privileged to read the report of Judge Ellis together with the evidence given by the various witnesses; if hon. members could understand the attitude of the representatives of the two apposing sides, the one against and the other advocating traps, together with the summing up by Judge Ellis and his recommendation in favour of the installation of fish traps along the international boundary, I have no hesitation in saying after reading the report that no one unprejudiced could possibly claim that all the convincing evidence produced at the meetings of that commission held in Prince Rupert was given by the representatives of the fish traps.
I have taken from the report a few of the reasons which were advanced as to why the traps should be installed. I am very sorry that I had not more time at my disposal to go through this report thoroughly, because we are not dealing with a local issue. I wish to impress that upon the house; the question of fish traps in Canadian waters is not a local issue, it is outside the realm of any local condition; it is international in its scope and demands a broad international mind to deal with it in order that justice may be done to both sides arguing this question. Here are some of the reasons given by the advocates of fish traps in support of their claim that traps should be installed in these northern waters.
The first reason given was that the traps represent the modern trend in fishing. In American waters to-day the trap is the one and only, up-to-date, scientific machine for catching salmon with very little difficulty. It is quite true that it is the modern trend in fishing.
The second argument offered was that a better grade of fish was caught. That is true likewise. The fish get into the traps of their own accord, and they are in perfect condition when caught.	.
The third argument was that traps would enable us better to compete with the United States. On what ground woulld we be competing with them? For the annihilation of the fish. Through their up-to-date system of traps the United States have undoubtedly seriously menaced the salmon fisheries of the Pacific coast, and one has only to go down to the Fraser river and into Puget sound to realize the truth of that statement. Or he can go up to the southeastern Alaskan waters and find that Mr. O'Malley, the director of fisheries for the United States, has reduced the traps for the year 1929, in the very area we are speaking of, by the number of sixty. On what grounds? Because of the fact that the escapement of salmon is not sufficient and the catches have depreciated.
The fourth argument offered was that the largest amount of fish caught in foreign countries was caught by means of traps. In the short time at my disposal, I could not find any further arguments.
Let me take the argument which was advanced by the fishermen-and I think these men are entitled to the courtesy of a fair hearing because we are considering something greater than the mere scientific, expeditious method of capturing fish. The fishermen argued that many of them would be put out of employment. They proved that statement, and Judge Ellis admitted that the fishermen had proved their case. In his report Judge Ellis said that the fishermen had convinced him that the traps would reduce the number of fish they would catch and eliminate to some extent the number of men engaged in the fishing business, and the cannens admitted that that was true and that the number eliminated would depend upon the number of traps which were put into the water.
I find that there is no right or power vested in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to grant say three or four licenses at Wales island or Pearse channel and to refuse licenses to others in the same area. He cannot grant to some and refuse to others. What will be the result? According to the canners themselves the result will be that by the installation of traps they will be able to obtain a higher grade of fish and sell at a higher price. Can anyone argue that other canners in the same area will stand idly by and allow two or three of their number to reap the reward; that they will be content to take the lower grade of fish which they say are caught by the gill netters, the trollers and seiners? That is absolutely ridiculous. These traps will not only throw two or three hundred fishermen out of employment, but a living will be taken away from their wives and children.
Fish Traps-Mr. Brady

In this large district No. 2, there are 1,421 fishermen engaged in the industry, with three hundred more trawlers. These men buy their supplies from the various merchants in Prince Rupert and they contribute a large sum of money annually to the upbuilding of that town. They have a capital of $1,500,000 invested in boats. AM these matters should be considered, but, to my mind, the main one was not mentioned in the report.
I approach the discussion of this question with as open a mind as any man could have in order to investigate a question concerning which I was some time ago not fully informed. I agree that the trap is a scientific instrument for the catching of fish. It is deadly in its power; it is placed in the very path of the fish as they go to spawn and there is no hope of escape. The gill netter, the troller and the seiner must follow the tide hither and thither, and the fish have a sporting chance of escape as they go to the spawning grounds. The Americans are decimating and depleting their own waters, and it ill becomes us to put into operation a system so deadly in its effects and so dire in its results, one which destroys God's food to the people who for all times and for all ages have depended upon the food of the sea. It may seem sentimental for me to speak like this, but I have only to take you back, Mr. Speaker, to the days of Christ himself, when He, the representative of the poor, having no money with which to pay tribute to Caesar, ordered that a fish be caught, and in its mouth was found the coin that paid the tribute to the Roman emperor. This question is not one that we, as a people capable of understanding, can treat with light disdain and at the same time be true to the great heritage which is ours. Therefore I honestly believe that in putting those traps into those waters, we are doing something which will deprive future generations of the food that God Almighty Himself placed in the waters, believing that those fish would be the food of the common people for all time.
I do not see that the report of Judge Ellis, as I have read it, is based upon convincing arguments. Therefore, without delaying the house further, I ask that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries consider carefully the arguments advanced on both sides. He has found all the citizens of Prince Rupert opposed to those traps; the city council passed strong resolutions against them. Nine different associations of salmon trollers and fishers have asked him not to put those traps into effect. I know the minister believes that if he had those traps there, he would be better able to tag the fish and to follow their migration to the waters in order to ascertain whether they go into

Alaskan or British Columbia waters. But that is a minor question in the presence of a major one, which is this: I am here this evening endeavouring to represent to parliament the views of the people of British Columbia as a whole, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would be well advised, before putting into operation the recommendations of this commission, to ponder its report more carefully and at greater length, so that at least we may be assured that no injustice will be done to the people in No. 2 district and that there will be no depletion of the fish supply which is so valuable to the people of those parts of British Columbia.


Mr. A. D. McRAE (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house for a few moments while I refer to this subject. I regret that it comes up at this time, as in committee it might have been disposed of with a few questions to which, no doubt, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) would have been able to supply the answers. The traps in question are a subject of long standing, going back, I think, as far as three or four years. I find in the file a copy of a letter dated September 10, 1926, from the department to the company concerned, in which the department promised an investigation with a view of ascertaining what damage, if any, was done, and what obligation there might be on the part of the government on account of promises made, which the company interested claimed they had acted upon. In going through the file I find there does not appear to be any other correspondence of record until this royal commission comes up. In this regard I think a fair criticism of the Department of Marine and Fisheries is the fact that so much of their business is carried on apparently by personal negotiation and so little of it is a matter of record that it is very difficult for anyone to follow the proceedings in continuity. It is not necessary for me to point out to the house that in international negotiations in the past this failure to put our understandings on record has led, I believe, to some repudiations which were not pleasant. I am sure that in our negotiations here as well as with our neighbours to the south, the department will keep out of trouble, and the members of the house will be able to follow the proceedings with a great deal more clarity if they are all properly on record and not left to verbal understanding.
It would appear that in the early stages of this trap controversy on our northern boundary, the claim for damages was presumably made and the investigation then promised

Fish Tra-ps-Mr. McRae
apparently had that in view. This matter would have 'been much better dealt with had that now been the issue and had the government seen fit to order an investigation on the basis of whether we were responsible financially or morally in connection with the establishment of these traps some three of four years ago, instead of bringing up the old question of the establishment of traps.
It is unnecessary for me to go over this question again. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (;Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) have dealt with it at length, and there is little I can add except to say that I thoroughly concur with them in their presentation of the situation.
A great deal of trouble would have been saved had the matter -been dealt with on the basis of compensation. I cannot think there is any politics mixed up in this at all, because it certainly would be very bad politics. I notice, however, in going through the file, that a letter was sent to Mr. Olaf Hanson on March 27 last advising him that a commission was appointed, but apparently he never replied; at least there is nothing on the file to show that he did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is he?


Alexander Duncan McRae: He of course is the candidate for the Liberal party at the next election.


Ernest Lapointe: In Prince Rupert.


Alexander Duncan McRae: The opponent of the hon.
member for Skeena in the next election. I can only say that if Olaf did not reply, it goes to show not only his great inexperience but that he has a great deal to learn in the political game, because even to a blind man it should be apparent that this would be ruinous to the chances of any candidate. I hope in the committee, in order to square Olaf, to show that he has'ordinary sagacity in matters of this kind, the hon. minister will be able to produce a letter from him telling the minister not to go ahead with this commission under any circumstances because to do so will mean the return of Jim Brady.
This problem as it manifests itself in the north is right on the border line between British Columbia and Alaska, and the situation is almost identical with that of Fraser river. I suggest to the minister that when he is redrafting the Fraser river sockeye treaty for next session, he include the Naas problem, because it is an international water. The satisfactory adjustment depends entirely upon our coming to an agreement with the United States, and I do not hesitate to say, as I said in committee the other day, that unless
something is done in connection with the Naas River, it will soon be as barren of fish as the Sahara. There will be no fish in it at all and nothing to trouble about. That would be a most regrettable condition, and I think that the proper way to deal with this matter is in an international way.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was not going to refer to the question of traps exceipt to endorse the position taken by the two hon. members who have spoken. I do, however, want to take exception to one or two of the findings of the royal commission in the hope that in view of our united opposition the recommendation to establish traps will not be adopted. I see that the minister himself has a pretty fair idea of traps because, if my memory serves me aright, in speaking a few days ago of the haddock traps he said that they required few men. That is true of traps whether they be on the Pacific or the Atlantic coast. The report of Commissioner Ellis would indicate that there are now some 11,000 fishermen engaged in fishing on our coast. Last year, 1927-28, the total number of licenses granted to all kinds of people, red, white and yellow, was 14,819, and that, I would have hon. members understand, is for a very much depleted industry. If our fishing industry on the Pacific coast was built up to what the people of this country have a right to expect, there would be about 50,000 licenses issued a year, and that industry alone, built up on that basis of individual licenses as now issued, keeping away from traps, would support a population as great as that of Prince Edward Island. That is what is in the future, and I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Allberni (Mr. Neill) that it would be nothing short of a crime if we started in now to undo these prospects.
I had in mind, until it has now got so late in the session that I presume new ideas will not be tolerated, to suggest when the estimates for the Indian department came up for consideration the opening up of dozens of Indian reserves in the mouths of our rivers in small lots -of ten or fifteen acres-it is the best land in the country-for settlement by white fishermen, and then they would have their homes on the ground. On many of these Indian reserves there is nobody living to-day, and I think the time has come when we should build up communities of white fishermen where they can rear their families, and thus establish in British Columbia a race of fishermen such as they have to-day in the ma-ri-times. We have not got that to-day, but we are on the way to building it up, and I hope that in a few years when our industry gets on the
Fish Traps-Mr. Cardin


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have only a few words to say in reply. From the observations made by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this matter, I can readily understand that there is a very strong opposition to the issuing of licenses for traps in the northern waters of British Columbia.
As has been stated, this is not a new question. It has been in the mind of the public for many, many years; in fact, licenses have been issued as far back as 1916. In that year two licenses were issued; in 1917, 5; in 1918, 6; in 1919, 7, and in 1920, 6.	The department has received
complaint against the issuing of these licenses, and the officers have been looking into that question with some care. I think, however, it would be unfair to conclude that the present government is the only one responsible for these traps. Indeed, in that respect, the record of the Liberal government can be compared favourably with that of previous administrations. Licenses were issued in 1925 on the understanding that the company should not be too sure that they would be renewed in 1926; in fact the licenses were not renewed in 1926 until after this government went out of power. After we went out of power, on July 23, 1926, licenses were issued to that company, the Canadian Fishing Company, by the then government, but on account of representations made on the 4th of August, 1926, a report was asked for, and the result was that on August 16, 1926, less than a month

after the licenses had been issued on July 23, they were cancelled by the present government.
As hon. gentlemen have pointed out, it is a complex and difficult question. The department felt that we should not renew the licenses and the matter has been under consideration in the meantime. After receiving representations from the fishermen and from the company concerned, it was considered advisable to have an investigation made by an independent organization, and it was thought that a judge would be sufficiently independent to take the evidence which might be given on both sides of the issue and carry on that investigation. I confess that, this report having come to the department at the end of the session when we were very busy, it has not been given by the officers of the department or by myself, owing to lack of time, a detailed study. I can only say at present that no one should conclude that because the commissioner recommends the licensing rf a certain number of these traps it is (he intention of the department and myself to follow his recommendation. I once more submit that a department or a minister is not bound to follow the recommendation of any commissioner who may have been appointed in order to provide the minister with better information and fuller detail on the question under consideration. In that case as in an3' others, the reasons given by the commissioner and his conclusions will be weighed in the light of experience, and I can assure the house that the interests of the fishermen will not be prejudiced, and nobody need be alarmed lest the matter be decided without proper consideration being given to the recommendations.
My hon. friend from North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) referred to the fact that the documents which I showed him were not very complete. As a matter of fact they are all we have. I know the matter has been discussed verbally with people from British Columbia by the officers of the department and myself. I should not like the impression to prevail that our files are not properly kept. They are kept in good order, and documents which should be on those files are to be found there. In fact the letter written by the Hon. Mr. Patenaude-he was Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries for a short while-in which he promised an investigation was not on the departmental files. It is on there today because that promise was used as an argument by the company asking that licenses be issued in their favour. When we asked

Supply-National Revenue
them whether the promise was in writing they sent us a copy of the letter. This explains its presence on the file.
My hon. friend referred to the letter which was addressed to Mr. Hanson advising him that a commission had been appointed. He said that if Mr. Hanson was a good politician, qualified to be a candidate for any party, he should have expressed his views against that procedure. I have no letter from Mr. Hanson, but my hon. friend will not object to my declaring that I know Mr. Hanson's views through a verbal message which was brought to me, and I may say that they are as strong as those of my hon. friends from North Vancouver, Skeena and Comox-Alberni.


Alexander Duncan McRae: May I say that evidently Mr. Hanson is a lot more careful than we gave him credit for, and is too good a politician.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not write.


Alexander Duncan McRae: No, he did not write.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think there is anything further I can add. I repeat that hon. gentleman need not be alarmed. I can assure my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that his observations will not fail to be considered, as will also the very strong support which is given to him by the hon. members for Skeena and North Vancouver.


Alexander Duncan McRae: As the minister has given
a clean bill of health to his present candidate in Skeena, would he kindly give the gist of the verbal understanding with Mr. Hanson.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was requested by this gentleman, as I have been by many others, not to issue those licenses, whatever might be the conclusions of the investigator.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

John Frederick Johnston: Vote 308, page 68 of the estimates, national revenue, $14,014,663.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this item for?


John Frederick Johnston: It was under discussion the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister say
whether or not he has received a report from Mr. Knox with respect to conditions in Halifax?


William Daum Euler: I received a report from Mr. Hunter. I received some correspondence, possibly it might be called a report, from Mr. Knox. In fact this morning I had a call from him with regard to conditions in Halifax.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is the difficulty
there?


William Daum Euler: I might give a very brief
review of the situation, because I understand my hon. friend desires to bring it up.
Some time ago word came to the preventive branch of the department that there were certain abuses existing in the city of Halifax with regard to the local preventive service. In the ordinary routine of the office the acting chief despatched Mr. Hunter and Mr. Knox, the investigating officer, to Halifax to ascertain the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who is Mr. Hunter?


William Daum Euler: The chief clerk in the preventive office here. They made certain investigations. During the course of their stay in Halifax a certain man named Garrison- whose name I heard mentioned this afternoon by the hon. leader of the opposition-entered the office.
Mr. BENNETT': Surely the minister must have heard his name before?


William Daum Euler: Not to my knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in the paper a
week ago.


William Daum Euler: I am referring to the assault.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid my hon. friend
was not following me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was.


William Daum Euler: I am describing what took
place after these officers went to Halifax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I thought the minister said he heard the name Garrison for the first time this afternoon.


William Daum Euler: No. If my hon. friend finds any discrepancies in what I am about to say I hope he will correct me.
During the course of their stay in Halifax a man named Garrison came to the office to interview Mr. Knox. Mr. Hunter was there at the time; an interview did take place between Mr. Knox and Mr. Garrison. What really happened there I am not sure, there are conflicting reports, but as a matter of fact there was an assault. Whether Mr. Knox or Garrison was the aggressor I do not know, but in any case Mr. Knox was charged in the courts with assault, and was called upon to put up a bond of $5,000 for his appearance at the trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it a civil or a criminal proceeding?
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: I am not enough of a
lawyer to say, but he was called upon to put up a bond of $5,000. He requested that the department put up the bond. Mr. Knox is regarded as a good investigating officer, and I desired that the investigation should proceed. So, rightly or wrongly, I decided that the department might well supply the bond.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: That was done. Before the bond was issued, on his own responsibility Mr. Knox engaged counsel to assist him. I felt, however, that if an officer of the department took the law into his own hands and administered very severe physical punishment to someone else, he was going beyond what he had any right to do as an officer of the crown. For that reason I issued instructions that the department was not to be held responsible for the legal fees of the lawyer whom he had retained. From the reports the situation appeared to me to be rather bad, and in order that the investigation should be conducted on the highest ground and that everyone should have confidence in those making that investigation, I instructed the assistant commissioner of customs, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Lennie, who I think is known to most members of the house, to proceed to Halifax to institute the inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When?


William Daum Euler: They are there now. We
did not displace either Mr. Knox or Mr. Hunter. Mr. Knox was asked to remain there, although he had requested to be sent to Toronto, intimating that undue political influence had been used in Halifax. I do not know what sort of pressure had been brought to bear upon him, but there may have been some. Certainly, however, it was not recognized in the department. Both Mr. Knox and Mr. Hunter were asked to remain. Mr. Knox-I presume this was the reason-when he found that the two officials whom I have mentioned had been sent to Halifax to make a thorough investigation into conditions that looked rather bad to me, sent in his resignation, which was promptly accepted.
Mr. Knox came to me this morning, stating that he wished to see me with regard to conditions in the port of Halifax. He found fault, I think, with the fact that the department declined to pay his lawyer's expenses for his own personal defence. He said he had not been backed up by the department or by someone in the department. I requested him to give instances to show where he had not been supported, because there had been no interference on the part of the depart-

ment with either him or Mr. Hunter. He declined to give me any instances but stated that he would take them to my hon. friend, who would bring them up in the house. That is the story so far as I know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question at the
moment is:	Was there political influence?
That is No. 1. The second question is: Who asked for the investigation in Halifax? ] do not propose to discuss the question whether the port of Halifax is or is not in proper shape, because that would be prejudging the matter; but I asked the minister whether Knox had made a report in writing-and I should have added, with respect to conditions in the port of Halifax. As a matter of fact, I did not have time to speak to Knox, beyond having a few words with him, because I had to be in the chamber.


William Daum Euler: I will answer the first question first. My hon. friend inquires whether there was political influence. I have answered that already:	So far as the department was
concerned, there was absolutely none.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that, but from other sources?


William Daum Euler: Nor from other sources. I
can very well guess the inference which is supposed to be drawn by the house, because I heard the debate this afternoon. So far as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) who represents one of the constituencies in Nova Scotia is concerned, I may say that no influence of any sort was exerted nor was any attempt made to exert influence with myself with respect to Knox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was an effort made to
withdraw Knox from the investigation?


William Daum Euler: Never to me, and I do not know that any such effort was made so fai as anyone else is concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister say
that none was made to any of his colleagues?


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge of
what may have happened with my colleagues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Knox gave evidence before the customs commission, and although I hardly know the man except for the fact that when I saw him this morning I recognized him as a witness in that inquiry, it appeared there that he was regarded as a valuable investigator and was certainly well thought of in that sense by everyone. From Ontario, where his duties usually lie, he was taken to Halifax, and I know only what the papers and the minister say, because I had not time

Supply-National Revenue
to go into the matter. That is why I asked the question. The minister indicates that trouble arose because a man called Garrison, who is known to be a very active and offensive political supporter of the government in Halifax, went to the custom house. My understanding is that Mr. Hunter, who was there, retired and the two men had an interview. This man Garrison was accompanied by a man named Martin. Is that correct?


William Daum Euler: I understand so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he was a government official in the Department of Labour. Is that so? He was a fair wage officer in the Department of Labour in Halifax?


William Daum Euler: When Garrison went to interview Knox he took with him Martin, who is in the employ of the Labour department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What for?


William Daum Euler: As a witness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What for?


William Daum Euler: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A political heeler says
he took a government employee with him when he went to have this interview, and the minister says the man went as a witness- what for? As a plant?


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was he a witness
for? The minister says this man states that the other was taken as a witness. What was he a witness for?


William Daum Euler: That is the statement made by Knox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the minister did not say that; he said it was the statement made by Martin. He was taken as a witness.


William Daum Euler: There is a statement here
by Martin but I am sorry it is difficult to find it. My recollection, however, is that Martin wrote a report in which he stated that while he was in the long room of the custom house in Halifax, Garrison came and asked him to accompany him, which he did. He said: "I don't know what it was all about"- I am speaking from memory-"and in fact after the fracas I was sorry I went."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Someone used the words, ;'as a witness." The minister has used those words; I did not use them. The man went there as a witness; as a witness to what?


William Daum Euler: I gather that he went as a
witness on the request of Mr. Garrison; it could not be for anyone else, because Garrison asked him to go.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


William Daum Euler: As a witness to what took
place, I suppose. Mr. Garrison went to make certain accusations against Knox, which he did make, which Knox denied, and as a result of which denial the words followed leading to the assault. I presume that when a man goes on such business with the purpose possibly of making an assault or of having a difference with someone else it is not at all difficult to understand that he might desire to have a witness there.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Did they have boxing gloves?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what the minister says, and cf which I was not aware, and the matter being now investigated, it would be premature for me to discuss it further at the moment. But I venture this statement, that the minister should support his officer. When an officer in the discharge of his duty is assaulted on public property, whether or not he provoked the assault is a matter to be determined; but no person for a moment thinks that such a man should be abandoned. He has been sued, I judge civilly, because he would not give bond for $5,000 for a trial in October unless the proceedings were civil. Of course, it may be a criminal case; I do not know, and perhaps the minister can tell us. It may be a case of damages or it may be criminal. What counsel did he employ? That probably would largely explain the matter.


William Daum Euler: A man named Jones, I understand. My hon. friend is a lawyer and knows more about these technicalities than I do, but the words are, "It is ordered that the defendant be arrested and imprisoned until final judgment." I suppose that indicates a criminal action?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is a civil action.


William Daum Euler: In any case, a bond of $5,000 was required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think in the old provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick they still have what we call a capias procedure and probably this man was arrested under capias, because if he was directed to remain in gaol until judgment was given it would indicate a civil and not a criminal action.

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: Just a word with regard to the statement made toy the leader of the opposition tlhat the department should stand behind the man. I think we did that. I do not desire to go into this question at any length, but as a matter of fact there have been numerous complaints for many years in regard to Mr. Knox. In fact, until today I did not know that the assistant deputy minister of excise bad reported that Mr. Knox should not foe employed by the department at all. I had many complaints, but I also knew it was the impression of the committee and perhaps of the house in 1926 that Mr. Knox was a good officer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A good investigator.


William Daum Euler: Exactly; all the reports say he is a good investigator, tout there are reports which perhaps do not speak quite so highly of him in other respects. I kept him in the department, one reason being that we might be criticized if we let him go in view of the information he furnished in 1928, which was detrimental to the then government, as most people will admit. I was unwilling to have the accusation made that I was discriminating against the man for that reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does the minister
credit.


William Daum Euler: I also agreed after an explanation was given as to the assault which had taken place, that the department should furnish the bond of $5,000. However, I did not think that any officer should take the law in his own hands. Mr. Knox is a pretty big man and need not toe very much afraid of a physical encounter with anyone, and I understand that his opponent was not very big. Mr. Knox may have had provocation; I understand he was the subject of an epithet which is regarded toy most people as being fighting language. But if an officer of the crown takes the law into his own hands it is not the duty of the department to stand behind him as far as his legal expenses are concerned; it then becomes his personal affair. At any rate, rightly or wrongly that was my position and I am within the judgment of the committee as to the wisdom of my action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who was the lawyer
employed by Knox?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend probably
knows the name of the firm; one of the members of the firm is Mr. Melnnes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think he was a president of the Conservative association for a good many years.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps that does not make it any worse. The firm name is Melnnes, Lovett and MacDonald. I might also say that the acting chief of the preventive service inferred that the services of a solicitor should be paid for by the department, at the time I gave instructions that the bond should foe given. I instructed him to the contrary, but whatever expense had been incurred up to that time so far as solicitors were concerned is being borne by the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did Knox make a report in writing?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the department?


William Daum Euler: He made his report to the acting chief of the preventive service. It is rather a lengthy report; does my hon. friend wish to hear it or shail I show it to him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it touch the port of Halifax, the investigation?


William Daum Euler: No, it is with regard to the fracas with Garrison. Since the investigation is going on perhaps it would be as well not to read it. .


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the report should be read; I agree with the minister, however, that we should not discuss the question of the investigation of the port.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that there are not some incidental references to the port. The report is rather lengthy, but if the committee desires to hear it I will read it. It is written from Halifax and addressed to Mr. Jenkins, acting chief of the customs preventive service, under date of May 20.
About 1.10 p.m. to-day I was called to the phone by Mr. G. E. M. Hunter, acting divisional chief, Halifax, and answered same. The party on the other end of the telephone asked if I was Mr. Knox to which I replied yes. He then said "Are you going to be in the office for a while?" I said "Yes for probably half an hour". He gave no name or any intimation of what he desired to see me about. Ten minutes later two gentlemen arrived in the preventive service office and as I was sitting in the inner office, which is occupied by Mr. Hunter and myself during this investigation, I heard one of the gentlemen ask for Mr. Hunter and myself whom I later learned was a Mr. Garrison. These two gentlemen were shown into the office and the taller of the two, whom I later learned was Mr. Garrison, asked who was the boss to which Mr. Hunter replied he was. Mr. Garrison then replied "Well I don't want to see you" and Mr. Hunter replied "Is it on official business in connection with the preventive service of the customs?" He said "yes". Then Mr. Hunter said "Well I want to know all about it." Mr. Garrison said "You think so".

Supply-National Revenue
I might tell my hon. friend and the committee there are words written in here in ink; I do not know whether or not Mr. Knox wrote them and I am not sure whether I should read them. They are not initialed and probably they are the words my hon. friend would like to hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know; the minister has the report. I would like to have it read, and the minister says it is written partly in handwriting.


William Daum Euler: Yes, and the acting chief of the preventive service thinks it is not in the handwriting of Mr. Knox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read it under those circumstances.


William Daum Euler: Very well:
Colonel Ralston will talk to you.
Those are the words written in ink. Then the report proceeds:
"You are not the boss around here" and Mr. Hunter replied he was and would insist on being present at any interview where matters of the preventive service of the customs were being discussed. Mr. Garrison then sat down and addressed Mr. Hunter that he did not come to see him but to see myself and that he wanted a private interview with me. Mr. Hunter then retired after Mr. Garrison had informed the both of us that the gentleman who accompanied him be brought as a witness and was the representative of the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, namely Mr. Peter Heenan. At this stage Mr. Hunter retired to the other office closing the door, leaving me in the room alone with these two gentlemen.
Immediately after the door was closed Mr. Garrison addressed me as follows, "You got a telegram from Colonel Ralston this morning, did you not" to which I replied "Not to my knowledge." He insisted I had and I again informed him that I had received neither telegram nor letter from any individual whatever this morning. He then stated that I was lying and that I was through with my investigation here and I knew it. I informed him it was the first intimation I had from anyone that I was through my investigation here and would continue my investigation until I received such word that my investigation was through. He then replied, "Is that so?" "Colonel Ralston" he says, "will see that you are taken away from here." I replied, "if that happened I could not help it but that until I got some official notice from our own department I intended to continue on. He then replied, "You were to see my brother last week," to which I replied, "Not that I know of."
That is a peculiar reply; I think if he had been there he would have been aware of it.
He then challenged me that I was lying and that he knew I was up to see his brother before he died. I replied that I never had been to see his brother subsequent to meeting him on board the boat "Guardian" in the dockyard over a week ago and that was the only time that I ever seen his brother or had the privilege of meeting him and then only for a few minutes 78594-223J
when we were trying out the engine on the boat "Guardian" and that I had no discussion with his brother whatever except informing him, when he complained about the oil in the motor heating up, that it would not matter much a little heating in a new boat. He replied I was a liar and that he had witnesses to prove that I was to see his brother in a new blue Ford automobile the day before his death. I replied no he must have been mistaken and asked him whom the parties were that said I was to see his brother at his home. He replied that a neighbour of his had seen me and the blue Ford car. This I informed him was impossible because I never knew where his brother lives nor was I at any time in a blue Ford car to see him. Again he insisted that I was lying so I informed him and the other gentleman that w-as with him that if they had any evidence or any witnesses to prove that I was to see his brother at his home at any time that I would like to know. Mr. Garrison insisted he had and would see that Colonel Ralston was informed.
I then addressed myself to Mr. Garrison and Mr. Martin, whom he introduced as the Hon. Mr. Heenan's representative and told them both in these words, "Gentlemen, if you have come to see me or interview me on any business whatsoever I want to make it clear that I know nothing of what Mr. Garrison has been saying and as he had insisted in that I was Lying I would have to request you gentlemen to leave the office." That I was not going to be accused of lies and untruths to my face. Garrison replied he would not leave the office and I replied that I would see he did and immediately aTose from the chair and opened the door to show both gentlemen out. On opening the door I requested both gentlemen to leave the office immediately or if not I would have them put out. Garrison replied I was not big enough so I opened the outside door which leads into the corridor and requested him especially to get out or I would show him whether or not I was big enough to put him out. He challenged me m a threatening attitude so I took him by the shoulder and pushed him outside the door. When I did so he said, "You would, eh" and crouched down in a boxing manner as if to make an underhand or foul blow at me when I prepared myself for an onslaught which I anticipated was coming. Just in a moment he made a flash at me as if to strike me but I sidestepped him and he missed and I then caught him with my right hand under the eye. He was at this time inside the door of the office. The blow struck by myself staggered him and left him in a dazed condition after which I took hold of him and shoved him out in the corridor. His condition was_ weak at this moment and he fell down so I simply rolled him out in the corridor and could see that he was bleeding a little but not serious.
I then closed the door on him and left him in the corridor and later spoke to Mr. Martin who allowed himself to be introduced without speaking a word as the Hon. Mr. Heenan's representative. I must say in fairness to Mr. Martin that he in no way took part in any conversation which I had privately or otherwise except aftpr I had put Garrison out in tbe corridor. The only time Mr. Martin opened his mouth was when I struck Garrison when he said. "I am a witness to that." After having shut Mr. Garrison out in the corridor Mr. Mar^ tin seemed very much surprised and informed Mr. Hunter and myself that he was at a loss
Supply-National Revenue

to understand what it was all about and informed us that he had met Mr. Garrison by accident in the long room of the customs house just previous to coming up to see myself and Mr. Hunter and that he was approached by Mr. Garrison to accompany him and to be a witness to what he was going to say to me and my replies to him. He then said that if he had known what it was going to be he certainly would not have been there and was very sorry that he had been misled by Garrison on this occasion.
I cannot understand by and through whom Mr. Garrison would have come to interview me to-day because I have had nothing to do whatever directly or indirectly with his deceased brother. I simply met him casually at a trial run of the boat Guardian with Mr. Hunter over a week ago at the dockyard and had no conversation with him whatever any more than what I have previously referred to, that is that he did not need to worry about the oil tank on the engine of the boat Guardian warming up that as I understood all new boats or new engines will do this and that it was nothing for him to be afraid of. This I am prepared to swear to before any tribunal and hence my misunderstanding not having any knowledge why Mr. Garrison this afternoon came to see me whatsoever. Never have I at any time had occasion to go and see his brother prior or subsequent to the trial run of the boat Guardian and I defy anyone to state that I have been to see him.
The whole question of our unfortunate interview this afternoon was brought about by Mr Garrison himself. His attitude and his threatening language brought the trouble on himself and when he tried to maim me I was forced to defend myself and will do so on any *other such occasion should it arise. I have nothing to be sorry for in striking Mr. Garrison, if I had not done so I might have been wearing the beautiful black eye that he has to-day and, Sir, he will long remember his interview with me and the force which terminated that interview.
It is not a question at all of anyone losing his head. It was simply a case of self defence of which I will always seize the opportunity to defend especially when it is against my own person. From the results of this interview between Mr. Hunter, myself, Mr. Garrison and Mr. Martin I can only conclude that Mr. Garrison came here with the idea that I had been to see his brother and interrogated him thereby causing his sudden death. This, Sir, I will say with all emphasis is an infernal lie to which I have not been a party nor, so far as I am aware, Mr. Hunter either.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. A. Knox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose he has not made any report as to the investigation at the port?


William Daum Euler: No; as a matter of fact I do not think there has been any investigation with regard to the port; I think the investigation was held with regard to the preventive officers. There were some charges made against the officers at that port in correspondence which came to the department.
[Mr. Euler.l


Richard Bedford Bennett: The investigation is now being carried on?


William Daum Euler: That investigation is being carried on. The papers of which I spoke are in the hands of Mr. Blair and Mr. Lennie, who have gone down to make the investigation. Inspector Graham is there also.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to repeat what I said this afternoon, that the use of my name in connection with the incident which has just been cited was entirely unauthorized and without any foundation. I never had any communication with Mr. Garrison, either directly or indirectly, or with anyone for him, nor did I have any communication, either directly or indirectly, with Mr. Knox. I can only assume that Mr. Garrison referred to me, or thought that he would make his complaint to me on account of my being the minister from the province, but there was no authority at all for bringing my name into this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says no such reference was made, in fact.


James Layton Ralston: Knox says that Garrison referred to me in that conversation. I cannot say whether or not he did this, but I am saying that there was no foundation for his doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says no reference was made to the hon. Minister of National Defence by Garrison or anyone on his behalf in connection with the investigation carried on by Knox.


James Layton Ralston: None whatever.


William Daum Euler: I think I might just repeat that at no time were any representations made to the department that Mr. Knox should be withdrawn from the investigation.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that Knox said that Garrison referred to me; I do not know whether he did or did not, as I was n-olt there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister says that in fact he was not referred to by Garrison or by anyone on his behalf, or by Knox, and that makes it quite clear.


William Daum Euler: I have no desire to prolong the discussion, but I should like to read a report signed by Mr. Taylor, assistant deputy minister, which goes back as far as May 26, 1925.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think
he should read that report in view of the fact that there is a trial pending?

Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: This refers to Mr. Knox and
has absolutely nothing to do with the assault.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a civil action for damages pending.


William Daum Euler: I read Mr. Knox's statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A statement made by the deputy minister in 1925 might be prejudicial in connection with the trial for damages.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend think it would be fair to read a portion of a report which has just reached me through Mr. Hunter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister must use his own discretion with respect to that; the minister has had a servant of the crown withdrawn.


William Daum Euler: I have no desire to do anything which will cause an injustice. Mr. Knox tendered his resignation; he was not asked to resign. As a matter of fact, we were willing to continue employing him as an investigator in Halifax after the assault took place, although I had serious doubts as to the advisability of doing so because it could not be expected that he would be received with any spirit of good will or even with the respect which should be given to any officer making investigations of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did Mr. Martin represent the Minister of Labour?


William Daum Euler: I do not know, but perhaps we might accept his statement. He said that it was a casual meeting in the long room of the customs house and he went along just to keep Garrison company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments to Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle and Nash for services in connection with work arising from reports of the special committee and royal commission and in connection with special sales tax investigations, $10,000.
To provide for payment in full to the widow of the late C. E. McDonald, sub-collector of customs and excise at Port Borden, who was accidentally killed while returning home from duty, a compassionate allowance of, $3,000.
To provide for payment in full ito the widow of the late T. Ingalls a customs excise officer on the preventive service, who was accidentally killed while on duty, a compassionate allowance of, $3,000.
To provide for payment in full to Henry Mayo, an ex-member of the crew of the customs patrol boat No. 3.-Mr. Mayo received an injury to his eye in the performance of his duty which has left him practically blind, $2,500.
To provide for payment in full to Edwin P. Clark, an ex-member of the crew of the customs cruiser Bayfield.-Mr. Clark received an injury to his back which resulted in subsequent illness, $2,673.	_
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and in connection with the Board of Customs-Further amount required, $55,100.-Total, $76,273.
Mr. MANION:: I see that a part of this item reads:
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and in connection with the Board of Customs.
We were discussing here the other day, very briefly, the closing of a number of customs ports in various parts of the country. Would the minister inform the committee as to the saving made by the closing of these ports, and how many of the men engaged at the closed ports were removed from the service so that positions were eliminated?


William Daum Euler: Practically all these ports
were very small; in fact the salaries ranged from $200 up. Many of the officers were not receiving more than $200 a year; they were only part time employees. In a really strict sense, many of these so-called ports were not full-fledged ports at all and there was not a great deal of monetary saving in abolishing them. The chief reason for their abolition was in connection with appraisals. It is impossible, in these small places, where men are not qualified, where they have no knowledge of commodities, to get proper appraisals, and that is the real reason for closing a number of the ports. The saving was comparatively small. In most instances where the officers were full-time officers, we transferred them, wherever possible, to some other point where their services could be utilized.


Robert James Manion: Including those receiving $200 or $300 a year, how many of these men had their positions eliminated by the closing of the ports?


William Daum Euler: Perhaps 125.


Robert James Manion: What I am going to speak of now has nothing to do with the Canada Starch Company about which I was asking the minister the other day. A gentleman stated to me on the street-and I merely pass this on and ask the minister to give his version of it-that at most of the ports that have been closed, the entries are being made to-day just as they were before; in other words, that the ports have not really been closed. What is the minister's statement as to that?
Supply[DOT]-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: That is almost altogether untrue. There are only two or three cases of that kind. For instance, Queenston was a part of Niagara. It is handled in that way still; the officer belongs to the Niagara port instead of Queenston being a seperate port.


Robert James Manion: I asked this question to
clear the matter up and not with any other desire. I do not know anything about it myself, but the statement was made to me.


James Dew Chaplin: As regards the port of Queenston, there would not be any saving of expense in what the minister has done in that regard, would there?


William Daum Euler: The appraisal is done at Niagara Falls.


James Dew Chaplin: But Queenston is five or six miles from Niagara Falls and seven or eight miles from Niagara-on-the-Lake. It is a point where vessels land.


William Daum Euler: The officer is there and
attends to clearances of vessels.


James Dew Chaplin: I ask the minister where there is any saving in connection with officers.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps there is not a great deal of saving, and as a matter of fact it might be that the ports should have been closed entirely. Perhaps that will follow. As I have already intimated, there is not a great deal of financial saving in the closing of these ports. The chief factor in the situation is the matter of appraisals.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me to be a matter of convenience as much as anything else. I do not know whether I am on the right item or not, but I should like to ask the minister a question and I have not yet [DOT] had an opportunity of doing so. I notice from last year's public accounts that the minister has been buying quite a few automobiles in his own city, presumably for the customs service around the country. Some of these machines went as far as British Columbia, some to Quebec, and some to Ontario. How does it come about that his own city is favoured with these purchases?


William Daum Euler: I rather expected that somebody would ask that question. The orders were given entirely on tender, and if my hon. friend desires, I can give him the prices with regard to one particular make of car which, perhaps, I need not specify. One tender price was $1,825; another was $2,225; another was 
$1,955, and the one that was accepted, which came from a Kitchener firm, was $1,815, by far the lowest tender, for the same make of car.


James Dew Chaplin: The same car?


William Daum Euler: Yes, delivered at destination.


Mr. COOTE:: What were those cars used for?


William Daum Euler: For patrolling the border,
preventive service.


James Dew Chaplin: Do I understand the
minister to say that he got in Kitchener a price for a car that was equal to the price he could get at Quebec, for instance? One of those cars went to Quebec. Did the minister at the same time ask for tenders in the city of Quebec? It seems strange that a car should be shipped to Quebec from Kitchener. Were tenders for that particular car asked for in the city of Quebec; and similarly, were tenders asked for in British Columbia?


William Daum Euler: Tenders were asked for in
the places in which the cars were needed. Surely it should not be to the discredit of even the minister or the town from which he comes if the dealers there were able to underbid other dealers. They are very keen business men in that town, and they know they have to deliver the right kind of goods at the right prices in order to get the business. That does not apiply only to motor cars.


Mr. POWER:: I should like to make this suggestion to the minister: recently the government decided on a policy somewhat different from that which it followed two years ago with regard to clearances of liquor, a question which has been discussed in the house at some length. It appears that the government has continued in its employ as a solicitor, Mr. Rowell, who is, I am sure, net sympathetic with the government in its praiseworthy and patriotic stand in connection with liquor clearances. I should like to enter into a discussion in committee with the minister in regard to the expense account of Mr. Rowell. I would point out to him that in view of the overwhelming sentiment of this house and of this country it is not the right thing for the minister to have in his employ someone who is not wholeheartedly in sympathy with him on this policy, and I would ask him if he will seriously consider employing other counsel than Mr. Rowell. But first I should like to know what he cost the country.

Supply-National Revenue


James Dew Chaplin: I think you can get reasonable support for that suggestion over here.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what I am looking for. I should like to know just how much this country has spent on Mr. Rowell in prosecuting the cases which have arisen out of the customs investigation.


William Daum Euler: I do not quite follow my
hon. friend when he says that Mr. Rowell is not in sympathy with the policy of the department. That may apply to clearances of liquor, but Mr. Rowell bad nothing whatever to do with that. He was retained to conduct the cases against the breweries and distilleries against which we were proceeding for sales and gallonage taxes. On my recommendation he was employed by the Department of Justice and paid by them, for two reasons. He was employed because he had an absolutely thorough knowledge of the whole situation. He had previously been employed by the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise and knew the business of the breweries and distilleries I think better than any other lawyer in the country. That was one of the reasons we employed him. The other reason was this: he is a first-class lawyer, and while perhaps even I might not agree with Mr. Rowell in everything, he has obtained results, and that after all is what this committee and this parliament desire.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to obtain a
statement of those results. Can the minister give the committee a statement showing how many cases Mr. Rowell prosecuted, how many he won, and how many he lost?


William Daum Euler: We collected almost $2,500,000, as a direct result of the activities of Mr. Rowell, from the breweries and distilleries.


Charles Gavan Power: How many cases did he
lose?


William Daum Euler: Two, and they are under,
appeal now.


Charles Gavan Power: How much did they involve?


William Daum Euler: One, $600,000 and the other about $300,000.


Charles Gavan Power: He wins about $2,500,000
and loses about $1,000,000. A lot of lawyers can do that.


William Daum Euler: We already have collected
about $2,500,000, and I think we will collect the other $900,000 as well.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the minister speaking
from personal sympathy or from legal knowledge? Mr. Rowell has received large fees from this government, and I think we should be able to receive a report on his activities.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much has he
received?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know; that is
what I want to know, and I think we are entitled to know just how much. I think the minister ought to get that somewhere.


William Daum Euler: I would suggest to my hon.
friend that he put that question on the order paper. In any event the cases are conducted by the Department of Justice and not by the Department of National Revenue, and Mr. Rowell's fees are paid by the Department of Justice.


James Dew Chaplin: Speaking of the same
gentleman, Mr. Rowell, I should like to inquire from the minister if it is true that a certain gentleman wanted to give evidence to this solicitor and that he followed him around to several places? I am referring to Mr. James Cooper, of Windsor, who wanted to give certain evidence to Mr. Rowell, and Mr. Rowell never took his evidence. Does the minister know about that case?


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge of that whatever.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I asked some questions the other evening regarding the port of Pug-wash. What was the officer there paid?


William Daum Euler: He was paid $560 per
annum.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister be good enough to let me know whether he has a shipping master at that port?


William Daum Euler: I have not that information.


Thomas Cantley: I should judge that there is not one there, and in that case I would ask what is to be done when a foreign vessel arrives at that port. Her crew has to be paid off, ' and before she sails the master has to sign on another crew. That can only be done before a shipping master. Is it a fact that there is no shipping master nearer than Pictou? If that be so, is it not a fact that the master of the ship must take his crew to Pictou and there get them discharged before a shipping master?


William Daum Euler: Only four foreign vessels
arrived at that port in the whole year.
Supply-National Revenue


Thomas Cantley: Suppose there was only one. The point is how can that work be done?


William Daum Euler: The postmaster is a customs officer and can do it.


Thomas Cantley: The postmaster is not a shipping master.


William Daum Euler: Even if it were necessary to go to another point, I do not think we would be justified in keeping open that port for the sake of four vessels that depart in a year.


Thomas Cantley: I think there have been more than four.


William Daum Euler: No, I have the figures.


Thomas Cantley: How many sailing vessels and how many steamers?


William Daum Euler: The statement I have shows that four foreign vessels arrived. I do not know whether they were sailing vessels or steamers.


Thomas Cantley: The minister gave me a list of seventeen other vessels that were using the port.


William Daum Euler: Those were coasting vessels that departed to the number of seventeen.


Thomas Cantley: How can you sign off the crew without going before a shipping master?


William Daum Euler: They do not need clearances at all.


Thomas Cantley: Foreign vessels do.


William Daum Euler: Only four foreign vessels
departed.


Thomas Cantley: Suppose there are four; are you going to compel the masters of those four foreign vessels to take their crews to Pictou, which is the nearest port where there is a shipping master, to have them signed off and have another crew signed on there?


William Daum Euler: I really think it would
hardly be justifiable to keep open the port and pay the expenses of an official in order to serve the needs of four vessels. It might result in a little inconvenience and expense to the owners of these four vessels, but it seems to me a very good case has been made out for the abolition of the port by my hon. friend's argument.


Thomas Cantley: That is not the only argument.


William Daum Euler: It is not a very strong argument.


Thomas Cantley: It is only part of my
argument. This port has been open for seventy-five years or more. The minister closes it, and he admits that the whole saving is only four or five hundred dollars a year. To have that port open is some convenience to the people of that district apart from signing on and signing off crews. We talk of encouraging foreign trade, but you are not encouraging foreign trade very much under those conditions.


William Daum Euler: I have just been informed
that the crews can be sworn on before a justice of the peace. I am not very familiar with the shipping business or with marine law, but my hon. friend will know whether that is a fair explanation.


Thomas Cantley: If that is so, it is something that I never knew before, and I doubt the statement very much.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: I am in the shipping business and I have sworn on crews before a justice of the peace.


Thomas Cantley: Sailors on foreign ships?


Arnold Neilson Smith: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: I think you had better
revise your information. You may do it on the lakes; you do not do it in the maritimes.


Mr. FRASER:: In this return the minister
submits two orders in council as his authority for paying these premiums, one dated September 9, 1898, and the other May 6, 1907. What sections of the act give authority for these orders in council?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid my hon. friend
hardly expects me to answer that question.


John Anderson Fraser: I certainly do not: but
will the minister get the answer for me9


William Daum Euler: I shall be glad to.


Charles Gavan Power: To revert again to Mr. Rowell, I do not wish the committee-


Thomas Cantley: Hit him again.


Charles Gavan Power: No. I do not wish the
committee to be under the impression for one moment that I have not the highest opinion of Mr. Rowell as a solicitor and as a citizen. But I do object to his being employed by the government; first of all, because I do not think he is in sympathy with its policy; and secondly, because I do not think-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the policy, may I ask?

Supply-National Revenue


Charles Gavan Power: The policy of the government with regard to the clearance of liquor.


William Daum Euler: He has nothing to do with
that.


Charles Gavan Power: He has a lot to do with
it. I would not have a man in my employ who did not agree with me all the way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the trouble with the harbour commission of Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a pretty good harbour commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On that principle.


Charles Gavan Power: The difficulty is that here
is a question which is being violently agitated in public, and one of the most important men working for the department is absolutely out of sympathy with the minister.


William Daum Euler: Not at all.


Charles Gavan Power: On that question he is.
Surely you are not going to tell me that Mr. Rowell has changed! If he has I will apologize. As a lawyer he has a perfect right to his personal opinion on almost anything, but on matters connected with the business for which he is employed he should, at any rate ostensibly, support the policy of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think he supports the
government.


Mr. KAISER:: What is the policy of the
government?


Charles Gavan Power: There is another reason. As I said before, I believe Mr. Rowell to be a very upright, honest man, but personally he has not the sympathy of a large portion of our population. He managed to alienate it some time ago, and he has never been able to get it back. I wish to warn the minister that there is a possibility that if he continues in the good graces of the minister he may, as it is rumoured in the public press, be appointed as the Canadian arbitrator on the I'm Alone case. I want to tell the minister if that is so-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will be alone.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, he will be alone; and I hope he finds against us because we will deserve it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Would the hon. member
be kind enough to tell us what is this government's policy in regard to clearances?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sure I don't know.


Felix Patrick Quinn: May we expect any further consideration of the claim of Charles F. Longley in connection with the Admiral Beatty matter? The minister is thoroughly with it as are nearly all hon. members, because it was discussed here last session. Briefly, this is the case. Longley chartered this vessel to a native of France to carry a cargo of liquor from St. Pierre Miquelon to Nassau. Off the Nova Scotia coast she became disabled, sprang a leak, and had to put into Halifax, where some repairs were made. She left again and was only a hundred miles off shore when she had rudder trouble and again had to seek shelter. Because of some five small flasks of liquor being carried ashore on the persons of the crew, the vessel was seized and held under detention for fourteen months until the trial took place before Mr. Justice A. K. Maclean of the Exchequer court. He held:
I am therefore of the opinion that the seizure of the Admiral Beatty and her cargo has not been justified, and they should be discharged from the custody of the crown and delivered to their owners, and free of any charges or expense incident to the detention.
Longley claimed that his vessel became unseaworthy because of her detention in the port of Shelburne for fourteen months in all kinds of weather. Her sails became rotten, her chains rusty, her deck planks unsound, and her bulwarks were stove in by a storm that took place shortly before she was released. I understand there was a delay of three or four weeks after the vessel was discharged before Mr. Longley could take possession of her because of his financial condition.
I submit in view of the facts of the case, with which the minister is fully familiar, that some compensation should be paid to Mr. Longley because of what is practically the loss of his vessel. Following the decision of Mr. Justice Maclean on August 16, 1927, the vessel was discharged, and Mr. Longley took delivery the following October. But she has been laid up ever since, unfit for any use whatever. As a result of the loss of his vessel Mr. Longley today is practically penniless. He has a claim for damages against the department of which up to the present he has been unable to recover a dollar. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has mentioned a gentleman who has been employed by this department and treated very generously. According to the last record obtainable he had received over $50,000 for nine months' legal services. If the department can treat a gentleman of the legal profession so generously, the minister ought at least to compensate Mr. Longley for the loss of his vessel.
Supply-National Revenue


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, this matter was very fully discussed last session, and I am not going into the details again. Perhaps I might give one of the reasons which determined us not to grant the request, and that is that the damage to the vessel was occasioned after notice had been given to the owner to remove it from the dock. He did not do so, a storm came up, and damage resulted. There may have been some other damage, but the judge did not in any sense hold the department responsible. Under all the circumstances I am afraid that while I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. friend's constituent, I cannot hold out a great deal of hope at the moment that we will change our course of action as decided upon at that time.


Thomas Cantley: I was one of those who discussed this matter last session. The minister's statement is only partly correct. The damage resulting to the bulwarks of the vessel I will admit probably occurred as the minister has suggested, but the main damage was occasioned during the long period that she was held by the department without any effort whatever being made to protect her from such damage as must result to any vessel exposed throughout the summer, winter, spring and autumn. The sails were rotted, a lot of the deck planking was damaged, the spars were in bad shape, the standing rigging was practically worn out and the running rigging was gone completely. All that occurred prior to the time when the vessel was supposed to be redelivered to the owner. (Surely in 'these circumstances the minister will not maintain that his department is not responsible or that the unfortunate owner of the vessel is not entitled to some compensation. That is not reasonable, it is not British justice, and I should expect something very much better from the minister, knowing what I do of him, than to offer such a suggestion as he has made to-night.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps my hon. friend forgets that the case was tried in the exchequer court, whose decision freed the department of liability. In the face of that he will realize that it would be pretty difficult for the department to pay money by way of damages when the court had decided that we were not liable. However, I will say this to him. If Mr. Longley decides to appeal from that decision we will certainly not put any barrier in his way, and if the appeal should be successful I should be glad to have him recompensed.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Does the minister realize
the position Mr. Longley is in? The man is practically penniless to-day and is not able to make an appeal. He cannot do anything

to recover damages. He is not in a position to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Maclean. I showed the minister the report of a master mariner and marine surveyor as to the condition of the vessel about the time she was delivered to the owner. He said that the standing rigging was worn out, the running rigging was gone and the whole vessel in exceedingly bad shape. This vessel was held under seizure by the department for fourteen months, and I submit that it should have been taken proper care of while in detention. If the vessel was not delivered to the owner in the same good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, as she was in prior to her detention, then I claim that the department should recompense this man for the damage sustained. In addition to that, I have affidavits from two other master mariners, sworn to before notaries public in the province of Nova Scotia, all in the same strain. These men declare that the vessel is absolutely unfit for going to sea. I submit that some compensation should be given to Mr. Longley because of the carelessness of the department while the vessel was in their hands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
MINES AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Mines Branch
For investigation of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and reaseareh laboratories, investigations by Dominion Fuel Board, including salaries and all other expenses, $257,000.
For operation of peat 'bog at Alfred, Ontario, $25,000.
For publications, English and French, purchase of books, laboratory supplies, instruments, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $45,000.
For transportation charges from outlying provinces on ore shipments which may be sent to the ore dressing plant of the Mines branch at Ottawa for testing purposes, under regulations approved by the Minister of Mines, $1,000.
To compensate J. H. Fortune for quarters, fuel, light and water supplied him as resident caretaker of the Mines branch building, Sussex St., vacated because of the necessity of utilizing the caretaker's quarters for storage and laboratory space, $400.
Appropriation not required for 1929-30.- Total, $328,400.
Mr. WHITE (London):: Will the minister make a statement with regard to the peat bog at Alfred?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister "of Mines):: We have been operating at Alfred
for some years. Last year we completed the machinery and put the plant in operation but did not have a very successful season, there having been so much wet weather. The

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
quantities depend very largely on the extent of dry weather there is, becauses the peat is air-dried on the ground. We made about six thousand tons last year and have a considerable quantity still on hand.


John Franklin White: What is the cost
per ton?


Charles A. Stewart: The estimated cost is $3.50. We have had to buy a considerable amount of machinery and to pay the cost of replacements and adjustments in machinery, and this runs into a good deal of money. We have spent $87,000 on capital acoouut since taking the plant over from Peat Fuels Limited and equipping it. We had an agreement with Peat Fuels Limited whereby, at the expiry of the lease executed, they were to take the plant back at the amount expended by us, and the arrangement included the provision that if the department and Peat Fuels Limited did not agree the matter should be submitted to the exchequer oaurt. We find ourselves in that position to-day: We cannot come to an agreement as to the price they are to pay us and the question is being referred to the exchequer court for adjustment. When it is settled Peat Fuels Limited will ooime into possession of the plant and resume openaitions.


George Reginald Geary: Have you produced peat
fuel?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; we
have a little more than four thousand tons on hand, having produced six thousand tons last year.
Mr. ADSH'EAD: What is the fuel sold for?


Charles A. Stewart: It is sold
at $3.50 but I am not sure whether that includes loading charges.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is what it costs;
but what do you get for it?


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
reasonable cost of production.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am not asking that;
I want to know what you sell it for.


Charles A. Stewart: Peat Fuels
Limited were the selling agents and I believe they retailed it in Montreal at about $10.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But the department gets
nothing back. It costs us $3.50 to produce the fuel, and what do we get back?


Charles A. Stewart: We sold outright at $3.50.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What did it cost to produce?


Charles A. Stewart: Just about that amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a loss, was
there not?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total loss?


Charles A. Stewart: That will
be difficult to estimate until the courts decide what amount we are entitled to receive from the company.


Thomas Cantley: I think up to the beginning of last year we lost about $350,000, because we have been playing with this project for about twenty-one years. Last year the minister got $50,000 from parliament for this purpose and made some arrangement with somebody whom he referrs to as Peat-Fuels Limited, but apparently he got into trouble with them and he can now neither hold on nor let go. And so we are asked for $25,000 more after having spent $350,000 already with absolutely nothing to show for it. Are those not the facts?


Charles A. Stewart: Investigations of this character cannot be carried out for nothing, and I think I am safe in making the statement that this plant is Capable of turning out a maximum of 20,000 tons in a good year, but to be on the safe side we will say it will average 15,000 tons annually. We have had to make trials and test out the machinery; as a matter of fact we have had to develop new machinery, because so far as I know there is no similar plant operating anywhere. This machinery is designed as a labour saving device for the manufacture of peat fuel. In the villages surrounding that plant there is a very large quantity of hardwood used for domestic fuel, for which use this peat fuel is adapted, and in my opinion every ton of the output of that plant can be sold in the immediate vicinity without shipping a single ton to Montreal. I frankly admit that, like other people who enter into agreements, we sometimes reach the place where we have to ask the courts to make a decision as to the difference between us, and that is the case in this instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the real difference?


Charles A. Stewart: To be quite frank, I have never had a definite offer from Peat Fuels Limited as to what they are willing to pay. I have had tentative offers of $40,000, but we have spent $87,000 on capita! ac-

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
count and we think we Should recover that amount, or ait least the greater part of it. The only thing for me to do was to apply the remedy contained in the agreement and submit the question to the exchequer court for a decision, I may say it is not our intention to operate that plant this year, and we will not require the money which is included in this item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then take it out.


Charles A. Stewart: I am perfectly willing to do so.


James Dew Chaplin: Was the $50,000 voted
last year all spent?


Charles A. Stewart: I find that we will require $600 for picking up the fuel still on the bog; $3,000 for handling the peat in stock;; $2,000 for harvesting the humus, which is ground peat now used on greens on golf courses, and $5,000 for selling expenses, so apparently I was rather hasty in saying we would not require this money. We will need approximately this sum to finish selling the peat already on hand in order to realize on it.


Thomas Cantley: I venture to say that the minister will not get back the amount of money he proposes to spend this year.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I will get back this money.


Thomas Cantley: The minister has said
something to that effect every year when this matter has been under discussion.


Charles A. Stewart: While we
are experimenting with machinery and putting in new machinery, of necessity it will have to be charged to capital account, but this amount is simply to dispose of the material on hand and realize what we can from it.


Thomas Cantley: The minister and his
predecessors have been coming to parliament year after year in connection with this matter. I have here a report issued in 1925 which contains statements as to the amount of peat handled in the previous year, the amount that was to be handled the next year, the type of machinery being replaced by other machinery and so on. The real fact is that we have spent $350,000 or more, as I said, before, and got nowhere. In former years I have dealt with this matter at some length and pointed out that as a commeicial proposition, peat fuel is not in the class of fuel that can be dealt with mechanically. There are about 4,000,000 people in Ireland and they consume about 8,000,000 tons of peat; that supply is obtained by peasants spading it out

in the spring months, stacking it up to dry and using it during the ensuing eleven or twelve months of the year. It is not a mechanical proposition at all but a domestic one. As the minister knows, the water content of peat is very high. In discussing this question on a former occasion the minister referred to the difficulty of drying peat in this country particularly in the summer months, because of the moisture in the air. Unfortunately that is true; there is much more moisture in the air in warm weather than is the case in cold weather. When the temperature is below zero there is no moisture in the air at all; it is completely dried out, but during the summer months the moisture content is very high and it is much higher on some days than on others. That affects the water absorbed by the peat just as a sponge absorbs water; the combined moisture cannot be abstracted by solar heat or anv other kind of heat. I believe the minister is aware of that fact; that is the great difficulty and it is one reason why peat has a very low fuel value.
There are three difficulties in connection with peat; ithe first is its low thermal value; the second is its bulk and the third is its friability and the difficulty of handling it without reducing it to powder. Why the minister continues to spend large sums of money year after year in the face of all that has been spent and the continued failures in connection with this project is something I am at a loss to understand. Last year, when we appropriated $50,000 for this purpose, I thought we had heard the last of this unfortunate enterprise which has dragged on for more than twenty years.


Charles A. Stewart: These experiments usually result in the discovery of a process that will be beneficial to the community. I only need cite the expenditure of $1,000,000 at Bienfait by the government which we succeeded. Apparently there was no result from that expenditure but to-day, following that experiment, a splendid plant is being established there by British capital for the manufacturing of low grade fuel and the making of briquettes. All I can say for the peat proposition is that I inherited it along with the Bienfait project. My hon. friend is quite correct when he says he has objected to the peat experiments during all these years. However, I repeat that this plant is capable of turning out in the neighbourhood of 15,000 tons annually, and in competition with hard wood-of course it is not being offered in competition with coal-it is a

Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
cheaper fuel for the people of the locality in which this particular bog is situated. We have proved that it cannot be shipped long distances and that it is a fuel which cannot be handled frequently; it must be handled very rapidly from the drying up to the point of consumption. Therefore, I suggest that we must dispose of what we have manufactured already in the immediate vicinity. I may say that a private company is operating at St. Hyaciiinthe now and we are not assisting them in any way; all I am asking for is an amount to permit of the present fuel being disposed of. We are awaiting the decision of the count as to whait amount is to be fixed for Peat Fuels Limited.


Thomas Cantley: I am glad the minister has admitted as many facts as he has, because it is a distinct change from the position he took two or there years ago. How much peat is actually on the ground?


Charles A. Stewart: About four thousand tons.


Thomas Cantley: How much is the minister asking for to dispose of that?


Charles A. Stewart: 


Thomas Cantley: To sell four thousand tons of peat which is actually upon the ground?
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton): Yes, but my hon. friend will bear in mind that we expect to recover a certain amount. The Ontario government has agreed to put in $10,000, and it is necessary to grade and gravel about two miles of road in order to get to the main highway with our trucks. Owing to weather conditions it was impossible to do that last year; aJIll the peat which was marketed had to be marketed in carload lots in Montreal, and we discovered that that is not a profitable way to handle this commodity. It should sell at about $8 per ton, so my hon. friend will be able to see what amount we expect to recover.


Thomas Cantley: If the hon. minister gets $10,000 from the Ontario government he is still spending $12,000 to handle four thousand tons of peat.


Charles A. Stewart: We estimate that it will take in the neighbourhood of $7,000 to repair the road. As this road is in the province, we have asked the Ontario government whether or not they will consider the repairs as being part of their contribution to this experiment.


Thomas Cantley: That does not improve it very much, because when the small pile of peat is gone the road would be of no value. The minister referred to some experiments carried on in New Brunswick.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I did not.


Thomas Cantley: If not-where?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a new plant going into operation at St. Hyacinthe.


Thomas Cantley: This peat has some value. It is an excellent absorbent and in the powdered form it has a small sale, but the quantity bought and sold for that purpose is comparatively small. From what the minister has said I would judge that he is through with the peat experiment. When the minister was referring last year to an experiment in the west he stated that he had thrown away a miliion dollars.


Mr. SI  EWART@Edmonton: I did not say that we had thrown away a million dollars.


Thomas Cantley: You said something which was pretty close to that. The minister's words were as follows:
Notwithstanding the fact that we have spent $1,000,000 of good hard cash of this Dominion on that experiment, which was said to be a failure-*
I understand that that experiment has been taken over by another concern and there is some difficulty in connection with that transaction.


Charles A. Stewart: In what
way?


Thomas Cantley: I understand there has
been some misunderstanding with the people who have taken it over.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
nothing to do with them.


Thomas Cantley: Under what conditions
was the plant taken over?


Charles A. Stewart: The coal was being purchased from the Western Dominion Collieries, and a large proportion of the money invested in those collieries was English money. Mr. Sutherland, who was in charge, has since died but the mine is still controlled by the same company. They have decided to erect a plant at Bienfait upon the premises occupied by the original experimental plant, erected by
3532	COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Geological Survey
the Lignite Utilization Board. We are not connected with She matter in any way except that they hope to come under the provisions of the domestic fuels act, while we do not believe that they can come within the provisions of that act.


Thomas Cantley: I understand that that
plant was erected for the purpose of briquetting brown coal; is that the fact?


Charles A. Stewart: It is Canadian lignite; I do not know whether you would call it brown coal.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, it is the same thing. I do not see any possibility of their coming within the provisions of the coking act because briquetting and coking are two totally different operations and there is no connection between them. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence between the department and these people.


Charles A. Stewart: It is very
difficult for me to see just how they can come under the provisions of the act, but they have a high temperature carbonization plant through which the coal is put before it is briquetted.


Thomas Cantley: Their idea is simply to
heat the coal to a temperature of four or five hundred degrees in order to make it plastic by liberating some of the oils and tarry substances in the hope that thereby they will then be enabled to briquette it. Whether that will actually work out in practice remains to be seen, but that is beside the question. If those people are prepared to spend their own money in making that experiment, I have no objection, and I do not think the minister will object. I should like to call the attention of the house and of the minister to some of the activities of the mining department. A good many publications were issued-


John Frederick Johnston: It is now eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house, I beg leave to present the sixteenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, June 11, 1929