1929-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) presented the fourth and final report of the select standing committee on public accounts as follows: Thursday, June 6, 1929. The select standing committee on public accounts beg leave to present the following as their fourth and final report:
Your committee have examined witnesses and taken evidence respecting the following:
A payment of $72,138.39 to A. S. MacMillan. Halifax, in connection with construction work at Bedford Basin, Nova Scotia, as set out at page 0-27, vol. II, of the Auditor Generals Report for the fisoal year ending March 31, 1927; and also,
A payment of $88,989.72 ito A. S. MacMillan, Halifax, in connection with the Hudson Bay Expedition, as set out at page 0-27, vol. II, of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928; and also,
' A payment of $13,038.50 to S. Cunard & Company, Halifax, in connection with supplies to the Hudson Bay Expedition, as set out at
Business oj the House
[Stage Direction]
page O 

20. vol. II, of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending Marc*h 31,
Eleven meetings of your committee have been held at which meetings twelve witnesses were examined, and the proceedings and evidence adduced therefrom, printed.
Your committee append herewith a copy of the said evidence for the information of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) S. W. Jacobs,
Chairman.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) moved:: That for the remainder of the session all private bills from the Senate, when received from that house, be read a first and second time and be referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of bills be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise to a point of order.
Standing order 116 states:
Except in eases 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.
I submit that under this standing order the motion is out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Under ordinary circumstances I should say that the point was well taken; but, the hon. member must read carefully the first line of standing order 116 from which he has just quoted:
Except in eases of urgent and pressing necessity.
The raison d'etre of the present motion is that the session will soon conclude, and if these bills are to be entertained by the house, standing order 105 must be suspended. Notice was given of this motion, and in my judgment, reading standing order 116 as it should be read,
I rule the motion in order. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: A few days ago the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) asked me to table the report of Judge Ellis in regard to fish traps in the northern waters of British Columbia, I am pleased to be in a position to comply with his request, and I now table that report.



INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Howard, that the third report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house on Friday, May 31, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill 341, for the relief of Kenneth Blackwood Gibb-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill 345, for the relief of Edith Spencley.- Mr. Hepburn.
Bill 346, for the relief of Annie Farrow.- Mr. Boys.
Bill 347, for the relief of Evelyn Mae AVar-ren.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill 348, for the relief of Louis Coit Dar-gavel.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill 349, for the relief of Vera Maud Gen-dron.-Mr. Hepburn.

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

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton-North Arictoria):: 1.	Is one W. J. Thibeau in the employ of the Customs department?
2.	If so, what is bis salary?
3.	What commissions or expenses have been paid to the said Thibeau during the past year?


Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2. Mr. W. J. Thibeau is authorized to act as a customs excise enforcement officer, without salary.
3. He was paid no commissions or expenses but was paid $223.26 as his share of awards in customs seizures.


GRAND TRUNK STOCKHOLDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a cable which I have received from a friend in London, stating that the Grand Trunk perpetual stockholders offered to; send a deputation to Ottawa to negotiate a friendly settlement of their difficulties, but that nothing came of the offer. He requested me to ask whether or not .the government intended to take any action in the premises during the recess' towards carrying on such negotiations.
332S

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): These so-called negotiations were commenced when a previous administration was in office; I think Mr. Meighen was Prime Minister at the time. I had gathered that they had been ended some time ago.


YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 343, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Location valid, etc.
Mr. SPENCER:: Would the minister give
us some explanation?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The object
of this amendment to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act is to assist in the better administration of the act and to prevent action being taken by claim jumpers where very substantial compliance with the regulations has been undertaken by the lessee. One case arose in the Yukon over the fact that the location was not quite accurately described, and there was some slight difficulty with regard to payment. I am not quite clear as to all that happened, but I understand that the judge sustained the lessee. Another action is about to be commenced dealing largely with the size of the stakes, and this amendment is designed as a direction to the court that where substantial compliance with the regulations has been undertaken and carried out, the full and minute compliance with the regulations as provided in the act will not entitle the court to give a decision cancelling the lease.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $80,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: Would the minister advise the committee of his intention as to placing a lifesaving station at Scatarie island?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I realize the importance of the matter which was raised by my hon. friend last night, but I doubt very much if he appreciates the extent of the expenditure necessary were the government to accede to all the representations which are made in regard to the establishment of live-saving stations. The government last year considered the matter of placing a life-saving station at Scatarie island, and it also considered the placing of similar stations at Whitehead and Halifax. When the matter of costs was looked into it was found that it would cost $550,000 to set up these three stations with modern life-saving equipment. The committee will realize what it would cost if this service were extended all over the country. I must confess that when my officers submitted that figure I was somewhat frightened, and I hesitated to ask parliament to vote such a large sum for the establishment of these life-saving stations. The department is not losing sight of the importance of such stations at certain points, but we must realize that it would be impossible for Canada to meet all the requests which have been made for the establishment of life-saving stations. During the last session hon. members from Toronto complained because the department had not established sufficient life-saving stations on the great lakes and that we were not fulfilling our duty in protecting life on these inland waters. If we were to establish modern life-saving stations all over the country it would cost millions of dollars. The United States has been cited as an example, but I visited one of their life-saving stations last year and as far as efficiency is concerned I do not thinlc they are very much ahead of Canada. In that .country the life-saving organization is joined with the coast guard service and Canada might consider the joining of our life-saving service with the protective and patrol service of the National Revenue department and the Fisheries department. I was told by the man in charge of this station which I visited that he had been there for twenty-five years and during that time he had not used the devices which were placed at his disposal. A small gasoline boat on the great lakes would be of very little assistance to a vessel which might be in difficulties in the middle of the lake or at the opposite end, and to give effective service it would mean

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
the establishing of a very expensive organization, and I think we should hesitate before entering into such a large program.
The case of Scaterie island is still being considered by the department. At the present time the deputy minister is in England investigating the system which they have there, and I would advise the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Macdonald) that the case of Scaterie island is very well known to the deputy minister. After giving this matter very careful and full consideration I came to the conclusion that if these requests are to be met it will be necessary for me to come before parliament and ascertain if it is the desire of the house that we have a yearly expenditure of over $1,000,000. The amount for which we are asking is not very large, $80,000, when one considers the extended service which is provided. Our Object always has been to meet the conditions which arise at particular points which we consider to be the most important as far as protecting life is concerned. I realize that Scatarie island is an important point and I can assure my hon. friend that that matter is not being lost sight of.


Mr. HARRIS:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made reference to the great lakes and to the city of Toronto, and before this vote is passed I would like to refer to the complaints which have been made as to the inspection service of passenger boats on the great lakes and the inadequate supply of rafts and lifesaving apparatus on those boats. Some of the boats are from twenty to thirty years old and they are still carrying very heavy passenger lists across the great lakes. Perhaps the minister would make a few observations with regard to this particular inspection service over which he has control and as to the adequacy of the life-saving apparatus on these vessels.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What my hon. friend has mentioned was the subject of certain study, but one of the hon. members representing the city of Toronto made a direct observation with regard to the life-saving stations that we have around the lakes. With regard to the last point raised by my hon. friend, this is the business of the ship inspectors, and the instructions which they receive from the department are very strict. If my hon. friend has any case in which the inspector has not been fulfilling his duty, I shall be glad to hear of it and to take the necessary means to correct it.


Mr. MANION:: I took some part in that
discussion last year when one of the Toronto 
members brought up the matter. I suggested at the time that the department or the government should have some form of meeting with the vessel owners and the employees on the boats in order to discuss the question of curtailing the movements of vessels to a certain extent for the last few days at least of the season's navigation. My recollection is that the minister at that time said that such a proposal wras intended to be carried out. What has been done in that regard?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have always made representations to the ship owners to cease navigating the lakes when the season was reasonably closed. We find that most of the accidents happening on the lakes occur after what we call the regular or reasonable close of navigation. But we have always been making representations to these companies that they should not take upon themselves the great risk of navigating the lakes when the reasonable season is closed. They are not always disposed to act upon the representations we make. We are trying to curtail as much as possible the risks they are taking in navigating too late on the lakes.


Robert James Manion: I entirely agree with the minister that the danger is after the reasonable season of navigation is over. At times an attitude of carelessness has been taken towards the lives of the men employed upon vessels. I wish again to impress upon the minister the reasonableness of endeavouring to have what has been suggested carried out. I do not wish to suggest an unreasonable curtailment of the season of navigation, but certainly it should be the duty of parliament as far as possible to preserve the lives of the seamen from any absolutely unnecessary dangers to which they are exposed by an unreasonable extension of the navigation period.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: I note that the minister objects to improvement of the life-saving station at Scatarie island, and I am very sorry that he takes this attitude. He claims that if we are going to establish one station we should have two or three. Anybody acquainted with conditions on the Atlantic coast realizes the dangers to which shipping is exposed and I am sure that if the minister and the deputy minister had taken the interest in this matter that they should have taken in the past, they also would be cognizant of the situation at Scatarie island and would have taken steps to provide the remedy. The cost of giving them at least some form of life-saving station would not amount to more than $25,000, and I claim that Scatarie island is second only to Sable

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
island in being the most dangerous point on the north Atlantic coast. During the last five years there has not been a year without at least twenty-five or thirty lives having been exposed on that coast. Last year thirty lives were lost off that very island and the previous year five lives were lost. During the last five years not one year has passed without four or five lives being lost. These men were not all Canadians, it is true, but if the government takes the attitude it does, I cannot see how we are going to relieve the existing situation. We spend enormous sums of money for other things, but we cannot find a dollar to spend for the saving of human life. Would it not be better for the department and the deputy minister to take the money they are now spending in other directions and utilize it for the establishment of a proper life-saving station at Scatarie island? It is my intention to bring this matter up on every occasion and I am going to press for it because I consider it essential in the interest of the country. It is one of the most humane things we can do. The poor sailor who goes out to sea is risking his life at all times, and it should be our duty to furnish him with every possible safeguard and to do everything we can to minimize the risks of his hazardous calling.


Finlay MacDonald: I wish to join with the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton in impressing upon the minister the necessity of some improvement in the life-saving service at Scatarie island. It does not form part of my constituency, but it is perhaps the most dangerous point on the Atlantic coast and the equipment there now is totally inadequate. It would not cost anything like a million dollars to equip the station properly. If the minister secured a vote of $10,000 or $15,000 for a proper boat there, that would fulfil the requirements at the present time, but something is urgently needed at that point.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Has any provision
been made for life-saving at Sable island?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed there is a life-saving station there.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: If Sable island has a life-saving station, there is certainly every necessity for one at Scatarie island.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is also one at Scatarie island. The complaint is that it is not big enough.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: I think Scatarie island, more than any other island on the Atlantic coast with perhaps the exception of 78594-211
Sable island, is entitled to a life-saving station. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton that the government should do something at once to provide means there of protecting the lives of the sailors. The sum need not necessarily be a large one. Disasters of all kinds are happening every year and have been happening for many years around that island.


Finlay MacDonald: The
minister said there was a life-saving station at Scatarie island. If he calls the present equipment that the government has placed on Scatarie island a life-saving station, it is a disgrace to the government and the country. Scatarie island is in my constituency and I have visited it on more than one occasion. The island is situated nine miles from the mainland of Main a Dieu and I would not for a minute go into a pool the size of this parliament building in the lifeboat that is now at Scatarie island. You can see daylight through the bottom of the lifeboat. We have no life-saving crew on Scatarie island. The government supplied a boat there some years ago and that is as far as the government has gone in that regard. The only time the lifeboat was ever used- was when volunteers went out in it and the government pays them the paltry sum of a dollar or two when they go out. I do not believe there is a man on the island who would risk his life by going out in that boat. It is up to the government to give the matter some consideration. The minister cannot understand the seriousness of the situation when he stands up in this house and makes the statements he does. It would pay the minister if he or his deputy or one of his officials were to visit that spot and see the wrecks that are strewn around that coast, and let him ask any of the men in the vicinity as to the number of human lives that have been lost there in the last five years. If the minister would only look into the situation, I am sure he would not make the statements he does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the minister has ever been down by the Atlantic ocean when there was a storm. I recall being on the Atlantic coast when one of those fierce storms came in from the sea, and when you observe what takes place around any of these small islands, and especially if there happens to be a fog, as there frequently is-well, I should not like to be the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and feel that I had not utilized the public exchequer to provide facilities there for life-saving. I say that to the minister very seriously. I travelled along that coast last



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
year by motor. Part of the time it was very foggy, and once there was a very heavy storm. There are wrecks of ships along that Nova Scotia shore and skeletons are sometimes washed up of men who have lost their lives. Seatarie island has been responsible for the loss of a good many vessels and many lives, and I suggest to the minister that he could provide at least reasonably decent life-saving facilities out of the miscellaneous vote. To carry into effect the suggestions that have been made would not cost I should think more than S2,500 at the moment. I think you could get a lifeboat and small station with that much money, or with $5,000, say, you could provide a gun and a decent boat. I made some inquiries about what these things cost; I am only speaking from memory that is now eight or ten months old, but I think $5,000 would defray the cost of a gun and a decent lifeboat. Now I put this to the minister: Can he rest quietly with the thought that we are voting $100,000 for advertising, $150,000 to do this and $50,000 for something else, when for $5,000 he could provide facilities which might save the lives of half a dozen people, or even only one life? I cannot think that Canada is doing its duty in leaving that island in its present condition, and I do press the minister to say now that he will provide these lifesaving facilities out of the miscellaneous vote. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not baulk at a governor general's warrant, if it became necessary, to provide a few thousand doHars for a cause such as that. I do press the minister not to leave this over for another year. I remember the head of a great shipping corporation telling me that when there were storms and his ships were passing along a certain dangerous shore, he could not sleep at night. That was before the days of wireless. Here we have that condition intensified, and I do press the minister to provide these life-saving facilities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The hon. leader of the opposition may rest assured that we are not losing sight of the importance of the service that has been suggested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you have.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The lives which have been lost in that vicinity are not due to the lack of what may be called proper life-saving appliances. They are due to accidents which the ships have met with, and nobody can contend that the lives that were lost would have been saved if instead of having one life boat we had two or three.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you cannot call this a boat at all. It is useless; it is unsafe.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is used once in a while
at all events.


Finlay MacDonald: That
boat has not been in the water for years. It is there for ornament.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Apparently the boat has
not been needed. I would not like to be taken as minimizing the importance of the lifesaving service. I quite agree with the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton and the hon. leader of the opposition that it is important to have life-saving facilities even if they are not used, because of the greater confidence and the greater sense of security they give to navigators and the crews of vessels. They feel that there is something there to take care of them if an accident does come.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You certainly could buy
a gun to shoot a line across to a ship.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is one there already.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is no good, I am told.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly it is good, but
I have no objection to meeting the reasonable request that has been made by the hon. gentlemen, and I will see if I cannot take something out of the general vote to meet the situation.


Finlay MacDonald: The
minister states that there is a gun on the island. Where is it placed, and when was it placed there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the gun was placed' there in 1927.


Finlay MacDonald: After the wreck of 1926.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: After I
had brought the matter to the attention of the house. What class of gun is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a line throwing gun.


Finlay MacDonald: How
large?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the standard size.


Finlay MacDonald: For the benefit of the minister I may say that the gun that is on the island is of absolutely no use to the people on the island. This is a fishing community, with twenty-five families living on the island, and they have no roads over which they can transport the gun which the government has supplied. That just shows the information which the government has as to conditions there. They have a gun that cannot even be transported from one

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
place to another. The government should send someone to that island to make an inspection and see just what is necessary. The minister says that no lives were lost as a result of there not being proper life-saving devices. I tell him that five lives were lost in 1926 as a* result of not having the equipment to fire a line aboard a ship. The captain of that ship told me personally-I was with him for five or six days both on Scatarie island and in the town of Louisburg-he waited all night for a line to be fired aboard his ship, and all the time his ship was breaking up and the timber was going mountains high, huge timbers were being crushed to splinters, while he and his orew of thirty men watched the fires burning which the fishermen had lighted on the shore. Those five human lives could have been saved if there had been equipment on the island to fire a line aboard that ship, and I say it is up to this government to look into this situation and provide these life-saving facilities. The facilities could have been used every year in the last five years if they had been there, but there are not proper facilities on the island at the present time. What is there is wholly inadequate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $495,000.
Mr. BRADY:: How many vessels are engaged in the hydrographic service at the present time and where are they stationed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the Pacific coast we
have the steamer Lillooet and the auxiliary house boat the Somass. On the Atlantic coast we have the Acadia, the Cartier and the Bayfield.


James Charles Brady: Have you any engaged in
the Hudson bay?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Acadia is going up
there this summer.


James Charles Brady: Have you any on the great
inland lakes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have none.


James Charles Brady: I notice in the supplementary estimates there is a vote of $400,000 for a new hydrographic survey boat. Is that right?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Charles Brady: On what pant of the coast
will that boat be put in service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for general work on
the Pacific coast.


James Charles Brady: We find along the British
Columbia coast-and I refer now particularly 78594-211i
to the waters north of Vancouver and extending along the whole of Hecate strait, including the Queen Charlotte waters-that there is the greatest need for hydrographic survey work. Let me give an illustration of the hopeless lack of these surveys. A few weeks ago a large company engaged in very extensive logging operations on the Queen Charlotte islands entered into a contract with a transportation company to take out some million logs. The contract contained a clause which had been overlooked by one of the parties; it was to the effect that before the vessel would go into Moore channel the survey chart would have to be produced. There Was no survey chart for this channel. Telegrams were sent to Ottawa, and I took the matter up with the Department of National Revenue, thinking it came under that department. Then I went down to the hydrographic branch and found that the admiralty charts which were supposed to cover these waters had not been printed for years; in fact they are practically out of print and useless. This is the telegram that I received:
On account of extensive activities now going on west coast of Queen Charlotte islands the Queen Charlotte City board of trade request you immediately to take up matter of surveying Moore channel by steamer Lillooet to check up and supplement chart number two one six eight.
It was impossible for the Lillooet to be put on this survey work. The man concerned, had he failed to take out the logs, would have lost thousands of dollars. Therefore he had to go down to San Francisco and buy a steamer to carry out his contract.
At this moment I am not blaming anybody, directly, but I do wish to bring this home to the minister. The Lillooet, an eight hundred ton boat is not fitted to go out into the rough waters contiguous to the Queen Charlotte islands ; in a word, she is not capable of doing the hydrographic survey work along that coast. We are sadly lacking in up-to-date hydrographic survey boats capable of carrying on the work in those dangerous waters. I would impress upon the minister the urgent necessity of setting aside a boat exclusively for this work of charting the waters of the Hecate strait and the adjacent waters. Since the Lillooet cannot be spared from the Vancouver coast, I would recommend to the minister that now 'he is organizing and extending this very important survey work he should take steps to place a suitable hydrographic survey boat in these waters and keep her there for the next seven years on intensive hydrographic survey work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is precisely because we
realize the importanace of what my hon.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
friend has referred to that in the supplementary estimates we are providing for a new boat.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, the member
for Skeena does not tell the house that the hydrographic survey boat has been operating off the Queen Charlotte islands for years and years, to the neglect of the interests lower down the coast, and if the boat has been transferred to Vancouver Island such transfer was long overdue. I am glad to hear that a new hydrographic survey boat is being provided for in the supplementary estimates, and I do hope that it will be in addition to the Lillooet and not to replace it. That perhaps in some way explains why this vote is smaller than it was last year. It was small enough then, and I am sorry to see it reduced. The members from eastern Canada do not appreciate how urgent is the need for this survey work. I recall a year or two ago that Sir Henry Drayton suggested the cutting down of this vote. That is very easy for an eastern man to say, for such survey work has been carried on in eastern waters for a hundred years, but we on the Pacific coast are only now waking up to the absolute necessity of these hydrographic surveys.
This house will perhaps be interested to know that in many places still our seamen are operating by the aid of charts made by Captain Vancouver when the western Pacific was first discovered, so to speak. Vancouver's charts have proved to be very good so far as they go, but he only did his work at wide intervals. Now, there is a peculiarity in the Pacific coast waters that does not obtain elsewhere to the same extent; that is, there are large numbers of what is known as pinnacle rocks. A pinnacle rock is a small narrow rock which may be only a few yards wide, but it has a point on it that will rip the bottom of a boat just like a knife will cut into cheese. Any general survey is totally inadequate to detect those rocks. To establish their location it is necessary to sweep from point to point. This involves a far more expensive survey than any provided by the old charts made by Captain Vancouver.
I agree with a great deal of what my hon. friend from Skeena has said with regard to the growing necessity of this work, but I am talking now more in the interests of my own district. On the west coast of Vancouver island in the last three years there have been established fishery reduction plants costing between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000, and bringing an enormous return to the general public in the shape of fish meal and fish oil.

It has made a new trade of very great and valuable importance. Necessarily these plants are located in new and untried, so to speak, locations, in remote inlets. Now, the fish oil and fish meal must be taken away as soon as available. A small boat is of no use on that exposed coast. These reduction plants need boats fitted up with tank equipment. They go into one of these uncharted channels and sometimes strike an uncharted rock. The underwriting companies will not allow boats to go into these places on account of the waters being uncharted. That is the necessity, the growing necessity of the work in which this steamer Lillooet is now engaged. To give you some idea of the general benefit of that work I might mention a specific instance. Here is a vote for $495,000. This seems a large sum and there is apparently no return. But the return, though indirect is very great. I know of one place where there was a cannery and the owner chartered a boat to come and take a few thousand cases of salmon. The master, a Norwegian, looked at his chart, saw that the place was not properly charted according to the old chart, and he refused to come in. The result was that it cost the canner a thousand dollars to have I he salmon taken by lighter to a spot where it was considered safe for the steamer to load. A few months after that I got the government to send the Lillooet to chart the place, and at the cost of a few hundred dollars a very valuable service was rendered. That one undertaking alone more than justified the expenditures over a period of months in connection with the Lillooet. I have not a list before me showing the actual work done from year to year by this hydrographic survey, but I can give an idea of the development that is taking place along that line on the west coast. I might quote half a dozen figures showing the increase in the aids to navigation which have been provided in the last eight years. In' 19211 there were eight lighted buoys; to-day there are twenty-four. In 1921 there were one hundred and fifty-two unlighted buoys; to-day there are two hundred and three. In 1921 there were eighty-three lighted beacons; to-day there are one hundred and twenty-four. In 1921 there were thirty-three fog alarms, of which twenty were of the diaphone type-very expensive; to-day, instead of thirty-three, there are forty, twenty-four being diaphones. This gives a vague but significant idea of the development that has taken place in these few years. This work naturally requires a good deal of money to provide expert mechanics, and supplies have to be taken by steamer. : This is taken care of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
in part by the vote for lighthouse tenders. I am merely trying to convey to the house some idea of the development that has taken place in the last few years, and there is not the slightest suggestion that the Marine department has been too quick to realize our needs; because getting money out of that department is like getting blood out of a stone. There is not much danger of their indulging in waste and extravagance. If they spend a nickle, you may rest assured that they should have spent a dollar. I wish to give them credit if credit is coming to them in that regard, for no man could be more careful of the public purse than the minister of this department. So that if he has put his hand into the treasury to that extent the committee may be assured that it was more than needed. We did particularly need this extra new boat and I am more than pleased to see an estimate to provide for it. I hope it is the intention of the department to keep the Lillooet on as well as the bigger boat, which can do the heavier outside work, the Lillooet being available for necessary operations in more inland waters. I trust the minister will assure me that the Lillooet will be kept in commission as well.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radiotelegraph service and to provide for the construction and maintenance of radiotelegraph ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the Dominion, $843,505.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
provide for the maintenance and operation of government radio stations and for the general administration of radio in 'Canada, including the licensing and inspection of ship stations, private and commercial land stations, broadcasting and receiving stations, and the examination and certification of commercial radio operation. The vote does not include the amount necessary for improving reception.


Mr. HEAPS:: I presume the minister has
reference to ordinary broadcasting stations. I do not intend to ask any questions in that regard, but I desire some information in reference to government-owned radiotelegraph stations. The government own stations in the east and west and, I believe, on the lake shores as well. I understand that they own radiotelegraph stations which transmit commercial telegrams and also give weather forecasts. In eastern Canada the stations are operated by the Canadian Marconi Company, which I understand is given a subsidy each
year. I wonder why in one case the government deem it necessary to give a subsidy to a private company to operate a system which they own themselves, while in the other case, on the Pacific coast, they operate the government-owned system themselves. Why is it not possible for the government to operate all its systems?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend' is correct;
the government own stations on the Pacific and on the Atlantic coast, the system on the Atlantic being operated by the Marconi Company. We are not making any money in the operation of our stations on the Pacific, and I am informed that the Marconi Company is not making money either in the operation of our station in the east.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the government losing
money in connection with the Pacific service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we are.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the loss?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These stations are used
as aids to navigation and the revenue derived from them is far from being sufficient to meet the expenditures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there not some way of
separating the costs of the various services, as between commercial service and the service given to ordinary ships sailing info and out of the ports in British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These stations have to be
maintained as aids to navigation and the transmission of commercial messages is only incidental.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that apply to the eastern service as well?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it does.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But why cannot the government operate its own system in the east?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have a long term contract with the Marconi people, covering a period of eighteen years, which I am informed will expire in 1931. I suggest that it will be opportune then to take into consideration the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The government have no
control over the men who work in the stations in eastern Canada. These men have to work seven days a week, whereas on the Pacific coast employment conditions are much more satisfactory. Is there anything the government can do to have the eastern men given one day off every week? I do not think I am asking anything out of the way for these employees.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid we are not in a position to impose our views on the Marconi Company at present; we can only make representations to them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In view of the fact that the agreement expires in 1931 and that a new agreement will have to be made, perhaps it might be just as well to take up the question next session, but I have a further matter which comes under this vote. I believe the Department of Marine and Fisheries granted a license to the Marconi Company to operate a beam service from the Pacific coast of this country. I would like to know the terms and conditions of that license.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I might say to my hon.
friend that the Marconi Company has been given a license to operate a beam service from Drummondville, Quebec, to Australia, and also from Drummondville to England. The ordinary fee of $50 was collected for that license. No station has been established on the Pacific coast; the company asked for a license but no station has been erected.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point is that the
Marconi Company was given a license by the Department of Marine and Fisheries which enabled it to compete with the government-owned Pacific cable system. I want to know from the minister whether, before that license was issued, his department took up the matter with any of the other departments of the government.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This license was not issued during my time as minister, so I am not in a position to give the details, but I should think it would have been submitted to the Post Office Department and other departments interested in the cable. In any case, apparently it was thought that we should not refuse to issue a license which would permit of a very important experiment being carried on. I feel sure that the other' departments interested were consulted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is a very important
point. This beam service came into operation within the last few years; it began after I became a member of the house. I do not know exactly how long the minister has been in charge of the department, but I think the beam service between Australia and Canada was established in 1926. I am under the impression that the present minister was in charge of the department in that year, so that I do not think the reason he gave just now is valid. If possible I would like to obtain these particulars from the minister, because I think it is a very important matter when one department issues a license to a

private company which enables that company to compete with a publicly owned utility. In addition to that, so far as I have been able to ascertain we have received no concessions as a result of this service. All other countries which have the advantage of this new system have had their rates lowered by approximately one-third, but no reduction has been made in Canada.
I do not concede that it was necessary to issue this license; I believe the government could have operated the beam system as easily as it operated the cable system, but if the government was determined to issue the license I think it was the duty of the department to secure for this country the concessions which were obtained in other countries. I am afraid the minister is not very well acquainted with the affairs of his department in this regard, but I would like some information as to whether or not the other departments were consulted when the question of issuing this license to a private company was under consideration.
When the bill approving of this cable merger was before the house some time ago the Postmaster General said the license had been granted by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and he had very little information to give the house. I think we should have all the information available on a question of this kind. It may be said that the matter has been disposed of, but in one sense that is not the case, because some time ago the Labour party in Great Britain stated that if they were returned to power they would repudiate this contract between the new corporation and the government. I am rather disappointed that the minister is not able to give us some information on an important question of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service-to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $237,160.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to delay the minister's estimates in any way, but I would suggest that the wording of this vote is rather strange.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to ask the
minister if he can give the house any information as to when the report of the radio commission will be presented?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not able to give that information just now; the commissioners are still working and I cannot say when the report will be ready, but I do not think it will be very long now. I hope to have the report

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
in perhaps six weeks nr two months, but the commissioners have not visited the maritime provinces as yet.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at the next session of parliament based upon the report which will be presented by the commissioners?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think at the next session we will be in a position to deal with the report, and we will have time to consider any legislation which may be made necessary by the report.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Referring again to the license issued to the Marconi Company for the operation of a beam service, is that an annual license?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder if the minister will be good enough to have a copy of that license laid on the table?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of an icebreaker for the Hudson strait, $759,000.
Robert James Manion: Has the contract been let
for the construction of this icebreaker?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert James Manion: To whom?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Halifax Shipyard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of a new icebreaker for service in the St. Lawrence river, $359,000.
Robert James Manion: Could we have the same
information on this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the St. John Dry
Dock.


Robert James Manion: They have the contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why this great difference
between these two items?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One icebreaker is to be
much stronger and larger than the other because it will be used in the Hudson strait, while the other is to be used on the St. Lawrence river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for expenses of Canadian delegates to the international conference on safety of life at sea, $25,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: When did this conference take place?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was concluded two or
three days ago.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many delegates went from Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The delegates were the
Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Johnston; Commander Edwards, director of radio; F. McDonnell, the chairman of the board of steamship inspection; Captain Dixon and Mr. Bain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance, operating, repairing, dredging and providing necessary boats, vessels and equipment, also maintenance, operation and repair of Sorel shipyard, $3,108,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is for
the continuance of the operations in connection with the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence ship channel between Montreal and Father Point, including the maintenance and operation of the Sorel shipyard which is used for the building and repairing of all ships, dredges and tugs which are used in the service. The increase is due to the expenditures necessary in order to build two dredges which were used in the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of regulating and retaining dams in the St. Lawrence river, $1,100,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a revote from last year. This matter was first suggested in 1911 and it was said that the level of the river could be materially improved by building what is called submerged dams at certain points. This vote came before the house last year and was approved of but the department was not in a position to start work.


Mr. GEARY:: Am I right in inferring that this will deprive the port of Quebec of a great deal of its just due?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These darns are to be constructed about midway between Quebec and Montreal, but there is nothing included in the vote for the port of Quebec.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They do not need any
dam in Quebec.


George Reginald Geary: They are slowly deteriorating, I expect.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What is deteriorating?


George Reginald Geary: The port of Quebec.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think my hon
friend the Minister of Justice will agree 1,0 that.

Siipply-Marine and Fisheries


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The moss and grass will always appear.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and allowances to light-keepers, $750,000.
Mr. SHORT:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
committee should have an explanation of this item, as there is no increase over the vote of last year. A delegation from the light-keepers met the minister and the government some time ago and requested that something be done in the way of granting an increase in salaries. These light-keepers have received no increase in their remuneration for a number of years, and they are the lowest paid officials of the government and do the most hazardous work in the service. I notice there is an item of $25,000 in the supplementary estimates, but I do not know whether or not that is to take care of these increases. If it is, it is a very small amount considering the number of lighthouses and lightships which we have along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific. These men receive a much lower remuneration than is paid to men performing a like service in the United States. This matter has been brought before the house for the last three or four years and representations have been made that a reclassification of these light-keepers should be made by the department and an increase granted, but up to the present time nothing has been done.
I think the minister should take into consideration the representations which have been made to him by different members on both sides of the house, and also the representations which were made to him by the delegation of the light-keepers association, and grant substantial increases to these men. I know of some light-keepers who have to walk from one to three miles at night to light their lights, who cover the same distance in the morning to turn them out and who receive the magnificent sum of $200 per year. Some of these men have not had an increase for twenty years and everyone knows the cost of living has almost doubled in that time. These men are performing a valuable and hazardous service and I submit, Mr. Minister, that the time has arrived when their salaries should be increased. If the minister can increase the salary of his deputy minister and other officials in his department, surely some consideration should be given to these light-keepers who are giving such valuable service to the country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have listened to the representations made and we have decided to grant the requests which have been pre-
IMr. Cardin.]
ferred to us. The amount of $25,000 which is provided in the supplementary estimates is to cover increases in salaries of the light-keepers. The lightkeepers were represented by members of their organization, and the amount we are providing in the supplementary estimates is satisfactory to them for the present.


Harry Bernard Short: Is the amount sufficient to
cover the increase they ask for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand they were,
as many people do, asking for more than they probably expected to get, but a compromise was reached between them and the department.


Harry Bernard Short: On a fifty-fifty basis?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They agreed to that.


Harry Bernard Short: This amount of $25,000 is
sufficient to cover the amount agreed upon?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: It takes in all classes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, more particularly the low classes.


Harry Bernard Short: Do the ones in the higher class receive any increase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not this year.


Harry Bernard Short: Is it the intention of the
government to give them an increase next year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If they press the request,
I am ready to listen to them.


Harry Bernard Short: I have no doubt they will.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may say I expect them
to do so.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Has any arrangement
been made for providing superannuation for lighthouse keepers when they retire from the service? I understand from experience I had with the department in the past, that no superannuation is provided for them because they are classed as part-time employees. This works quite a hardship upon some of the men when they become old in the service. Some provision should be made in regard to superannuation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Those who are giving only part of their time to the service are not entitled to superannuation but those who are giving their full time are entitled to superannuation, and they receive it.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The question perhaps does not come directly under this item but, as it concerns lighthouses, the minister might

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
shed a little light on it. When may we expect to receive copies of the report of the St. John harbour commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not responsible for the delay. I have asked for the report and I am informed that it has not yet been printed. It may reach me this afternoon or to-morrow, I do not know, but St. John is not the only harbour which has not sent in a printed report. I have not yet received a printed report from Vancouver, but I expect these reports any day.


Murray MacLaren: I understood that a
written report had been received by the department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A typewritten report.


Murray MacLaren: Then the report is now in the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but not in printed form.


Murray MacLaren: I presume it is now being printed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but not by the department; the reports have to be printed by the harbour commissioners themselves.


Murray MacLaren: Perhaps the minister will inquire by telegraph.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will.


Murray MacLaren: Will he inform the
house to-morrow?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: When the delegation of lighthouse keepers waited on the minister last winter, another question was taken up which more particularly concerns the lighthouse keepers of British Columbia and which has not been dealt with to-day. I gather from the officials that they were going to meet the situation, and I should like the assurance of the minister that I am correct in so stating the situation. The question was in connection with annual leave and sick leave. There seemed to be the idea among some of the lighthouse keepers that they had to provide their own substitutes if they went on annual leave and that the same thing applied in connection with sick leave. I understand from the officials-and I would like confirmation from the minister-that the situation is that as regards lighthouse stations that maintain more than one man, arrangements will be made that the head man can take his holiday at a slack time of the year, such as when there is no fog, and leave his deputy in charge. Of course he gets his full pay while he is away. I understand that in the
case of one-man lighthouses the department will get and pay some local man to substitute for him without going to the expense of sending in a man from a distance. As regards sick leave, of course while they cannot give sick leave just for a few days' illness, in the case of a man being seriously ill and having to go away for an operation, the department is willing to provide and pay a substitute to do the work. If that is the situation I would only ask that it be confirmed by the minister, because many men seem to have the idea they are not getting the arrangement that I have suggested.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that such is the practice.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister speaks of the low class. Does that mean those who are temporarily employed on inland waters, for instance, on the great lakes, because their pay is disgraceful? I do not know how they manage to live on it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expression "part time" means employees who are giving, for example, one hour or two hours' service a day.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does this take in the man who is employed on the great lakes for just so many months in the year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are on the great lakes a number of men who are what we call full-time employees; they are on the most important lights that we have, but we have others that are only part-time employees.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is on a shore light where they put in an hour or so a day?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: What I referred to was a man who goes out on a small island where there is a small light and stays there for four or five months in the summer. Will he benefit by this increase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that he will not. The men at the docks are what we call full-time employees.


Arthur Edward Ross: The man I mean is the one who goes out to a light on an island or on a point of an island and who is there for three, four or five months in the summer. His pay is certainly a pittance. I do not know how he manages to live and feed himself on the amount he receives.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that a certain number of these lightkeepers in the position indicated by my hon. friend from Kingston are also doing other work. Their time is not entirely taken up by looking after the light. They light it when necessary; they take care

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
of it, but they engage in other work. Some of them engage in fishing and other occupations.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where a returned man has to go periodically to his unit centre for an examination, is it the practice if that period occurs during the time of his employment, to deduct the pay for the two or three days he is absent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We make no deduction from his salary for that. We arrange to let him go.


Finlay MacDonald: Of this appropriation of $25,000, what percentage is to be allowed to the more poorly paid light-keepers throughout the country?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Practically the whole $25,000 goes to the lower paid lightkeepers.


Harry Bernard Short: Will this include the part time lightkeepers, some of whom are getting as low as $60 a year?


Arthur Edward Ross: That is the kind of men I meant.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, they are included.


Finlay MacDonald: We have along the Atlantic coast lightkeepers working on full time and receiving four or five hundred dollars a year. What increase are they to get? They are situated in positions where they cannot do anything else, and they must remain there the whole year round.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the $25,000 takes care of the class indicated by my bon. friend drawing $400. In regard to the higher class, the suggestion which has been agreed upon is to reconsider their classification. They may be changed from one class to a higher class, and the higher class will, of course, carry a higher salary. That is the idea in regard to the second group of lightkeepers. They may receive their increase through a change in their classification. That is what we propose to do.


Finlay MacDonald: For years the lightkeepers on the Atlantic coast, both the full time and the part time men, have not been receiving adequate recompense for their labour. Many of them are placed in practically impossible situations, out on islands where they have no communication with the mainland, and they must remain there the year round. I consider that $25,000 is not adequate to give these men the increased salaries which they should be receiving. This government is expending huge sums of money for other services, and this is one of our very, very important services; it is an aid to navigation. I consider that it is
fMr. Cardin.1
the duty of the government to enable the men they hire to earn a decent livelihood so that they may have the comforts of life that are enjoyed by the people in other communities. I would urge the minister to take seriously into consideration the recommendation of the committee that met him last year and give the lightkeepers not merely this $25,000 but the full amount they asked for.


James Charles Brady: The higher paid lightkeepers are in grade 1. These men must have assistants in looking after the larger lighthouses. At Cape Race, for instance, the light-keeper has four assistants. At Estevan Point there are also four assistants. The principal lighthouse keeper, drawing $3,060 must support, feed and maintain four other persons. They may not be members of his family. I should just like to be sure about that. Are there any cases where the assistants at these large lighthouses are not members of the principal lighthouse keeper's family?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to say as to that because the lighthouse keeper is not supposed to make a report to us on that point.


James Charles Brady: I know that in many cases they have to pay out money to assistants who are not members of their family, practically $600 a year. I think that consideration in the way of increased pay should be given to these permanent men who are working in these isolated places, doing wonderful work under very hard conditions. That applies to grades 1, 2 and 3. Consideration also should be given to the part time lightkeepers where the lights have not to be looked after daily. But as regards the permanent lighthouse keepers I do think that if the people of Canada as a whole realized the service these men are performing and the conditions under which they work there would be a real protest at the parsimonious treatment that is being given them in the supplementary estimates. It was only last year that one of these lighthouse keepers situated at a very lonely lighthouse along the British Columbia coast lost his life, foully murdered by some person. It comes as a shock to the community when instances of that kind arise. I am pleased to hear that an annual vacation will be given to the lighthouse keepers and that they will not have to pay out of their own pockets for an assistant to take their place while they are on holiday. Am I correct in that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we are doing that.


James Charles Brady: That is fine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $900,000.
Harry Bernard Short: I would like to refer to a matter which I brought up last year when this item was under consideration. Has the department given any further consideration to equipping these lighthouses with hydroelectric light wherever it is available? This *would reduce the cost very much and would certainly assist the lighthouse keeper very materially in his work. I have in mind particularly a lighthouse in my constituency at *Point Prim on the Bay of Fundy. It is a very important light. The Digby county hydro-electric system has extended its line within half a mile of this lighthouse, and it would be very much more economical for the department to use the hydro-electric light instead of oil-burning lamps, and it would be very much more satisfactory. I think the matter has been brought to the attention cf the agent of the department at St. John, who is in charge of that district. Has the department given the matter any serious consideration? If not, I think it would be in the interests of the service for them to do so.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department is doing
precisely what tihe hon. gentleman is advocating. Wherever we can be sure of an unfailing supply of electric light we take advantage of it for the lighthouses.


Harry Bernard Short: Then I presume tlhat as
the hydro-electric line has been extended to within half a mile, arrangements will be made with the power board to give the service to Point Prim.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
_ Construction of lights and aids to navigation, including regulation of traffic at such places as may be found necessary, $930,000.
Leland Payson Bancroft: What progress is being
made with respect to providing aids to navigation required in lake Winnipeg? During the summer of 1927 I was asked to meet a number of captains and mates who operate ships there. About forty of them were in attendance and .they outlined a number of aids that were needed in the shape of lighthouses and buoys. I took the matter up with the minister at the time, and last summer he was good enough to send an inspector there to report on the situation. I understand the inspector was of opinion that certain lighthouses and buoys were needed. Is any provision being made for these aids?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no special provision, but the matter can be taken care of in the general vote.


Leland Payson Bancroft: That is what I understood; it will be done this year out of the general vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. GARDINER:: There is quite an increase; what is the reason?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a general increase.
Provision is made in this estimate for the construction of a pier, light and fog alarm at lie aux Coudres, at a cost of approximately $100,000; and for the construction of piers and the installation of lights at Brule Bank, at a cost of approximately $176,000. Both these stations are in the St. Lawrence.


Harry Bernard Short: I notice there is an increase of $205,000 over last year's appropriation for the construction of lights and aids to navigation in such places as may be found necessary. Let me again call 'to the attention of the minister what I have brought up from time to time-the necessity of a light on the breakwaters at Tiverton and East Ferry in the bay of Fundy. This is a most important fishing centre. A ferry operates across there throughout the day and night, and a pole light on each of the breakwaters would be of great assistance to the ferry service and also to the fishermen. The cost would not be great. There are such lights on a great many of the government breakwaters all over tbe bay of Fundy. I hope the minister will consider the advisability of doing this.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose it had under consideration item 175, $930,000, for the construction of lights and aids to navigation.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was not here; was anything said about salaries for lighthouse keepers, as to the prospects of their being in-ci'eased?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That discussion took place on a previous item in connection with salaries, and I stated that we had in the supplementary estimates $25,000 for increases in the salaries of the lower class lightkeepers. I also intimated that there was" provision for a reclassification of other classes.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Is the minister
going to reclassify the lower paid officials?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is the best news that has come to the house for a long time. These men are certainly underpaid, and if there is any man in the whole government service who is working for very little money and in the most remote and lonely part of the country it is the lighthouse keeper. I am delighted to hear the announcement of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay pensions to pilots, $9,900.
Hugh Guthrie: These are all pensions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $250,000.
Mr. McQUARRIE:: A royal commission
under Mr. Justice Morrison has made an inquiry into pilotage in British Columbia, and the report has.been brought down. I suppose something will be done this year to carry out the recommendations in that report?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we are doing that.


William Garland McQuarrie: I presume that some of the officials of the department will be in British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: An officer has been there
already.


William Garland McQuarrie: And will be there later on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: In that connection I
would ask that the proper official, whoever he is, be instructed to assist the New Westminster harbour commissioners in the matter of the drawing-up of bylaws and so forth as recommended by the commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, he will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological service, including magnetic observatory, grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal observatories, and allowance of $400 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $330,000.
Harry Bernard Short: There is an increase of $30,000; why?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for statutory salary increases and1 for necessary expansion of service. Several new wireless reporting stations have been established in the far north 
together with a number of balloon stations for obtaining upper air data for aviators, and numerous fire and weather reporting stations have been established in conjunction with the provincial forestry departments. All of this involves additional expense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine and Fisheries-salaries, $546,920; contingencies, $90,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This involves an increase of $2,000 in the salary of the deputy minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We pointed out the other evening that we could not agree to these increases in the salaries of deputy ministers while other salaries had been left as they were. It will be recalled that Mr. Fielding stated the policy of the government, in connection with matters of this kind, to be that deputy ministers should have been ten years in the position before provision was made for increases in their salaries. It is not desirable to take up the time of the committee discussing the matter at great length at this moment. We shall probably have to move a motion that will cover the question, because it is felt that with conditions as they are- large numbers of people receiving less than $100, and the status of the technical service being still unsettled-to increase the salaries of deputy ministers is not in accordance with what we conceive to be the real justice of the case. Some of these increases are $2,000, some $1,500. Then there is the further question in connection with those who have the rank of deputy minister. I have looked up the statute since we discussed the matter last, in connection with the estimates of the Prime Minister, and certainly the position of the Speaker, and the position of the Clerk of the Senate, of the Clerk of the House of Commons and of the Clerk of the Privy Council are exactly the same and dealt with in the same statute. There is also the question of the librarian, and, I think, the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, who is in a somewhat different position from the others. But some principle should be observed. Mr. Fielding made the statement some years ago that service for a period of ten years should be regarded as the guiding principle, thereafter salaries being increased as occasion necessitated. I take this opportunity to mention the matter because there are other estimates which will be discussed in the same way. .


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it not a
fact that this deputy minister is also provided With a government car-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Edward Joseph Garland: -an automobile at the government's expense?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rather
think that some statement to that effect was made in a return brought down to myself.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If such a statement was
made, it is an error. He uses the car which is supposed to be for the minister; he has no separate car for himself.


Edward Joseph Garland: He uses the minister's car?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be recalled that
this deputy minister left the service and was reappointed within a period of ten years.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He resigned in 1920 and
came back in 1921, and that was considered at the time to be continuous service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for a refund to the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company, Limited, of an amount paid to the government out of net profits, in excess of amount required by contract, $4,139.75.
Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is the result of a
misunderstanding as to the terms of a contract between the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company and the government for the maintenance of a salvage and wrecking plant at Quebec. The contract provided that each year the company should refund to the government 50 per cent of their net profits on operations to offset the subsidy which they were entitled to receive. In determining their profits for this purpose in 1920-21 the company neglected to deduct the usual 5 per cent for depreciation, in consequence of which their refund to the government for that year was excessive by this amount.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
the committee the amount paid by the government as a subsidy and the amount paid to the government by this company as part of the profits?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During the past five years
there were no profits; the losses were as follows:
1922-	23	
$47,7761923-	24	
14,6711924-	25	
27,9961925-	26	
25,1361926-	27	
7,187
The subsidy amounts to $35,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers - further amount required, $65,000.
Hugh Guthrie: I notice that last year we voted $530,000 for this work. In the main estimates this year there was an increase of $35,000 and now we are asked to pass this supplementary vote of $65,000, making a total increase over last year of $100,000. In addition, the next item is for the construction of a new hydrographic service steamer, to cost $400,000. What is the reason for these substantial increases?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This supplementary appropriation is to provide for the reconditioning of the steamer Lillooet at a cost of $35,000. This is a revote from last year; the work was not done although the money was voted. This also covers the replacement of the house boat Somass, at a cost of $30,000. Both these boats are on the Pacific coast service. Provision was made for the reconditioning of the Lillooet in the main estimates last year, but the proposed work was unavoidably delayed and accordingly the sum provided lapsed. It is hoped to keep this steamer in commission this year, but she cannot continue longer without reconditioning, and it is proposed that this work should be done next fall. The house boat Somass has been in the service for a very long time and is worn out beyond repair; she cannot be used beyond this season.


Hugh Guthrie: This is not shown to
be a revote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of a new steamer for hydrographic surveys, $400,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister tell
us what this steamer is for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This steamer is to take
care of the hydrographic surveys on the British Columbia coast. It has been represented to us, as was stated in committee this morning, that the Lillooet, which we have there now, is not able to cope with the situation. There is much work to be done and representations have been made to the government that we should go more extensively into this service. That is why we propose to add this new steamer, and we will also retain the services of the Lillooet.


Robert James Manion: Have tenders been called
for in this case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
To provide for the expenses of a commission to inquire into the radio broadcasting situation throughout Canada and to advise as to the future administration, management, control and finance thereof - further amount required, $15,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is another increase.
As the minister knows, under item 165a we have already voted $10,000 for this purpose and now we are asked to vote another $15,000. Surely that amount is excessive.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The explanation I have
here is that this supplementary appropriation is in part a revote of item 475 of last year. The commission did not commence functioning until late in the year, with the result that the amount appropriated to provide for their expenses was in excess of their requirements by approximately $4,000; which excess amount lapsed at the close of the year, of course. In addition, the time required by the commission to complete their inquiry will be longer than was anticipated when the main estimates for this fiscal year were prepared, and this further sum is required to enable them to complete their work.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I understand that
last year only $6,000 was spent; they did not complete their work and now they are asking for an additional $25,000. That seems an extravagant amout of money for a single commission which has no very great amount of work to do; its work is largely technical, carried on in one centre, and I should think they could make a very intelligent report for about half this amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon. friend is
under a misapprehension.


Hugh Guthrie: Tell us how you are paying the members of the commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This commission is inquiring as to conditions with regard to radio all over Canada, and they have also gone abroad to obtain the benefit of the experience in European countries; they have been in England, in Germany and other countries.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How many are there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Three.


Hugh Guthrie: What amount of remuneration are they receiving?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The commissioners are Sir
John Aird, the chairman, and his remuneration has been fixed at $50 per day-


Hugh Guthrie: And expenses?
[Mr. Cardin 1


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: And a living allowance of
$25 per day. Mr. C. A. Bowman is the next commissioner, and his remuneration is fixed a.t $35 per day.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that Mr. C. M. Bowman?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is Mr. C. A. Bowman of Ottawa.


James Dew Chaplin: Is that the journalist?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, he is with the Ottawa Citizen.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: What does he know about radio?


James Dew Chaplin: We are paying him to
find out.


Hugh Guthrie: They seem to be real
experts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The third commissioner
is Dr. A. Frdgon of the technical school at Montreal. His remuneration is fixed at $35 per day with a living allowance of $20 per day. The secretary of the commission is an officer of the department, Mr. Manson.


James Dew Chaplin: How does it come about
that it costs Sir John Aird $5 per day more than the other men to live?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is the head of the
commission and most of the people address themselves to him.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It is $15 per day more.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, $15 per day more.


Hugh Guthrie: Have Sir John Aird, the banker, and Mr. Bowman, the journalist, any technical knowledge of radio, or are they just finding out?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to
say whether or not they have any technical knowledge. I contend that is is not absolutely necessary to have that knowledge in order to inquire into a matter of this kind. A judge can sit in court and hear the argument of counsel and the evidence of expert witnesses and is able to give a judgment on a technical matter, and these men are sitting as judges in this inquiry. It has been my personal view that as far as the granting of licenses for broadcasting is concerned I prefer to grant them to the newspapers, because they are trained in the business of advertising.


Hugh Guthrie: Such as the Toronto Star.
334=1

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I contend that there is no necessity for a man being an expert to inquire into such a situation in this or any other country. Furthermore, the commission has the services of the experts in the department.


James Dew Chaplin: Is there not such a thing as people in Canada doing a job of this kind without receiving remuneration?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the remuneration
which has been allowed to these commissioners compares very favourably with that granted to other commissioners who have been appointed from time to time. The treatment they are receiving is not exceptional; other commissioners doing work of no more importance have received practically the same remuneration and same living allowance.


Mr. JACOBS:: How many free jobs has the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) done?


James Dew Chaplin: I have been doing one
for twenty years without receiving any remuneration at all, and it has been just as important as this one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what took
place at the last session I cannot understand why this commission was not appointed at an earlier date. The report should have been before the house at this session, but as it is the report will not be available until another year has passed. In other words, two years will have elapsed instead of the one which was indicated by the ministry when we were dealing with this question as being the time necessary to look into this matter. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) was right when he said that the country is getting sick of being governed by commissions. It struck me the other day that there was considerable truth in what he said, because he has appointed most of them and he had appointed one two or three days before that time. In view of the difficulties which arose in connection with the utilisation of our air channels by our great neighbour to the south, and the impossibility of arriving at an arrangement, I am sure that the majority of the Canadian people are becoming rather apprehensive about this matter and most anxious that some report be brought down which would indicate just what our position is to be with relation to the use of air channels, particularly as it concerns the United States.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to
answer the question of my hon. friend as to the date when the report may be expected. I understand that the commission has not sat as yet in the maritime provinces. They are concluding their sittings in the province of
Quebec and will then go to the maritime provinces to complete their investigations. I expect that the report will be in within two months and we will be able to deal with this matter at the next session of parliament. The commission did not neglect the starting of their labours and they have been working quite hard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was it appointed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: December 6.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and the report
will be in in two months. Had they been appointed as promised two months after the house rose last year, we would have had the report for this session. The minister has proved my case. In other words, they were appointed in December and the report will be ready in two months from to-day, or in August, and had they been appointed in October, instead of December, we would have had the report for this session.


Samuel William Jacobs: You must not undermine
their health, whatever you do.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not see anything in
the vote to provide a doctor for them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of an icebreaker for the Hudson strait-further amount required, $205,000.
Robert James Manion: We had a similar item
this morning asking for the amount of 8759,000 for an icebreaker for the Hudson strait, and now we have this item in the supplementary estimates. I notice that the next item is for $440,000 for an icebreaker in the St. Lawrence river, and we had a similar vote this morning for $359,000. How much do these icebreakers cost, and will these votes complete them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was estimated that the
icebreaker to be used in the Hudson strait would cost $1,209,000.


Robert James Manion: This will not complete it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; the contract with the Halifax Shipyards is for $1,220,000.


Robert James Manion: Is the same thing true
of the next item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It will complete it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Was not the contract let
to the Halifax Shipyards before the main estimates came up? Did not the department

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
know what the cost of this icebreaker would be at that time, and why do they consider it necessary to make two items of the one matter? Why was not the whole matter put in the main estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the main estimates
were framed we were not in a position to determine what amount would be spent during the present year.


Harry Bernard Short: I understand that the contract has been let?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: It must have been for a
specific amount.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The main estimates provided for what it was thought would be necessary for the current year, and we did not provide for the whole amount in those estimates.


Finlay MacDonald: Is the minister able to report on conditions in Hudson bay and strait? Evidently we had a certain investigation carried on last year and I should like to know what conditions were found there.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Generally speaking it is reported that navigation is possible in the strait, but the details can be found in the report of the expedition which has already bean tabled and which is available to hon. members.


Finlay MacDonald: For how long is navigation possible?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Somewhere around three or four months.


Finlay MacDonald: Is that navigation free from icebergs? Is it safe during the three months' period1? '


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is not entirely free from ice, but it is represented to us that it is possible to navigate the strait safely.


Finlay MacDonald: Does the minister consider to-day that with three months' navigation it will be a good business proposition for us to open up that country?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is not for me to express an opinion, but I think this will be sufficient to meet the requirements.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the report to which the minister refers, that of the aviators who have been watching the strait?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It covers the whole thing.


James Dew Chaplin: Was this report from the aviators' camp: itself?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Who made the report?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. McLean, the officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries who was in charge of the expedition there. This report includes the work of the aviators; it includes everything.


James Dew Chaplin: How long was he there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The summers of 1927 and 1928.


James Dew Chaplin: All the summer?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the full report of the aviators covered by this?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Everything is covered by the report. All the work which has been done there is given in detail.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-Marine department-river S't. Lawrence ship channel- maintenance, operating, repairing dredging fleet and providing necessary boats, vessels and equipment, also maintenance, operation and repair of Sorel shipyard-further amount required, $67,297.
Robert James Manion: Did we not have an item dealing with that this morning?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yets. This appropriation constitutes a revote of the unexpended portions of appropriations Nos. 219 of the main estimates and 481 of the supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year. The purpose of these appropriations was to .provide for the reconditioning of wharf No. 4 and for other work of a similar nature, but more particularly of the reconditioning of the wharf. When this work was put in hand during the summer, it was disclosed that the condition of the wharf was such as to necessitate a modification of the original plan for the wharf. The result was that the work was delayed beyond the season, when it could' be done to advantage and the money lapsed in large part with the close of the fiscal year.


Robert James Manion: This is the same as appropriation No. 169, $3,108,000, in the main estimates, making the total amount, roughly speaking, $3,200,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Lighthouse and coast service-salaries and allowances to ligbtkeepers-further amount required, $25,000.
Mr.   BOSS@Kingston: How many light-keepers are there, that is those permanently and those part-time employed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total number is 1,179, but in the list that I have before me there is no division between the lower class and the higher classes. I can later supply that information.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister does not know how many there are in the lower class?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot say just at the moment, but I can get the information.


Arthur Edward Ross: Could the minister give a guess?


Hugh Guthrie: This item of $25,000 which appears in the supplementary estimates is to increase the salaries or the pay and allowances of these lightkeepers. Last year I had the honour of bringing to the attention of the house and the minister the situation that has existed for a long time with respect to these lightkeepers, and perhaps the statement I made was sufficient to shock the minister himself. These men are grossly underpaid. The session before last I performed the same work or at all events I made an effort to secure increases for these men. I had the pleasure of seeing a deputation of them again this year. I am glad to see that the minister has now shown some regard for the representations which have been made to him from time to time and that some slight increase will be granted to these lightkeeipers. ft wonder if we shall be as successful with the Postmaster General. We tried last year, the year before and again this year to get a little increase for the underpaid postal workers. Perhaps there is still room for hope that next year he will be able to do something.
Mr. AiDSHEAD: What is the minimum salary paid to a lightkeeper?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In connection with certain lights the salary is only $60 a year, but it must be remembered that these people are not giving their whole time to the work. All they have to do is to go to the lighthouses in the evening and light the lamps and, if necessary, to clean the lights.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: What is the minimum salary paid to those engaged full time in the work and what holidays do they get?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is around $400.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: A year?
78594- 212


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the season they are occupied.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How long is that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends. It may be
five or six or seven months.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What do they do the
rest of the year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think that ought to be considered. I think they should receive a minimum salary of at least $100 a month.


Samuel William Jacobs: It must be remembered that they are enjoying the sea air while they are carrying on their duties.


James Dew Chaplin: They also do some fishing.


William Garland McQuarrie: They are not the only employees of the government who receive less than $100 a month. On the Pacific coast the fisheries patrol men working on the boats receive less than $100 a month; as a matter of fact, they receive $90 a month, and out of that they have to pay their board while out on patrol, which it is estimated costs them at least $25 or $30 a month. There was a time when they received board in addition to their salary, but now they have to pay for their board out of their salary. I have from time to time protested to the minister in the house and outside of it and to the deputy minister and I have presented1 petitions from the men and from various organizations pointing out the injustice under which these men ore suffering owing to the small salary they receive. A man who has to keep a wife and a family on the salary a patrolman receives in British Columbia has not got very much chance. I know that the minister has refused to entertain the suggestion that has been made that these men should have their wages increased. He says that he has looked into the matter and that they are getting paid the same amount as men working on privately owned boats. Personally I think these men have been badly treated. I quite agree that the lighthouse keepers should have their salaries increased, but I think the minister should go a little bit further and treat the patrol men in the same way and give them an increase. A great many of these men are returned soldiers, as the minister knows, and it is absolutely impossible for them to live with any degree of comfort on the wages they are receiving.


Harry Bernard Short: I understood from the minister this morning that this $25,000 was the amount that was agreed upon when the delegation from the lighthouse keepers' association met the government, and that the arrangement



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
made at that time was satisfactory to them. I understand that the delegation asked for in creases that amounted1 to $134,000, but that the department decided that that was too much to grant them this year, but they made them the sporting offer that they would grant fifty per cent of what they asked, and' I understand that the delegation were satisfied with that for this year and went away thinking that they were going to get increases amounting ta $67,000. There is only $25,000 in the estimates, and therefore it does not provide for the general increase that they expected ana were promised.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend refers to the delegation of last year?


Harry Bernard Short: They met the minister again in February or March of this year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This year the representatives of the lightkeepers came to the department and discussed the matter again. As a result of the discussion it was agreed that for the present the changes proposed would require an expenditure of $25,000, and that was satisfactory to them for this year.


Harry Bernard Short: I understood that the changes that they asked for represented an increase of about $134,000, that the government considered that was too much for the present season, that they were not disposed to grant the request of the lighthouse keepers in full, but they made them an offer of fifty per cent of what they asked for this year, and said that they might do something more next year. The lighthouse keepers accepted that offer and went away satisfied. That would have involved an expenditure of $67,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the first request was made involving an expenditure of over $100,000, it was recognized at once by the light-keepers that such a figure could not be considered at the present time, so there was no discussion at all about reducing that amount. However, they wanted some increase, and after discussion they agreed on the changes that we proposed. They agreed that this $25,000 would be sufficient for the present year. They have not abandoned their claims for greater remuneration, but for this year they are satisfied.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Was any minimum salary suggested?


Alan Webster Neill: There was no question of minimum salary because of the difficulty of fixing a specific salary that would fit all conditions. The conditions of the lighthouse ser-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
vice are peculiar. A salary that would be perfectly adequate in one place would be perfectly inadequate at, say, a point 50 miles away, due to difficulties of communication and other factors. Therefore it is not possible specifically to lay down a salary that would be fair to one and all; each case must be considered by itself.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the hon. gentleman say there is a minimum salary for a man permanently engaged?


Alan Webster Neill: It was arranged that the
minimum salary for the lower grades should be substantially increased.


Arthur Edward Ross: A new situation has arisen. The minister said the deputation was satisfied. I understand from the last speaker that the deputation appointed a subcommittee and they are not satisfied. Is that the situation?


Alan Webster Neill: We were satisfied-


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister will answer the question, please.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understood they were
satisfied with what we were ready to do this year. It is true they were asking for more. They did not abandon their claim. I may have been mistaken, but I understood from their declaration that they were satisfied to have the low salaries taken care of for the present.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is a flat increase to be given to each one of the low salaried men, or are the increases to be varied? I have been trying to figure out what each one might get. The increase might amount to $40.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I might read for the ben-fit of the committee a brief explanation which I have among my papers:
It is proposed -to grant definite increases to the lowest paid group, which are classes 19 to 16 inclusive, averaging between $26 and $27 per annum. This group is now paid a minimum of $80 per annum and a maximum of $150. It is proposed to increase the minimum to $100 and the maximum to $180. There are approximately 390 in this group. It is not proposed to grant definite increases in classes 15 to 11 inclusive, but to consider each individual case with a view to granting promotion instead of changing the classification of the station, which will give them a higher salary. There are approximately 380 in this group. It is estimated that approximately 25 per cent of each class will be promoted to a higher class, and the additional annual expenditure involved will approximate the above sum.


Finlay MacDonald: Has the position of lightkeeper at Fourchu, in the county of Richmond been filled?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sorry that I have not the information before me.


Finlay MacDonald: The minister should be aware that the position became vacant through the death of the lightkeeper, and that an appointment was to be made. I should like to know if the man now employed there has been permanently appointed. If so, how so and why so?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will undertake to get the information for my hon. friend.


Mr. DICKIE:: I did not happen to be in
the house, Mr. Chairman, when the item for the administration of pilotage was before the committee. Is it the the intention of the government at an early date to provide the necessary machinery for putting into effect the recommendations of Commissioner Morrison and the committee on Marine and Fisheries with respect to pilotage matters on the Pacific coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are doing it now.


Charles Herbert Dickie: There have been disconcerting rumours that a high official in the minister's department does not view with approval the by-laws which were agreed to by the shipping federation and the pilots of Vancouver. The pilots are a little bit perturbed, and they wish to be assured that the necessary order in council will be passed and that the minister will proceed to establish a pilotage board along the lines suggested by Commissioner Morrison and the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that these by-laws are now before the Justice department for approval.


Finlay MacDonald: Referring to my question in reference to the lightkeeper at Fourchu, I may say for the information of the minister that this is a very important matter. A vacancy occurred some time last year, and I understand that a minor is now holding the position. I have had a good many communications in reference to the case. I do not know whether it is due to the fault of the Civil Service Commission or not, but I understand notices advertising the vacancy were 'not posted in the vicinity. We have in that district quite a few returned soldiers, and my information comes from them. These men claim that they have not been given a proper opportunity to apply for the vacancy. As is well known, we have in Nova Scotia a system of party patronage. To-day it is uncertain whether the position is actually held by the father or by his son, but I know the father holds every important

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
government position in the district. He is the local patronage dealer. Three or four of the returned soldiers to whom I have referred are invalids as a result of their war service in the cause of freedom and the vindication of British principles of justice and fair play. These men desire to know whether or not this 18- or 19-year old son is the lightkeeper of Fourchu or whether his father holds the position. They cannot find out.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will secure the information and give it to my hon. friend.


Finlay MacDonald: Furthermore, I would ask the minister to make an investigation and ascertain whether or not the Civil Service Commission or his own department failed properly to advertise the vacancy; and if an appointment was made, how it was made. If the returned soldiers in the district were not given an opportunity to apply for this position, I claim the case should be reopened. As I have said, three or four of these returned soldiers are invalids, they are not able to work, and their pensions are not sufficient to enable them to maintain themselves and their families. Such a position as this-and by statute they are entitled to preferred treatment in these cases-such a position, I say, would be a great help to any one of these men. British justice should not be denied these returned soldiers, and I claim that the position should be reopened and these men given an opportunity to compete for it.


James Charles Brady: In the matter of ordinary
repairs such as carpentry work and work around the lighthouse, which very often involves many long hours on the part of the lighthouse keeper, is any extra pay allowed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; in connection with
small repairs material is supplied to the lighthouse keeper, but he receives no extra pay.


James Charles Brady: Is the minister aware that
very often the work that devolves upon these men occupies them seven, eight and nine hours a day? In view of this, and the fact that these men must devote a long part of their night to lighthouse work, consideration should be given the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to reimburse certain merchants of Victoria, B.C. for materials furnished and used in the construction of two lighthouse tenders for the service of the government, $8,459.77.
Mr. FRASER:: Will the minister explain
this item?
IMr. Macdonald (Richmond).]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vote results from the failure of the British Columbia Yacht and Boat Builders' Company Limited, of Victoria, to complete a contract entered into with the department for the construction of two lighthouse tenders in 1920. The original contract provided for a total payment of $62,750 but it was later increased to $75,000 when the work was nearing completion, on the representations which were made that it was more costly than had been anticipated and that the credit and resources of the company were exhausted. Ultimately the government was compelled to take over the vessels uncompleted and to complete them on commission at a cost of $1,450. The above sum represents unpaid claims of various merchants against the original contractors for materials supplied which entered into the construction of the vessels, less 17 per cent which accrued to them from money assigned by the direction of the industrial commissioner for the province of British Columbia. The government acknowledges no legal liability for these things but proposes to pay them as an act of grace. These people supplied materials and goods which were necessary for the building of the ships. We are getting the benefit of this because we are using the materials, and it has been felt that it would be only fair to compensate the dealer.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the result of
the contract in the first place?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We got the two boats.
They could not carry on; they failed.


James Dew Chaplin: Did the boats cost you
that much more?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We paid $75,000 for the
boats.


James Dew Chaplin: That was the amount of the contract.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; the amount of the
contract was $62,750. This company, I may say, was an organization of returned soldiers who had gone into the business of building ships; but apparently they were not experienced and could not carry on, with the result that they failed. The government had to supply the necessary money to complete the work. The merchants who supplied the goods were anxious to be paid, having made representations for many years. This year we decided to make this grant as an act of grace.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,160,000.
James Charles Brady: On this very important
vote, which calls for an increase this year of $180,000, making the total $1,160,000, I have something to say which is of vital interest. It is of such vital importance to our patrol system in the waters of British Columbia that I feel sure that when I put a few facts before the committee they will not be merely surprised at conditions there but will receive a decided shock. To-day on the Pacific coast we find the greatest fishery that Canada possesses. That is the only part of Canada at the present time that presents increased fishing problems; these problems are all on on the Pacific seaboard. For instance, we have entered into a halibut treaty for the preservation of that great industry, and we have made a seal industry from which this government obtains annually $100,000. This money goes into the national revenue and is not paid into the fishing department for its development. This bounty is a gift from one of our sea industries. Then lately we have seen the desirability of entering into a salmon treaty for the preservation of that very high class commercial fish, the Sockeye.
What are the facts to-day regarding our fishing? I went to the trouble to get from the bureau of statistics at Washington the report of the tariff investigation that has taken place in the last few weeks in connection with fishing in the United States and in its relation to Canada and other countries. As a preamble to the facts which I am going to give to the committee. I may observe that-the president of the largest fishing establishment in Boston, in giving his evidence before the tariff commission when asking for an increase of 3 cents per pound on processed haddock going in from the Atlantic seaboard into the United States, uttered this sentence, which I am quite convinced will cause every member of this committee to think.
What we want is an equalization basis; having got that, with American brains and American genius, we look after the rest.
To-day in the United States, with a population nearly thirteen times greater than that of Canada, there is a demand thirteen times greater for fish in that market. And here we find this statement in an article:
It has been abundantly proved that the fishing banks to which American fishermen have immediate access are unable to meet the demands of the American market for fish
Fro-m maps compiled by the United States bureau of fisheries indicating the distribution of production, it is made manifest that any further developments in production must be made in waters nearer the Canadian coast than that of the United States.
I will give one more short paragraph which is also illuminating in connection with American inland fisheries; a survey made in American waters proved that they are so depleted that production in these waters is entirely inadequate to meet the demand. Yellow pike, whitefish, yellow perch and jacks, all have suffered depreciation. It is admitted, moreover, by the United States authorities that the production of fresh water fish on the American side of the great lakes is likewise depleted. The blue pike, a highly commercial inland water fish which was obtained in tremendous quantities from American waters up to 1923, has been fished out.
As a preamble to what I am going to say I want to remind hon. members that no phase of this great industry demands the attention of this house and of the people of Canada so much as our Pacific fisheries. What is happening there to-day? Let me go back three years; time and again the Department of Fisheries has been warned that great inroads were being made by American trawlers, and on our fishery grounds only as a last resort on the part of individual Canadian trawlers to undertake to do the police work which the department was unable to do properly because of the lack of an adequate patrol system, with which I will deal in a moment. The smaller boats, except the Malaspina and Givenchy cannot go into these deep waters, swept as they are by terrific storms, and as a result they are unable to give proper service.
The Washington treaty of 1909 undoubtedly has not been lived up to; here is the important section of that treaty, which was; signed at Washington on January 27, 1909:
American fishermen shall be permitted to. enter suoh bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter, repairing damages, purchasing wood,, obtaining water

The next is the important provision:
-and for no other purpose whatever.
It has been proved that hundreds and hundreds of American trawlers have violated the provisions of that treaty, and are doing so at present. I have here a sworn copy of the log of a Canadian trawler, covering the period from May 9 to September 6, 1928. I have taken only this one bit of evidence from that offered by all the hundreds of vessels which go in and out of the different harbours, but certainly this should make us feel veiy much alarmed when we see the dangers with which our fisheries are faced as a result of these American trawlers menacing our fishing grounds. The log is as follows:
May 9 th. White Rocks-Banks Isl. 11 U.S.A. trollers from I mile of light-buoy to 14
334S

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
miles W. f S. A large number of U.S.A. trollers fishing off cape George observed at 17.15 p.m.
May 13th.	43 U.S.A. trollers fishing from 1
mile of Seal rocks (Stephens Isl.) to 20 miles S.S.W. off "Freeman's pass."
May 14bh. U.S.A. trollers "Valid" and "Republic" fishing i mile off N.W. rocks-Banks island.
May 15th. Several U.S.A. trollers fishing off Reef island.
May 16th.	11 U.S.A. trollers fishing off
Sci'idler .point, inside 3 mile.
May 19th. Sat. night at dark anchor lights of U.S.A. trollers resembling street lights of a city at night-off Freeman's pass.
May 20th. U.S.A. troller "Majestic" trolling about 2 miles off White Rocks-Banks island, strong S.E.
May 23rd.	16 U.S.A. trollers fishing from
Rose spit buoy to eud of dry spit.
May 31st. U.S.A. trollers too many to count fishing from Reef island to Bonilla.
June 3rd. 2 U.S.A. trollers fishing along N.W. Rocks, Banks island.
June 7th. 2 U.S.A. trollers fishing-Butter-worth rocks.
June 9th. 3 U.S.A. trollers fishing off Reef island 10-2 a.m.
June 10th. 4 U.S.A. trollers fishing approximately one mile from Meresly Island.
June 11th. Several U.S.A. trollers fishing 2 miles off Reef island.
June 13th. Canadian trollers "Iceland" and *"Point May" observe 7 U.S.A. trollers around Rose spit buoy at 11.15 a.m. also 17.55 p.m.
June 14th. One U.S.A. troller (no name on her) trolling inside Butterworth rocks with one line over the stern, her poles up.
June 15th. U.S.A. troller fishing li miles *off Gull rocks-no name.
June 16th.	19.30 p.m. Freeman harbour.
14 U.S.A. trollers anchored. Crews cutting poles ashore.
June 17th. U.S.A. troller "Republic" fishing
1	mile off Indian cove.
June 20th. Sparrowhawk breakers, 8.45 a.m.
2	U.S.A. trollers fishing 1 mile off S.E.
June 22nd.	37 U.S.A. trollers anchored in
Freeman's harbour. Crews trolling poles ashore.
June 27th.	7 U.S.A. trollers fishing inside
Rose spit buoy.
July 4th. U.S.A. trollers "Jennie" and "WU" trolling Laparanese rocks 200 ft. off S.W. at 8.30 a.m.
July 14th.	15 U.S.A. trollers fishing around
Rose spit buoy.
Aug. 18bli. Reported by Canadian halibut boat (Thelma C) large number of U.S.A. trollers fishing off Gosling rocks (Goose island).
Sept. 6th. Reported by D.S.T. (Canadian halibut boat) 3 U.S.A. trollers fishing between Rose spit and Butterworth rocks.	[DOT]
Surely it is my right, Mr. Chairman, to present to this House of Commons and to this committee the gravity of the situation and the danger threatening this great fishing industry. A grave responsibility rests upon us of preserving and conserving that great industry. I believe the Minister of Maxine and Fisheries knows the complexity and magnitude of this work which he is called upon to perform, but with his double function of Min-
ister of Marine and Fisheries he cannot hope to give the Fisheries department the consideration which it deserves. I would like to quote a few sentences from a very excellent report upon the patrol service and which throws out a hint that this particular service should be improved. The first sentence is:
In view of the immense increase in the number of fishermen and the quantity of fishing gear operated during the year, particularly in the case of salmon, and the resultant keen competition, the difficulties of the patrol service were greatly increased.
And again, and this is much more important:
Several of the present overseer's areas must be considerably reduced.
I will explain the significance of that sentence a little later on. The report continues:
The inspections by guardians and patrolmen are very often unsatisfactory owing to the fact that these officers are usually new men each year.
Those who do not understand the conditions under which these men enter the patrol service cannot get the significance of that sentence. The minister knows that this service is used for patronage purposes. These men see an opportunity of obtaining a job for two or three months and very often some of them have never seen the inside of a boat before.
I know of one instance where a man was placed on one of these patrol boats and I looked up his history and found that he did not know anything about a marine engine.
I do not blame anyone personally, but I blame the system. The system is wrong and wo should have competent men in our patrol system, men who are paid enough to keep them from temptation and bribery. They should be given proper boats and the areas of inspection should be reduced. Moreover, there should be one or two larger boats provided to ply these waters and visit the harbours where hundreds and hundreds of American salmon trawlers are to be found.
It is only since May 11 that any effort has been made to check up this great evil. A recent case was the patrol boat Malaspina which seized five American trawlers and took them to Prince Rupert. They claimed that they came in for shelter, but it was proved by the evidence of the fishery officers in charge of the fisheries that the weather had been fine. They were not in need of water and they had not been forced in through the inclemency of the weather. A few days ago at Zayas island in northern British Columbia another American trawler was seized. The man admitted that he had been fishing, but he was caught redhanded and was forced to make

Supply-M arinc and Fisheries
that admission, and furthermore, he had salmon on board. That boat was a fifteen ton trawler, newly built in Seattle, and had been fishing in Canadian waters. Before I proceed any further, I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether or not Hecate straits are "mare clausum" or considered as being Canadian water.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department has always claimed that it is.


James Charles Brady: It is within Canadian waters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is our claim but it is not admitted.


James Charles Brady: I am very glad to hear the minister say that that is our claim. I believe that that is one thing which will have to be fought for as those waters should be considered as being purely Canadian waters. Last year the American trawlers took nearly 2,000,000 pounds of salmon from that area. At the north end of Hecate strait, at the international line, there are hundreds of American traps to be found, and the same condition applies to the southern end of the international line. Then we find hundreds and hundreds of American trawlers plying along our coasts and coming into our harbours and there is no doubt in the world that they are not keeping to the treaty of Washington. If this committee, or this House of Commons, would realize the importance of this matter it would receive immediate attention. The only place in Canada where we have fishing problems is on the Pacific coast. The Atlantic seaboard has been fished for many years and it presents no great problems at the present time. This government should have a Minister of Fisheries who knows these waters and knows the problems surrounding them; that is the only solution of the whole matter.
I do not wish to keep the committee any longer, but I only desire to say that we are wasting time, energy and money unless a constructive policy is adopted. These people should be made to live up to the treaty, a better patrol service should be provided, better conditions of entering that service and conservation of our fish. These should be the important points.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: How are these fishery guardians paid? Are they paid ,by the month?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are paid by the
day.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: When they are paid
by the day, are they supposed to do any other work, their own work, or are they paid a sufficient amount to keep them from doing other work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are not supposed to
do any other work during the days they are supposed to work as guardians.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Does that apply to all the fishery guardians?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are a few of them
who are not obliged to give their whole time to the work.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: I have had several
complaints from parts of my constituency that these guardians are doing other work and neglecting the streams. I did not take any notice of this because I was not sure whether they were compelled to devote their full time to the work or not. I suppose this is according to the pay they get.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. In answer to the
observations of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady), while I have no intention of going into any of the details that he has discussed, referring to his last observation that the proper move would be the appointment of a separate minister to look after the fisheries, I have already said in the house that personally I am not very anxious to continue the office of Minister of Fisheries. I think my hon. friend should be relieved by the declaration of the Prime Minister not very long ago that he was considering the matter and that he expected he would be in a position to appoint a Minister of Fisheries. What has been stated by my hon. friend relates, if I am not mistaken, to last year.


James Charles Brady: Yes, 1928.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The results for this year
are very satisfactory. The patrol service has already effected several seizures, and I think the condition has very much improved as compared with what it was last year. At present we have in British Columbia twenty patrol boats. We have two big boats; in district No. 1 we have six smaller ones; in district No. 2, nine, and in district No. 3, five, making a total of twenty. We propose to build for district No. 1, an additional boat, and for district No. 2 five additional boats. We propose also as an experiment to build four sea sleds, very fast motor boats, to operate from a master ship. Of course these sea sleds will not be capable of going on the high seas and in rough weather, but as they are very fastrunning boats, we think they will be of great advantage. Outside of that we have the flying service to help us, and after considering the whole matter and discussing it with interested parties, we have reached an agreement to cooperate to the greatest extent

Sup-ply-Marine and Fisheries
possible with the Northern British Columbia Fishing Association. The department is satisfied that at present the situation has improved, and we hope it will continue to improve.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister has given us
the number of patrol boats he has on the Pacific coast. How many has he on the Atlantic? The hon. member for Skeena evidently thinks that we have no fishery problems in the maritime provinces. I should like him to understand that we have quite as many problems and difficulties in the maritime provinces as they have on the Pacific. The minister might also give the number of patrol boats on the great lakes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have none on the great lakes, but on the Atlantic coast we have the Arras and the Arleux. We have also the Mildred McColl and the F. P. 1. In New Brunswick we have the Phalarope, the Gannet Rock, in addition to chartered boats. Moreover we are building three boats for the eastern coast of Canada, one to replace the F. P. 1 which has been condemned, a new boat for scallop investigation and1 a new boat for patrol service.


Harry Bernard Short: Last year the amount appropriated was $980,000. This year it is $1,160,000, or an increase of $180,000. How is this made up?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the first place there are statutory increases and the employment of four new overseers. This includes the travelling expenses and allowances for these officers.


Mr. McRAE:: What do the overseers get?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have two grades, one
receiving from $1,200 to $1,500, and the other from $1,500 to $1,800. This increase also covers special guardians, employment of additional guardians in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; miscellaneous expenditure, the small amount of $5,000; the building of new boats for the west coast and the east coast, amounting to $137,000. That is the big item in the increase.


Alexander Duncan McRae: How much of that is for the west coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $98,000. The existing
wooden boat sheds at Digby island, British Columbia, which were of cheap and fragile construction, are beyond repair and must be replaced at a great cost or deterioration of the boats will be incurred. Additional sheds (Mr. Cardin.]
are now needed, there being no accommodation for some boats. The amount for that is $6,700. We are now providing $20,000 more than last year for air service.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Principally west coast?
Mr. OARiDIN: Altogether west coast.


Alexander Duncan McRae: This patrol service which, I presume, is being operated on the west coast, is rapidly mounting into very large figures. I notice that last year we spent on the patrol service, $228,904, and from the figures given by the minister our expenditure this year will probably be close to $350,000 on the coast. There is a good deal in what the hon. member for Skeena has said. The conditions of which he complains on the west coast of Vancouver island and under which our Canadian fishermen have suffered have prevailed for a long time. We have beyond the west coast of Vancouver island the Swift Shore banks, about twenty-five miles out, and our fishermen should enjoy the advantage of proximity to that bank, but under the old treaty American vessels have the privilege of entering our ports for wood, water, shelter and repairs. I appreciate that it is very difficult for the department to protect our fishermen and prevent what is undoubtedly going on, and that is the use of these numerous harbours on the west coast of Vancouver island as a resting place for the Seattle fleet.
I submit to the minister that we should take soime steps to protect our fishermen on rhe west coast, even to the extent of asking for a modification of that old treaty which is no* longer applicable to present day conditions.
I submit that a great deal of this expenditure-of $350,000 which the government will make-this year is oaused by the fact that we are-endeavouring to protect ourselves against tne misuse of our numerous hafbours on the west coast. I can see the difficulty the department must experience in doing that because to-day it is not unusual to find twenty-five or fifty American boats, which fish off the Swift Shore Banks, resting in our harbours on the west, coast. They can run in and out of these harbours with impunity under this clause in the treaty which permits them to come in for wood, water, shelter and repairs, almost as conveniently as our own fishermen who have their homes on the shore. I submit that the Seattle fleet would be at a great disadvantage, operating two hundred miles away from their base, if they could only use our harbours when there was a real storm on, and then they could come in for safety. I do not think this treaty was ever intended

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
to allow foreign fishermen to come into our harbours and enjoy exactly the same privileges as our own Canadian citizens. The Seattle fleet buy all their supplies in Seattle, and then come up and fish off the Swift Shore banks, enjoy the privileges of our harbours so far as shelter is concerned, and then return to Seattle with their catch, but they are not subject to two cents a pound duty.
I am glad of this opportunity to put these facts before the committee because I think it is a matter that requires the attention of the government, particularly in view of the increased expenditure which is going on from year to year in order to protect ourselves against conditions which it is impossible for us properly to protect ourselves against, regardless of how many boats you put on the patrol service, for there are dozens of harbours, probably forty or fifty, into which these American boats can run, and there is no habitation there at all. It is quite easy for the Seattle fleet in any little blow which would just make the ordinary 'landsmen seasick to run into our harbours and call it a storm, and then immediately go out and fish again when the sun comes out.


Mr. BALDWIN:: How near the shore can they fish, three or twelve miles?


Alexander Duncan McRae: I believe that three miles is the limit, but that is not the real complaint, because I believe that poaching will be done once in a while by all fishermen. It is difficult on a long coast line of 300 miles to prevent poaching altogether, and I do not think there is any serious complaint about that. What we complain about is that common use of our harbours by foreign fishermen, and our own people.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to endorse
everything that the hon. member for Vancouver North has said. He has outlined the situation as it exists. What the remedy is I do not know unless it be greater vigilance on our part. Some years ago it was the practice never to interfere with these men at ail. There seemed to be some doubt about the correct interpretation of the treaty, and I had a good deal to do with pressing the department to take the matter up. Two years ago the department finally decided to take action, and in order not to be too harsh at first they first of all warned these men, and then on the second offence they seized the vessel. I think last year five or six boats were seized. The United States government took the attitude that we were all wrong, that we had not interpreted the treaty correctly. I believe the matter never went to the courts. The boats
were confiscated or released on paying a very heavy fine. I saw in the local papers only a few weeks ago that quite a number of them had been taken recently, some in the constituency of my hon. friend from Skeena, and some in the district I represent. I can only suggest that the government should be more vigilant in this matter and make an example of these foreign fishermen and vessels when they catch them.


Alexander Duncan McRae: The difficulty the government experiences is in connection with this clause in the old treaty which gives foreign vessels the right to come in for wood, water, shelter and repairs, and until that treaty is modified all we can expect is that the government do the best they can, but they will not get very far in protecting the interests of our fishermen in these harbours because you can readily see that a man could shutoff his gasoline engine or put it out of business and then come into port and say he wants to fix the engine up. Many a man has said that when he has been approached-"I am fixing up my engine"-and he is allowed in under that clause in the treaty which enables him to come in to make repairs. I really think that in the interests of our fishermen the treaty should be revised. It has been in effect for one hundred years, and I think it would be a good thing to bring it up to date.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much will be
spent on the air patrol under this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This year about $40,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: What does that include?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Three planes must be always available and give at least three hundred flying hours.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are the planes owned
by the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, by Canadian Airways
Limited.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I should like to say that
there is no fisheries patrol service on the coast as efficient as the air service.


William Garland McQuarrie: Where do these planes operate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All along the coast but
mainly in district No. 2.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the arrangement with Canadian Airways Limited as to the use of these planes?
3352 .

Supply-.Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have to have three
planes available at places specified by our officers from time to time.


William Garland McQuarrie: What do you pay
for this service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We pay $40,000 to that
company for the use of a plane, and three of them have to be always available anywhere that is indicated by our officer.


William Garland McQuarrie: What do they do? I quite agree that the air service is most useful in fisheries patrol, but I am wondering what work these planes actually do. If we were really getting results, it would seem to me that this poaching which the hon. member for Skeena has told us about should not occur.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Those aeroplanes are operating in the same way as the protective boats that we are using there. The efficiency of the service cannot be gauged by the number of arrests made. The prevention of offences is the most important feature, and judged by these results I think we are justified in saying that the service has proved satisfactory.


Harry Bernard Short: Under this heading comes
salaries. I presume that is one of the items which accounts for some of the increase. Among the new men appointed since the reorganization of the Fisheries department I notice Mr. Paisley, a former editor of the Sydney Record. Will the minister state what position this gentleman occupies, what are his duties and his qualifications?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Paisley has been appointed director of publicity. His salary comes under the civil government vote. As my hon. friend knows, the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission.


Harry Bernard Short: What qualifications does Mr. Paisley possess for a position of this kind? Did we not have an intelligence bureau presided over by one of the other officers of the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We had no officer fulfilling the same duties.


Harry Bernard Short: Did not Mr. Cowie perform those duties?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We had an intelligence bureau for the obtaining of information regarding bait along the coast. That was the only object of the bureau presided over by Mr. Cowie.


Harry Bernard Short: I would think that the man in charge of the intelligence bureau of the fisheries department would need to have some

knowledge of the fishing industry, otherwise he could not give the information to the public that the public are looking for. I would not know Mr. Paisley if I met him on the street, but I am told that he has absolutely no practical qualifications whatever, that his appointment was purely political. Had he not been of the right political stripe, he never would have received this appointment, regardless of whether the Civil Service Commission made it or not. Now, if the minister is going to play politics with the fisheries service he will never improve it; in fact such a course will be very detrimental to the industry. You must get practical men in the department if you are going to make a success of this great natural industry; you must have men who know something about the business.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think this appointment
cannot be described as a political appointment. It was made by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the Civil Service Act. Mr. Paisley is a newspaper man and is supposed to know something about advertising, and certainly having lived for a long period of years in the maritime provinces he has a general knowledge of the fishing industry in that section of the country. We do not need at the head of the publicity division an expert in any line or branch of the fishing industry. If he has a knowledge of the general principles of the industry, and capacity for devising a better scheme of reaching the public, I think his qualifications are sufficient. He has to collect information and distribute it for the benefit of the fishermen and the general public as well. He does not require any technical experience.


Harry Bernard Short: What advertising is the
department doing? I get our maritime papers every day, and so far I have not seen any improvement whatever in the articles that are sent to the press.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Surely my hon. friend realizes that we are only at the start of this branch of the service, and are not yet in a position to show the benefit resulting from its establishment. I repeat, Mr. Paisley's appointment was made through the Civil Service Commission. Several others applied, and the commission decided that Mr. Paisley was the best qualified.


Harry Bernard Short: How long does a man require to get a bureau like this started? How long does it take him to get into his stride? He has been in his position for several months.
I do not believe there is any intention on the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
part of the department to make any radical change. If he is such a wonderful man I would think, after having been in the position for several months, he would be able to show the public that he can improve the service.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Mr. Chairman, I notice that
guardians come under this vote, and I have a suggestion to make to the minister. No people on our coast are more interested in the industry than the fishermen themselves. They have some very representative and serious minded associations, and these associations are giving a great deal of time to the development of the industry. I have no hesitation in saying to the minister that if a little less regard was given to the political complexion of the guardians, and if the fishermen's associations were a little more closely consulted albout appointments, the department would get men who not only know the district to which they are assigned, but also possess the knowledge which the associations have at their disposal. I have not the least doubt in the world that more efficient guardians could be obtained in that way. This would result in better protection of the fish, which is the purpose for which these men are hired.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $20,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: It is not very often that this side of the house criticizes the government for not spending enough money, but this vote for clearing streams is absurd; it is totally inadequate, and in some cases the money has not even been used. It requires no expert in fishing to know that you must remove obstructions from rivers and streams if fish are unable to get up those rivers and streams; and on our coast there are dozens of streams in which improvements of this kind could be made to great advantage. I should like to see the vote sufficiently large so that if applications came in to the department, and investigation warranted it, a proper expenditure could be made to improve any stream where necessary. I know of one steam at least which would require the whole of this vote to put it into proper condition. The expenditure would be worth while, and as a business proposition it would be made. But the department has always been handicapped by the limitation of this particular vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year we spent practically the amount voted-$19,000. I agree with my hon. friend that more work should be undertaken.


Alexander Duncan McRae: The vote should be $100,000, and even if you did not use it all you would at least have the money on hand to do work which is of primary importance.


Harry Bernard Short: I agree with the hon. member that this vote is a mere pittance compared to what it should be to take care of so important a matter as the clearing of streams. We have the same difficulty in Nova Scotia. In some of our rivers, which were splendid salmon rivers, this fish is now almost extinct; the salmon are unable to get up the rivers on account of obstructions. I wish to read an editorial that appeared in the Halifax Herald two or three days ago, bearing on this subject:
Protect The Salmon
There is urgent need for moTe adequate protection in relation to the salmon streams of Nova Scotia. If this adequate protection is not afforded, these fine fish will cease to exist in streams now famous as anglers' haunts.
On certain streams facilities are provided for the passage of salmon upstream, but when the small fish come down they get into the flume and are destroyed.
What is needed, The Herald is advised, is a screen on the flume to keep the small fish out.
This matter is giving concern to those interested in conservation of the fish of the province, and it should receive immediate and effective attention.
I 'believe this matter was brought to the attention of the minister last year by the senior member for Halifax, and it is one that should receive the immediate consideration of the department. Our rivers and streams should be so cleared as to enable salmon to get up and down. This means a great deal to the province of Nova Scotia and to every province in the Dominion. If there is not sufficient money in the vote for the purpose, it would be advisable for the minister to ask for a further appropriation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Last year I called the minister's attention to this very item. There is not much use clearing rivers if you do not take precautions to see that fishways are maintained. The preservation of spawning beds is a most important thing. As I pointed out to the minister, charters are being granted to power companies for the erection of power sites on rivers which are navigable and which should come under the jurisdiction of the federal department. If this matter does not come within the scope of the federal department, then I submit that there should be a certain amount of cooperation with the provincial governments to see that fishways are made on these rivers. I have been over a great number of them and I cannot find one. Consequently, both by damming and by the

Supply-Marine and. Fisheries
erection of power sites, the old spawning grounds are being destroyed, and the future supply of fish is endangered. It is more important to preserve fishways and spawning grounds than it is to maintain hatcheries in an attempt to restore the fish. I spoke about this matter last year but I do not think one thing has been done by the department since then. The result is that power sites are being built without any attempt to establish fishways.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We took this matter up
last year with the Ontario government, but my hon. friend understands the difficulties that have to be met. We can only make representations; we have not the power to impose our views upon the provincial government and to decide whether or not dams shall be 'built. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are not failing to make representations in tihe matter; every case brought to our attention is discussed with the provincial authorities.


Robert Gardiner: Where were the various amounts spent last year and for what purpose?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Money was spent in practically every province. In Nova Scotia we spent $4,545; in New Brunswick, $6,308; and a very small amount in Prince Edward Island We did some work also in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.


Robert Gardiner: No money spent in
Ontario or Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, because the administration of fisheries in Ontario and Quebec is provincial.


Murray MacLaren: What work is being
done on the small salmon streams in the bay of Fundy, on the New Brunswick coast, such is the river near St. George?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that we
did a certain amount of work there last year. The engineers are going there this year to continue it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $130,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: What is this for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
encourage the production, to extend the demand and to improve marketing facilities. With a view to having the growing demands for fresh fish supplied as far as possible by our inshore fishermen, an experiment was [Mr. A. E. Ross.)
started last year in the collection of fish along the coast, where those supplying the fresh fish markets would agree to buy all the fish caught. The portion of the coast covered was from Port Bickerton, Guysborough county, to Canso. The Maritime Fish Corporation, particularly, entered enthusiastically into the experiment. The experiment was successful and resulted in the building of several new boats by the fishermen and in other preparations being made for more intensive fishing. It was continued there last season, when over one million pounds more cod and haddock were transported than in 1927. Another result is that during the present winter at least twenty-two new boats are being built by tihe fishermen, wharves are being enlarged and additional ice and bait facilities are being provided.
The experiment was extended last summer to tihe portion of the southeast coast of Cape Breton from Main a Dieu to Canso, where again the Maritime Fish Corporation understock to buy the fish; to the portion of the cost from Sonora, Guysborough county, to Halifax, along which the National Fish Company of Halifax and Messrs Mitchell and McNeil undertook to buy, and along the portion of the coast from Cape Negro to Lockeport and Shelburne. The idea is to collect the fish from places where it is not easy to market them and take them to where they can be marketed advantageously.


Alexander Duncan McRae: That would seem to apply
to the development of the industry; how about the conservation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the word "conservation" does not apply to the fish but to the fishing industry.


Alexander Duncan McRae: There is one point I would
like to mention in this connection; I refer to the question of our deep sea fishing off the west coast of Vancouver island. I would like to ask if any representations have been received from the fishery interest on the Columbia river with regard to the restriction or the regulation of the fishing season off that coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I suppose my hon. friend
refers to spring salmon?


Alexander Duncan McRae: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Representations have been made but we are not yet in a position to state whether or not those representations are correct.


Alexander Duncan McRae: 
Alan Webster Neill: I think I might add that it is contended by our fishermen that it is not true that later on the fish are bigger; they claim that they can occasionally catch immature fish o2 the west coast of Vancouver island and, as the hon. member for North Vancouver has truly said, they violently resent the idea that they should be restricted in any way for the benefit of the Columbia river fishermen. I drew this matter to the attention of the government a couple of years ago in a similar endeavour to take time by the forelock, as my hon. friend has said.


Alexander Duncan McRae: For the benefit of the committee I might say that the biological society, if my memory serves me correctly, by tagging a great many fish on the Swift Shore banks, showed that when the fish were not interfered with 70 per cent found their way to the Columbia river, and all but a small percentage of the remainder went to Puget Sound. Only a very small proportion reached the Fraser river, so that of the entire catch on the Swift Shore banks, if those fish were not caught, probably not over 10 per cent at the most would find their way into Canadian waters. So it will be easy to understand the deep concern which is felt by our neighbours in desiring to conserve these fish for themselves at our expense.


Harry Bernard Short: This item has been in the
estimates year after year, and has remained at the figure'of $130,000; I think last year was the first time the full amount was expended. The item was originally included in the estimates for the purpose of assisting in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and also to create a demand for fish, but within the last year or two I do not think one dollar has been spent in an e2ort to create that demand. I commend the minister for the action he has taken in having a number of boats collect the fish from the outlying districts of the maritime provinces and take them to the central markets. That has been a splendid thing for the fishermen but it has not created a demand for the fish after they are landed.
I find on looking up the accounts that of the $130,000 voted last year $66,000 was expended in connection with the commission which was appointed to investigate the fisheries. Surely that should not be put under the head of fish conservation. I find also that $17,000 was expended for the extermination of hair seals. Last year we passed an item of $25,000 for that purpose, but we find that a part of this $130,000 has been used to pay bounties in that connection. I just want to show the inefficiency of this department and its inability to cope with the problems of an industry which is of so much importance to this country and which, if properly looked after, would provide for all time sea food in much greater quantities than it is available to-day. I wonder if hon. members aTe aware of the fact that in the maritime provinces we have not increased our fish production since 1910; the figures for that year and for 1927 are almost the same. In 1928 there was a slight increase in the value but none in the amount of the catch, which goes to show that there must be some great inefficiency in this department. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the committee because this item has appeared in the estimates year after year. It was intended for the purpose of increasing the consumption of fish in this country, but the department has not been able to expend it until last year, and they would not have expended it last year had it not been for the royal commission, which took up a large portion of that $130,000. I think the minister should try to create a further demand for our fish as we could sell double the quantity of fish in this country if we had some assistance by way of advertising and had a good live department which would look after the industry as it should be looked after. We have been drifting along for the last twenty years and I hope the attempted
335G

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
reorganization will bring about a larger demand for fish, not only in this country but in foreign countries. I do not see any reason why our trade commissioners should not look up markets for our surplus fish. One of the officials of the department was sent to Great Britain last year to look into market conditions there and he reported that there were possibilities of selling a great deal of our Canadian fish. In order to start that it would need some assistance from the department, but the department has never paid any attention to his report. The fishing industry will continue in a stagnant condition unless a little life is put into the officials of the department. Our production of fish should foe worth $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 instead of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000. We have one of our greatest natural resources right at our doors in the province of Nova Scotia, and if we had a department which was capable of coping with the problem the industry would not be in the position in which it is now. I hope that the reorganization of the department will put some life into this industry.


James Charles Brady: What quantity of haddock
was caught on the Atlantic seaboard and landed at Canadian ports last year?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: While the deputy minister is looking up that information, I would like to say a few words with regard to the fish collecting service. This has been of great benefit to the fishermen in Nova Scotia, and I desire to make the suggestion that that service might be extended to Prince Edward Island. The last speaker complained of the inefficiency of the department as far as Nova Scotia is concerned but that province has been receiving much better service than has been given to Prince Edward Island. I think the fisheries on the north coast of the island could be greatly increased. It is quite true that a private corporation has been operating this year, but if this fish collecting service has been so beneficial to the province of Nova Scotia it would foe equally beneficial to Prince Edward Island.


Finlay MacDonald: I think the department is to be commended on inaugurating this service, but there is one feature of it which should be called to the attention of the government. As far as I can leam, the department does not exercise any supervision over the prices which the buyers pay for the fish. I am instructed that in many instances the prices offered are very low, and I know of one case where the fishermen opened their traps rather than accept the amount which was offered. A question was [Mr. Short.)
asked in the house in relation to this fnatter and the minister promised to get some information. I would suggest that the government go a step farther and introduce the same cooperative methods which prevail in the western provinces in regard to wheat. If we could get the fishermen to cooperate in that way we would be going very far towards solving many of our difficulties. I think the government will need to take the lead in this matter and possibly furnish some money for the first step.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can assure my hon. friend that the department is trying to get the fishermen to cooperate in the same way as the agriculturists are doing in other sections of the country. We have tried to convince them that it would be to their advantage and we are helping them as much as we can. In regard to the prices being paid for the fish, I answered a question in that connection some time ago. It was contended that the companies were buying the fish by the count instead of by the pound, and that the prices offered were not satisfactory. We made representations to the companies that the fish should be bought by the pound instead of by the count, and also that the price offered should be reasonable. Of course we cannot compel them to pay a certain price, but we made the strongest possible recommendation.


Finlay MacDonald: With what results?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that they are now paying a better price than they paid last year. To answer the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) I will give him the figures which appear in the report of 1927. That is the only report which has been published; a more recent one is now in process of publication. The production of haddock by provinces is as follows:
Cwt.
Prince Edward Island	 1.188
Nova Scotia	 384,297
New Brunswick	 33,834
Quebec	  3,500


James Charles Brady: The reason I asked that
particular question is because of the very great importance of this particular vote. It is to increase the demand for fish within as well as outside of Canada. I have a few figures that are very interesting, that are compiled from an authoritative source, the bureau of fisheries of the United States. These facts made an appeal to me for the simple reason that this is just the tiling we need, namely, to develop a great demand, a home market for our fish and particularly for that

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
highly-prized fish, the cod family, which includes the haddock, mackerel and cod. In the decade commencing with 1911, the total catch in pounds of haddock landed at Canadian Atlantic ports, taking the average for the decade 1911 to 1922, was 55,000,000 pounds per annum while at United States ports during the same decade the catch amounted to
73.000.	000 pounds. Something happened in 1922. The United States government imposed a tariff of one-half cent per pound on our haddock. The result was that from 1922 to 1927 the catch of Canadian haddock fell to
38.000.	000 pounds while the United States catoh increased to more than 100,000,000 pounds. In other words, as regards fishing in the very same waters, there was a decrease of 17,000.000 pounds in the Canadian catch and an increase of 27,000,000 pounds in the United States catch. The point I wish to bring out is this. These fish came from the same waters. Nevertheless we find on one side a great decrease and on the other a great increase. By what means were these fish caught?
I will give the answer. It was the Canadian fishermen who were induced to cross over to the United States and get a market there. We allowed them to go; they went with their families, and they continued fishing, but they did not bring their fish into our Canadian ports. There is the greatest need to-day for the development of our own home market. The fisherman is at the thin end of the line. He is the producer; he has no control over the markets. He cannot dictate or stipulate the price for his fish and this government, realizing the importance of that food, should do everything it can to enable him to market his fish where there is a demand for it within Canada, a demand that we are not now getting.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Can the hon. member
give us any information as to what price the fisherman gets per pound for his catch, say of halibut, and then compare it with the price the consumer has to pay?


James Charles Brady: I did not go into that involved question.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is very important.


James Charles Brady: We will discuss it some other time when it comes up.


Mr. QUINN:: This is a very important
item:
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish.
The hon. member for East Calgary has just asked the hon. member for Skeena the cause
of the great spread between the price paid to the fishermen and that paid by the consumer. The price the fishermen gets is as low as half a cent a pound.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: For halibut?


Felix Patrick Quinn: For what we call the common fish, codfish and haddock, caught on the Atlantic coast. The consumer is charged anywhere from 15 cents a pound up.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: To 25 cents.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, and to 30 cents. What I want to ask the minister is this: Is there not some way -whereby the Department of Fisheries could fix a minimum price to the fisherman for his fish?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It is done in connection with other commodities, as the hon. member for Skeena has pointed out. There is a minimum price for wheat.


John Livingstone Brown: Does the hon. member make the assertion that there is a minimum prir' for wheat?


Felix Patrick Quinn: There has been in previous years. It was fixed by the government in previous years.


John Livingstone Brown: But to the detriment of the producers.


Felix Patrick Quinn: This is very important to the fishermen. There is a tremendous spread between the price the fisherman receives as the result of his toil and the price charged to the consumer. That is a matter which should be taken into consideration by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and thoroughly investigated, because the spread is entirely too great.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The point raised by my hon. friend is very important, not only to the fishermen but to all kinds of producers. It has been raised in the house before. We find, in connection with other primary producers, for instance those producing wheat or, as was pointed out in the house the other day, those who are producing apples, there is a tremendous spread between what the producer gets and what the consumer has to pay. I was taken to task a little for questioning the advisability of bringing in more people to produce, for instance, apples in the Okanagan valley where the producer does not realize enough to cover 'the cost of production,

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
whereas in Calgary we have to pay $2 or $3 a box for apples. When the hon. member stated that there is a minimum price set for wheat, that statement was entirely outside the mark. I know of no such thing.


Finlay MacDonald: The minuter says that as a result of departmental activities, we have an increased price for fish in the Ingonish district. What is the price per pound for fish in the Ingonish district at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The price paid last year was 2 to 2i cents, while this year it is 2J cents.


Finlay MacDonald: I have asked the minister a direct question. I do not know whether he is seeking to deceive the committee or not. We have never received 2i cents a pound for cod or haddock caught off the shores of Nova Scotia. Some of these fish may weigh as much as from four to ten pounds, and that price is per piece, per fish. The question that was before the committee was to have the fish bought by the pound, not by the piece. I do not think the government seriously grasps the situation that faces the fishermen at the present time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For fear of being accused of trying to deceive the committee I think I had better read this memorandum which has been handed me by the officers:
The matter was immediately taken up with the general manager of Leonard Fisheries, who explains that for a great many years it has been the practice to buy trap-caught fish by the piece, instead of by the pound, and that this practice has obtained in other places as well as ingonish. The fish are caught in the traps, sometimes in very large numbers, and only a !fw m?n are required to handle the traps, and it is aimcult, and hardly possible, to move these hsh quickly enough to assure their quality being maintained, and that this was the reason that the method of buying trap fish by the piece had been adopted. The price paid last year was two to two and a half cents, while this year two and three-quarter cents were offered. Apart from this, there is competition for the fish, and anyone is at liberty to go there and buy, and that keeping in view the cost of transporting these fish to the freezer at Mulgrave and their quality, the price being paid is as large as the market conditions will permit. '


Felix Patrick Quinn: That just bears out my contention that as low as half a cent a pound has been paid. The hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton mentioned that a fish weighing ten pounds would be sold for two and a half cents, which works out to less than the figure I quoted. Last fall I saw some hundreds of barrels of salted herring and salted mackerel which the fishermen in my constituency had gone out and caught and salted and barrelled, and the information 
that was given to me was that they could not sell this fish for what it cost to catch and barrel them. That is why I ask if it is not possible for the department to regulate the price of fish and fix a minimum price for all classes of fish.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is impossible for the department to fix the price of fish. We are quite ready to help the fishermen get a better price for their fish, and every recommendation or representation of a constructive character will be welcomed by the department. If my hon. friend has any method to suggest, the department is quite ready to look into it, but I must confess that at present we know of no method of fixing the price of fish. It depends on market conditions. As the hon. member for Digfoy-Annapo'lis has pointed out, the marketing is the important problem that has to be solved, and we hope that with the new branch that we have established, the publicity that will be given will increase the demand for fish and thus enlarge the market. But I repeat, I see no method at present of fixing the price of fish.


Felix Patrick Quinn: May I suggest to the minister that he inquire into the cause of the great spread between the price paid to the fisherman and the price paid by the consumer? I think that would be a very good matter for investigation by the new deputy minister of fisheries, and I would suggest that the minister instruct the deputy minister of fish-eris to go into that question thoroughly and find out if some relief cannot be given to the fisherman.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the least objection in the world to following that course.


Harry Bernard Short: Is it the intention of the
department to expend any of this $130,000 for advertising?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the officers are preparing to do advertising out of this vote.


Harry Bernard Short: A portion of this money
will be used on advertising?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is not a question of
demand, because there is plenty of demand for fish. The trouble is that the people who are demanding fish have not the money to buy it at present prices. I think the minister would do a good work if he would undertake to find out what causes the great spread between the price paid to the original

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
producer and the price paid by the consumer. . Such an inquiry might lead to very valuable results in other departments of the government.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would just like to
support what the hon. member for East Calgary has said. Year after year we hear hon. gentlemen from the maritimes complaining that the price the fishermen get for their fish is not sufficient to pay for catching them, and. yet when that very product gets to western Canada it is so high in price that we cannot buy it. Take such a good old fashioned article of diet as boneless codfish. Frequently I have sent down to the martimes and got a pound or two by mail. We cannot buy it in the west for any reasonable price at all. I would draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has an item in his estimates for a cooperative marketing agency, and I think that this subject might very well come up under that vote. The question of British Columbia fruit is on a parity with this fish question. The producer in British Columbia hardly gets the cost of growing his fruit, and yet the price of that fruit when it reaches the prairies is so high that we cannot afford to buy it. This question of the spread between the price to the producer and the cost to the consumer offers a great field for investigational work. We spend hours and days and weeks arguing about the tariff, and it is an important matter for those who have to pay the extra cost that the tariff imposes, but the tariff is not nearly so important as this other factor that operates over the tariff wall and in spite of any tariff wall, and that is the cost of distribution. I hope that when the estimateis of the Minister of Agriculture are up we will give these questions consideration in connection with the item for a cooperative marketing agency.


Finlay MacDonald: Coming
back to the question I asked, I said that fish were selling at two and two and one-half cents apiece. I do not believe that in Ingonish they are selling any higher than two cents .apiece; that is, to the corporations who own the traps; I am not talking of trap fishermen, net fishermen and line fishermen, and we have 43,000 of them in the maritimes. They are *compelled to accept two cents apiece for every cod or haddock that they they sell to the corporations. Some of these fish weigh as high as ten and fifteen pounds, and, when retailed here in Ottawa, bring 25 and 30 cents a pound. I have bought it here in Ottawa at that price, and I did not get fresh Nova Scotia fish, but fish that had been in cold storage for a long time. I did not get the fish that 78594-213
I would get at home for five cents apiece, not per pound. The point I want to make is this: It is not for the corporations that we should seek to legislate, but rather for the individual fisherman. As to organization of fishermen, we had a very distinct recommendation in that respect by the royal fisheries commission which sat in Nova Scotia in 1927. It is some time since that commission made its report, and the present condition of affairs shows how this department is falling down.
I may say that, irrespective of governments, the department of fisheries as formerly or as now constituted has not taken into consideration the seriousness of the question. Ten thousand fishermen have left our shores since 1912. Five hundred have left the little island of Scatarie-to go where? To engage in the American fisheries. A good many of those men will become American citizens. The American fishermen are getting a decent price for their fish. Fish landed in Boston or New York fetch 5 or 6 cents a pound. If our Nova Scotians received 3 cents a pound for their catch they would be able to live.
After going over and describing various forms of organization, the royal fisheries commission made this recommendation:
We Tecommend, therefore, that the establishment of cooperative organizations of fishermen be assisted by the department as soon as possible, and that an organizer, experienced in cooperative methods, be appointed and paid by the federal government for the required period to initiate and complete this work.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister if this had been done. Has his department taken any steps to organize the fishermen of the maritime provinces? The fishermen to-day are seeking to organize themselves by private contributions and by assistance from the provincial government. But has this one important recommendation of the royal fisheries commission been carried out by the Dominion government? No, the minister's department did not organize the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Instead, what did they do? They went to work and supplied a collection system. For whom? For the benefit of the corporations-not for the benefit of the cooperative societies, but for the advantage of the financial corporations. The fish have been carried at government expense practically free of cost to the corporation, but the producer- the fisherman-is not receiving one copper more for his fish than he did in 1927. I notice the Deputy Minister of Fisheries does not agree with me. Well, I wish he were in the minister's place. I think he has had control of the situation for the last fifteen or



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
sixteen years, and it is through him, through our director of fisheries in the maritimes, that we have fallen down.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the situation. The fish are collected by a government fish-collection service and brought to the private corporations. These corporations pay whatever price they see fit. Is not that the fact? The fishermen of the maritimes to-day are not receiving a cent more. The corporations are not paying the cost that they formerly paid to have the fish collected; the government is collecting the fish for them and helping them out to that extent. This is the new "system" that is assisting our fishermen in the maritimes. The result ds that to-day we are receiving two cents apiece for cod and for haddock caught on some of our best fishing grounds-Ingonish, for instance. I submit that it is up to the minister and his department to follow a different system and to implement the finding of the commission that sat in Nova Scotia and cost this country $100,000; I say it is up to the government to do so without further delay.
Mr. CAR,DIN: My hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, is hardly fair to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries. He may be subject to certain criticism, but no man in the world can escape criticism in the fulfilment of his duties. The present Deputy Minister of Fisheries during the time he was director of fisheries and since has devoted himself to developing the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. If anybody should be interested in that work it should be the present deputy minister, because he comes from the maritimes, and nobody can accuse him of neglecting his duty towards the fishermen of those provinces. He is not perfect, nobody in this country is perfect, and if my hon. friend were occupying the position of deputy minister of fisheries he would be subject to criticism as severe as that which he is now directing against the deputy.
It is true that the fishermen of the maritime provinces have been experiencing difficulties, but the fishing industry is not the only industry in this unhappy condition. The farming industry has been passing through very difficult days; our labouring men have been experiencing great difficulties; our traders and merchants generally speaking are experiencing great difficulties. But so far as the good will of the fisheries department towards the fishing industry of the maritimes is concerned, I may say tha. our officials are putting their heart and soul into their attempt to solve the problem. It is not an easy problem. It 
cannot be solved by a few accusations, it cannot be solved by writing a few letters. It is a problem that will require the best minds of this country for its satisfactory solution. We are experiencing difficulties because we are next to a country which has closed its market, a very profitable market, to us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hush, hush!


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The United States market
in the past was very profitable for our fishermen, and when congress increased the duty on cur fish it placed our fishermen in a very difficult situation. We are trying to cope with the situation, we are trying to carry out the recommendations made by the fisheries commission. The very thing that my hon. friend is speaking about is already being undertaken. Our officers are being trained with a view to organizing the fishermen and assisting them. We propose to help them as much as we possibly can.


Finlay MacDonald: The hon. minister states that my criticism of the deputy minister is hardly.fair.	Now, the Deputy
Minister of Fisheries formerly occupied the position of director of fisheries, and since then he has been promoted. Well, after receiving the report of the royal commission which investigated our fisheries, I cannot see why the government took such a stand. The commission recognized that the Department of Marine and Fisheries had fallen diown in the maritime provinces-they must! have recognized it. If the deputy minister had paid as much attention to the results which would accrue to the fishermen as to the corporations, he would have taken a different stand in the last fifteen years as regards the problem of the maritime fisheries.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is unfair.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not blame the present government only. I blame every government that has directed the affairs of this country during the last fifteen years.
I blame both parties. Both parties are guilty.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Finlay MacDonald: When
the committee rose I was dealing with a few statements made by the minister, who characterized my criticism of the deputy minister as hardly fair. I covered a little of the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
ground, pointing out that during the last fifteen or twenty years the department, so far as the maritime provinces were concerned, had been administered by a director of fisheries. Now I want to impress upon the' minister the failure of the government io carry out the recommendations contained not only in the report of the Duncan commission but, as well, in the report submitted by the royal commission which was appointed to investigate the fisheries. I contend that thi3 government was distinctly at fault in appointing the director, to whom must be directly attributable the condition which has existed in our fisheries in the maritime provinces during the years I have mentioned. And for this the government should be severely censured. The minister stated that conditions were bad not only with the fishermen but with the farmers and others as well. In reply to that statement I have this to say:	Had conditions been looked into as thoroughly, and an effort put forward as vigorously, to bring about an improvement in the fisheries of the maritime provinces under this department as has been the case in connection with the agricultural industry in Canada, the fishing industry in the maritimes would not be in the state in which it is to-day. The minister further stated that so far as his department was concerned, good will had been shown towards the people of the maritimes. Let me assure him that the fishermen and the people generally of the maritime provinces welcome his good will. But we want a little more than good will; we want an organized department of fisheries for the maritime provinces. We want the maritime fishermen to be properly organized; we want them to be given something more than good will; we want conditions so improved that they may obtain the things that are necessary to life, in order that they may secure a living wage, in order that they may be as well paid as their brothers who are engaged in various other industries in the country. That is what we demand. We accept the minister's good will, but we want the fishermen in the maritime provinces to be given the consideration which has been shown the western farmers in regard to rural credits and other benefits. We want organization similar to that which now exists in the west. In short, we want to have the recommendations of the fisheries commission carried out. The minister suggested that we were organizing-through what means? Through the fisheries inspectors in the maritime provinces. We have had these inspectors for a number of years, and what have they accomplished? To-day they are being taken before a biological board in Nova
Scotia-to study organization? Is that the way in which the fisheries commission's recommendations are being carried out?
I am going to read a few statements from the report of the fisheries commission in case the government have not read them. The commissioners state that they do not propose to discuss in detail methods of organization; that must be left to responsible authorities -not, as the minister suggests through his deputy, to a group of fishery inspectors who are sent every few weeks to Halifax to a biological board to study the organization of fishermen. The report proceeds:
But we suggest that after careful study the maritime provinces be divided into zones or districts, the limits of which shall be determined by the number of fishermen and the quantity of production; that each of these zones be organized into a fishermen's cooperative association; and that the zones so organized be again included in a provincial body, and perhaps into one association of the entire maritime provinces. In certain places in each of the zones or districts so formed, small brinefreezing or rapid freezing plants, with a small auxiliary cold storage building, with salt and ice equipment, should be established; and at a central point, within a day's transit of these small local plants, a large cold storage building-and possibly a fish-waste plant where warranted by quantity of waste, should be provided, all with initial subsidy assistance from the federal government. The large, central cold-storagebuilding would take care of surplus frozen fish direct from the freezers, or would take the surplus product from the smaller local storage buildings. More extended reference to brine freezing has been made in another paragraph. From such an organization a marketing sales board to control the output of the product. .	.
and selling agents to control the distribution in the larger places of demand, would dominate the market, keep it on a stable basis, and, with the organized power of bargaining, could dictate reasonable prices alike for producer and consumer, and gain a reasonable profit. Such a plan would ensure a more direct contact between producer and consumer, and would eliminate some of the costs for services which now intervene.
Then he goes on to say that by such methods, properly established, the consumer would receive a better product and the fishermen would receive more adequate recompense for their labour.
The reason I spoke as I did this afternoon is because I live in a fishing con munity; my livelihood depends upon the al ility of the fishermen in my community to earn a living. If I am to prosper every fisherman in that locality must prosper, -and how can they prosper when they sell their cod and haddock for two cents each? That is not two cents per pound; fish weighing eight and nine pounds are sold for two cents each. What is the reason for this condition? The minister said it was due to the large amount of fish taken in traps,
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

but he neglected to refer to the fact that the large amount of fish taken by our beam trawlers is equally responsible for this condition
We do not want to play politics in connection with this question, but there is a matter to which I must refer. Last summer the deputy minister made a trip to Nova Scotia and arrived right in the midst of our local campaign. I believe he landed somewhere near Canso, and took with him on his trip the manager of our large beam trawler concern, Mr. Robinson. They toured through the fishing sections of Cape Breton in order that they might appease the fishermen in those sections. I do not know what private conferences took place or what happened during those conferences, but I do know that the fishermen of the province of Nova Scotia were led to expect much more than was contained in Bill No. 26 which was brought down in this house some time ago. I can tell the minister and the deputy minister that the fishermen of Nova Scotia resent having their industry used as a football at election time; that is one of the reasons why I spoke as I did this afternoon. This question does not concern the minister so much, but it does concern us in the maritime provinces, and I want to tell the deputy minister that if he comes to our province again during an election he will not be so well received as has been the case in the past.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my bon. friend is not fair when he makes the insinuation that the Deputy Minister of Fisheries went to Nova Scotia during election time in order to influence the electors of that province. That is not correct; he was there on business for the department.


Finlay MacDonald: Then I would ask the minister why his deputy took wTith him the head of the largest beam trawling concern when he visited the various fishermen during his trip to Nova Scotia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand the reason
was that this concern was the only one which was willing to buy the fish which would be brought in as a result of the fish collection service; they were the only people ready to cooperate under the new system.


Finlay MacDonald: What
price did the fishermen receive?
.Mr. CARDIN:	That is not the question.


Hugh Guthrie: Was this visit made just before the election?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
election was decided upon after the deputy minister had left Ottawa.
{Mr. Macdonald (Richmond).]


Finlay MacDonald: That
was the second trip, when he went to see if Mr. Paisley was a proper man to place at the head of the fisheries intelligence bureau.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that that is not so, and surely my hon. friend will not complain if the deputy minister visits Nova Scotia several times in order to get better acquainted with the situation there.


Finlay MacDonald: To play politics with the fishing industry.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He has not been playing
politics at all; the deputy minister is out of politics and is fulfilling his duties without interfering in politics.


Finlay MacDonald: If he
was not playing politics certainly he was not looking after the interest of the fishermen when he took with him the head of the beam trawler group, the man who to-day is responsible for the election of the Liberal member for the constituency of Antigonish-Guys-borough. He came to the Liberal headquarters in my constituency and had a conference with my opponent; he also went to see Hon. Mr. Mombouirquette, who looks after the interests of the Liberal party in the outlying districts. He did not go to see anyone else; he left the gospel with those gentlemen.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He did not go to you?


Finlay MacDonald: He
certainly did not come to me.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With regard to that section of 'Nova Scotia I might quote a few words from a letter signed by the president and vice-president of the fishermen's federation of Louisburg. Surely these gentlemen know something about this question. The letter is as follows:
This year the experiment of- having a boat collect the fish and take them to the firm's market, was started too late in the season to prove the full worth of the experiment. But I think you will agree that even though the best fishing season had gone before the experiment was put into effect, yet the outcome fully warranted tbe cost of the service. It simply turned what had every appearance of a failure in the fisheries to a successful year for our fishermen. It lias given the fishermen new hope, and with the promise of a continuance of thus marketing our fish, our fishermen will procure better facilities and go into the fisheries on a larger scale.
Next year, which will be a full year, will prove to you and the fishermen as well, that there is a living in the fisheries, when the fish can be properly marketed.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
I am surprised to hear my hon. friend complain about the establishment of this collecting service; I think he is the only man from Nova Scotia opposing or critizing the establishment of that service.


Finlay MacDonald: What is the date of that letter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is dated last fall and is signed by the president and vice-president of the fishermen's federation.


Finlay MacDonald: What
time last fall?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: After the season had been closed.


Finlay MacDonald: The fishermen had great hopes that the establishment of this service would be a panacea for their ills. These collecting services have been in operation all along the line but the fishermen are not receiving a better price than they did before. They used to receive $9 for a little over a hundred pounds of dried fish, but during last season they hardly received two cents apiece. Moreover, they were making SI per hundred pounds more by selling their fish salted instead of selling them under the method my hon. friend advocates.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this collecting done free of charge?


Samuel William Jacobs: They are fish pools, perhaps.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This service is provided for the collecting of fish from certain points where there are no transportation facilities. A charge of 10 cents per hundred pounds is made against the shipper.


Edward Joseph Garland: The service is supplied to places where there is no rail communication?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: And a
charge of 10 cents per hundred pounds is made for that service?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They take them to the cold storage depot first.


Edward Joseph Garland: I suppose the service would be limited to the outside places. To that extent it is good, but it would have no effect, on the general level of prices and is not a step in the direction of organization. I think that in time the fishermen down there will be handling that service for themselves, but there is no harm in this government service.


Finlay MacDonald: For the benefit of my hon. friend I would say that in practically every one of these communities the various corporations which have been buying fish in the past have maintained such a service. Now the government has instituted ' a service but the fishermen are not receiving one cent over and above the old prices. If the company has enough fish it will offer the fishermen half a cent or a quarter of a cent per pound, or 2 cents apiece. The fish have been selling in Ingonish and northern Cape Breton for 2 cents apiece, and until we have the proper method of organization and until the recommendations of the commission have been carried out by this government and proper cooperatives and associations formed, that fish collection service will be of no value to the fishermen in the various communities.


Mr. RALSTON:: I should like to read a petition from the constituency of my hon. friend. I think that the fishermen, perhaps, understand the conditions a good deal better than I do, and I am beginning to think they understand them better than my hon. friend does. This petition is as follows:
At a large representative meeting of the fishermen's-


Finlay MacDonald: I would like to tell the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: The
hon. member has made a statement, and I should have the opportunity-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Layton Ralston: I will not yield the
floor.


Finlay MacDonald: I rise to point of order, Mi-. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member desires to speak to a point of order.


Finlay MacDonald: The hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has stated that probably there were people who understood the fishing conditions better than I do. I just want to make the statement that if I did not understand them, and if the fishermen did not feel that I understood them-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: - they would not have sent me here.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member has stated his point of order.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


James Layton Ralston: I was about to say that I do not claim to have a knowledge of the real benefits of this collection service such as the fishermen have, but I am beginning to think that my hon. friend has not that knowledge 'either. This petition was addressed to myself and to the hon. Minister of Fisheries, and I should like to know from my hon. friend whether or not it correctly represents the views of the fishermen. I have been under the impression that this collection service is of substantial benefit and I must confess that I have done all in my power to support it and assist in having it started, believing that it would be in the interests of the fishermen. The following petition was passed unanimously by the fishermen's union:
At a large and representative meeting of the fishermen's union of L'Ardoise district the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:
Whereas the fishermen of the L'Ardoise district have heretofore been greatly handicapped on account of lack of adequate transportation facilities;
And whereas the federal government has subsidized collection boats to collect fish from the various sections along the southern and eastern shores of Nova Scotia;
And whereas a collection boat can be successfully operated from the port of L'Ardoise at least during the spring and summer months, and thus enable the fishermen of that port to dispose of their catch on equal terms with those of other districts already served by collection boats;
And whereas LWrdoise is one of the largest and most important fishing centres in the province of Nova Scotia;
It is therefore resolved that the Department of Fisheries be respectfully requested to make provision for a fish collection boat to serve the district of L'Ardoise during the coming season.
It was resolved that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Hon. Mr. Cardin, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and to myself. The petition was signed by the president, Mr. Wilfred Mombourquette, and by the secretary, Mr. A. P. Sampson, of the fishermen's union, and I took the petition at its face value. I believe that the gentlemen who signed it and the gentlemen whom they represented knew what they were talking about, and until my hon. friend spoke this afternoon I had thought that the collection service was considered to be in the best interests of the fishermen.
The only objections I have received to this service have been from representatives of the companies. One company did not give any particular reason, but stated that they did not favour the proposition. Another company wrote to me;
We suppose that such a move is intended to raise the prices to the fishermen, but we, as curers cannot stand any increase.
[The Chairman.1
Even though these objections were received the collection service was put into effect. My hon. friend says that he has no desire to play politics in this matter; if that is so, I think he should give credit where the credit is due, and I was surprised to hear him criticize this service this afternoon and again this evening. I should like to know whether he is for or against this collection service. The service was inaugurated in my own constituency and as a result the fishermen were enabled to fish as late as the middle of January whereas previously they had been forced to stop fishing about the end of October. It was regarded as a substantial benefit. In that connection I should like to read an extract from a lettev which I received, as follows:
The boat is a great help to all concerned and everyone is anxious to make a success of it so *that the service could be continued another year. It surely makes a great difference to all concerned in the fishing industry in this locality.
That letter was written early this year. The petition which I have read was signed in February 1929. I think %ve should deal with this matter fairly. These measures were thought to be of great assistance to the fishing industry, particularly in the outlying places and the fishermen are approving them and asking for more. If my hon. friend is against the service I should like him to say so.


Finlay MacDonald: If the
minister has been in the 'house for the last twenty minutes, he knows exactly where I stand in the matter. I do not have to make myself any clearer. I say that without cooperation to handle that fish production, the fish collection service is of no benefit to the fishermen whom it is supposed to serve. As it exists to-day, it is of benefit to the corporations and the department is paying for what the corporations should be paying for to-day.


James Layton Ralston: That is what neither the
fishermen nor the companies say.


Finlay MacDonald: When
the fishermen sent the letter and the petition to my hon. friend, they were not in a position to know. They were reading what was in the departmental literature on the subject as to the benefits that would accrue. If the fishermen along the shore where this fish collection is in vogue were to salt that fish instead of selling it fresh, they would last vear have been a dollar per 100 pounds better off.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


James Shaver Woodsworth: Evidently there is
a good deal of dissatisfaction, at least among certain classes of the fishermen in Nova Scotia. Under date of November 15, 1928, I received a letter enclosing certain resolutions from the Fishermen's Federation of Nova Scotia in which, it is stated, there is an actual membership of more than one thousand. There were enclosed with the letter copies of resolutions adopted at the district convention of the Fishermen's Federation of Nova Scotia held at St. Peter's, Nova Scotia, on July 19, 1928. Among other statements made are these:
Tim fishermen consider the erection of the public fish cold storage in Halifax very unpropitious, unless further steps are taken to enable shore-fishermen to profit by it. If it is only going to help a few investors in the trade and, alas! perhaps serve only as a storage room for steam-trawler fish, then we claim that a huge sum of public money is being spent to hasten the already appalling exodus of our fishermen, and, indeed, a good many small dealers will be put out of business.
Again:
While the government is showing itself so generous towards doubtful projects of tiiis nature, large sections of the coast are unable to sell their fish fresh through lack of small storage plants and, further, are unable to secure public funds to erect wharves, and other harbour facilities sorely needed. We are told that without trawlers, we could not supply the market. The fact is we could flood the market if we could sell fresh, profitably, instead of salting.
The recommendation of the royal commission that a chain of small cold storages should be erected along the coast, with a large plant near shipping facilities, to gather in the product of the smaller plants, is the real solution of the fishermen's troubles. If that were done, we would not have to worry about trawlers, or supply of the market, or exodus of our brave fishermen. But, to concentrate public favours upon a few spots and a few people, and leave the coast and its inhabitants as they are now, is to leave the fishery question unsolved, and, really, to make it worse than it ever was.
In one of their resolutions the fishermen's federation goes on to urge that the government should appoint some officials to help them to organize. Personally I am not at all sure that government officials will do very much to help in the organization of these fishermen, but there is not the slightest doubt that some organization and possibly further facilities than the fishermen now have, are needed. When I was in the east a few months ago, I was told that very frequently the fishermen had to go to cold storage plants operated by the big corporations even to procure their bait, and that they were absolutely in the hands of the big corporations. Bearing out what was said about the low price of fish only a few weeks ago, namely
on April 18, I received a letter from a correspondent in Nova Scotia in the Canso district who made this statement:
Brittain from Montreal recently announced fish prices as follows for 1929: market cod, $1.25 per hundred pounds; steak cod, $1.50 per hundred; fish under 23 inches, 75 cents a hundredweight.
It seems to some of us who are outside that area that surely there is something wrong when, with such large supplies of good fish on the Atlantic coast, we have to pay in the inland parts such high prices for fish. Some urge that we ought to increase the market We have a great market in central eastern Canada and all through the west. Many of us would like to use fish to a much greater extent, but we cannot pay the high, fancy prices which we are charged under present-conditions. In other words, we have the fishermen themselves being exploited at one end through lack of organization and facilities, and the consumers throughout the inland areas being exploited because of the lack of proper facilities for 'bringing the producer and the consumer together. The minister should to-night make it much clearer than he has yet done why a more definite attempt has not been made to carry out the recommendations made by the commission.


Harry Bernard Short: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just read an article from what he calls the Fishermen's Federation of Nova Scotia. That is the fishermen of eastern Nova Scotia. There is no such thing as a general federation of fishermen in the province of Nova Scotia. I know something about the fishermen of that province, representing one of the largest fishing sections there. There is no such federation in the western section of Nova Scotia. The hon. member also read a statement that Britten- I presume that applies to Mr. A. H. Brittain of the Maritime Fish Corporation of Montreal-had set the price for the season. There is not a word of truth in tlhat statement. I am in a position to know.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that a
Canso correspondent had given me that.


Harry Bernard Short: And I say there is not a word of truth in the statement he gave the hon. member. Mr. Brittain never set any price for the season at all. That is a most ridiculous thing for the hon. member's correspondent to state, because there is no such thing as a set price for the season for fish in the province of Nova Scotia. That was the opening price for the spring, and it is a good fair price. The price of li or 1J cents
336(5

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
a pound is for round fish. That is the opening price in the season when the fish are in their poorest state. They are very thin in the spring, and consequently are not worth the same price that they are later on. As the season advances and the fish get better, the price advances. Last fall the prices rose to 2i and we paid as high as 3 cents a pound. I am fully in accord with these fish collecting boats that the government have put on and I believe they have done a great deal for *the fishermen of Nova Scotia.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The hon. member says "we paid." Whom does he mean by '"we"?


Harry Bernard Short: I am in the fish business
myself, if the hon. member wants to know. I have been in that business for more than thirty years, and I claim to know something about it. I have every sympathy for the fishermen of Nova Scotia, and I am doing and have done everything I possibly can for them. As I said this afternoon, I commend the government for putting on these collecting boats. I think they have done a great deal for the outlying stations. There are sections of Nova Scotia which cannot reach the markets without a service such as this, and there are other sections that do not require it, but irr the outlying districts undoubtedly it has done a great deal of good, and I want to commend the government accordingly.
There are many other things which the government could do to help; I outlined some of them this afternoon. There is no question that the shore fisheries have been greatly neglected, but the government has now made one more in the right direction and I hope it will proceed further. There has been a great deal of talk about cooperation among the fishermen. I think that would be a move in the right direction. If you can get the fishermen into cooperative societies they will be able to buy their materials cheaper and make better arrangements for disposing of their fish. At the present time, were it not for the firms to which some people object, I do not see how the fishermen could sell their products. It might be of benefit to them to go in for cooperation as has been done in the west in connection with the wheat pool, but it is questionable whether it would or not, because fish and wheat are two different commodities. Wheat you can hold until the market can take care of it, but fresh fish has to be marketed every day, and marketed promptly.
I had not intended to speak to-night until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted a communication that was supposed to have come from a concern in which I am in-

terested, and I felt I must take exception to it. I know that he did not intend to mislead the house, but evidently the parties who sent the communication to him intended to convey the impression that those spring prices were all the year round prices, and that is absolutely not correct.


James Charles Brady: It is quite evident that
there must have been a reason for the establishment of this fish collecting service. The fishermen must have been under some disabilities or it would never have been brought into being. It was established for the benefit of those fishermen out on the banks who were not able by their own enterprise to get their fish promptly to the nearest market. The minister knows thoroughly the conditions that prevailed prior to the inauguration of that service, and it would be a great help if he would tell the committee just what they were. I should also like to ask if this service is confined to the Atlantic seaboard, or is it extended to the British Columbia coast? I have been away out on the banks with the trawlers and I find that private enterprise enables the British Columbia fishermen who catch their fish far remote from the markets to market their catch. People go out to the fishermen and for a nominal sum they buy the fish from the fishermen and transport it to the market. If this fish collecting service on the Atlantic seaboard is operating so successfully, I should like to know if it is to be extended to the Pacific seaboard.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This system is not extended to the British Columbia coast. It is contended in the department that conditions in British Columbia are very different because there the fish buyers go out and buy the fish on the fishing grounds. On the Atlantic coast the buyers do not do that, and the fishermen are not in a position to bring their fish in fresh to the market and dispose of it for cash as advantageously as they can with this service. As to the conditions prevailing prior to the establishment of this service, I can only refer my hon. friend (Mr. Brady) to the expressions of opinion that we have received from all parties concerned to the effect that they are satisfied with this service and that it is a benefit to them. We are receiving requests to extend the service to many other communities.


James Charles Brady: It means that the fishermen are not compelled to leave the locality where they are fishing, but can continue their operations and at the same time have their catch marketed and disposed of?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened to the observatipns of the Minister of National Defence as well as those of' the minister in charge. As I understood the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton, he was not objecting so much to the collection of fish as to the failure to carry into effect the recommendations of the royal commission on fisheries, one of those recommendations being the establishment of cooperative zones for dealing with the distribution and sale of the product. If the minister has read the farm relief bill in the United States he will observe that it proceeds exactly along the lines of the recommendations of the fisheries commission, and that a $500,000,000 revolving credit is to be established, to be operated not by the nation itself, but through cooperative societies acting through clearing houses. The recommendation of the royal commission as to cooperative effort in marketing fish is finding concrete expression in that bill. As I understood the hon. member for Richmond-West Caipe Breton, his complaint was that the government had substituted for the recommendations of the royal commission this service of gathering fish in the manner in which he indicated, and that it has not brought about an increase in the price, which was the object aimed at; for the price, he pointed out, was not adequate having regard to the risk involved and the character of the food secured. It is contended that the spread between the initial price to the producer and the ultimate price to the consumer is too great. Can the minister say why these recommendations have not been carried into effect, and whether it is the intention of the government to endeavour so to do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly it is the intention of the department to carry out the recommendations of the royal commission appointed to look into the fisheries. We have already established the fish collection service, and we propose to follow the other recommendations of the commission.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition probably has not read the whole report lately. But one of the recommendations of that report was for improved transportation facilities, and it dealt with one of the sections that were under discussion tonight. The petititon I read on the matter of cooperative effort was from a fishermen s union.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no misunderstanding as to that; but as I listened I gathered that the criticism was that we had transportation without linking up the transportation with cooperative sale and distribution.


James Layton Ralston: They are two different things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, but if you are going to gather fish they must be sold, and the question of how they are to be sold is an important matter that arises out of the gathering. One method is through cooperative organizations; the other is by the old method.


Hugh Guthrie: A few days ago we received notice that, some new process had been evolved in regard to the chilling of fish for transportation to remote markets and we had in the restaurant a very fine sample of haddock. Is that system now in general use, and can fish which has been so chilled be shipped into western Ontario, for instance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Three companies have already started operations along that line, and there is a possibility that other companies will go into the business.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say that the
fish that came last week was a very prime sample; but- if the minister hadi tasted the cod that was served in the restaurant yesterday he would have found he had got the other end of the line.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will consumers be able to
purchase the fish at It cents a pound?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid not.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Has any
arrangement been made with the International Fresh Fish Corporation with regard to carrying fish along the shores of Prince Edward Island? If so, what will be the cost to the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have arranged for a
subsidy to that company, and it is preparing to carry on.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: On what basis is the subsidy to be paid? And what will it amount to?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are paying $1,800 a
month to the company for the operation of the boat.


Alexander Duncan McRae: This new freezing process
has been under observation for some time on the Pacific coast, but it has not made a great deal of progress. Will similar treatment be given to any cold storage men who want to adopt the system on the Pacific coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is wide open to the
people on the Pacific coast.


Alexander Duncan McRae: On what basis is the subsidy granted?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no subsidy in
connection with that freezing process.'
Supply-Marine- and Fisheries


Abraham Albert Heaps: The statements made this
evening by two hon. members from the fishing district of Nova Scotia struck me forcibly. It was news to me to hear that the fishermen who risk their lives on the fishing grounds receive only two or three cents for the fish they bring in. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) stated the fishermen m his district were paid only li to 2 cents a pound for their catch. We, the consumers, have to pay some 25 to 30 cents a pound for our fish. I have never yet been able to find out how the spread is made uip. There is no use talking about improved systems of freezing fish and catching more fish unless at the same time some means is devised of laying down the product to the consumer at a reasonable rate. No matter what the fishermen may do to improve their position, their efforts will be unavailing unless the fish can be sold to the consumer at a reasonably low price. I do not see why fish cannot be sold at half the present price and the various interests concerned in the industry still be allowed a reasonable pjrofit. When the farmers of western Canada were faced with a situation somewhat similar to that which now confronts the fishing industry they organized a wheat pool. It seems to me that if our fishermen would copy some of the methods of our western farmers, for instance, organize themselves into a cooperative marketing pool, they might be a good deal better off.
I observe that the total vote for the fisheries department is 82,403,000. That seems to me to be a rather large sum. I do not know whether the fishing industry is getting full value for this expenditure. I believe we are spending more money in the interests of this industry than in looking after the farming community, and yet the total value of the catch of fish is small compared with the value of our farm products. Will the minister kindly tell me the total value of the catch for the last fiscal year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total value for 1928
was 854,000,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And we spent $2,400,000 to look after that catch, or about 4 per cent of the total.


Felix Patrick Quinn: This discussion, Mr. Chairman, would have been unnecessary had the recommendations of the Duncan commission been implemented by this government. Dealing with fisheries organization, the Duncan commission made this recommendation:
There should be a separate branch in the joint department with a deputy minister of fisheries at its head. In view of the importance of the industry and the distance at which the 
department has to function from the principal fishery areas, we feel it would be advisable to have a deputy minister whose duties would be confined to that section of the department and who would therefore be freer to keep in close personal touch with its problems by periodical visits to the fishery areas, and we recommend accordingly. It was urged that the deputy minister should in such an event be a person having practical qualifications.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against the present incumbent of the office of Deputy Minister of Fisheries. I believe he is a gentleman of the highest integrity and is so regarded by all members of this house. But I have no reason to believe that he has any practical qualifications for the position which lie holds, and in my. opinion if the recommendations of the Duncan commission had been carried out in that respect we would have had a man with practical qualifications at the head of the department. Acting on the recommendation that I have quoted, he would have paid periodical visits to the fishermen of the maritime provinces to study at first hand their difficulties, consequently we would not have the conditions which exist in that industry to-day and of which hon. members are now complaining. During the last few hours we have listened to a recital of the deplorable conditions of the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. We have heard hon. members conversant with those conditions describe how the fishermen are living, and the poor prices which they are being paid for the products of their toil.
I ask the government to take into consideration this question with regard to the appointment of a Deputy Minister of Fisheries. We have been told time and again that the Duncan report has been implemented except for one or two items. But here is one recommendation in that report which the government has not carried out.. The government has not implemented the recommendation of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and his colleagues with recpect to the appointment of a practical man to the office of Deputy Minister of Fisheries.


Harry Bernard Short: The hon. member for North Winnipeg speaking a few minutes ago, refereed to the spread in prices as between the east and the west; he suggested that with a price of a cent and a half a pound down at the coast there should not be such a spread in the west. I agree with him in some respects as to there being a great spread in the price, but he does not make allowance for the fact that the cent and a half per pound is for the round fish. These fish all have t~ be processed, and in many cases the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
loss is from 55 to 67 per cent. In this connection I would refer the hon. member to page 34 of the report of the fisheries commission in which this matter is discussed. The commissioners state:
There is much discussion of the price spread between the fishermen and the consumer in Quebec and Ontario. A fact too frequently lost sight of, when comparing retail prices in these markets with the prices paid to the fisherman, is that there is a loss in weight when the heads are removed, or when the fish is filleted. As already pointed out, when the head of a cod is removed 27 per cent of the weight of the fish in the round is lost; and in haddock the loss is 25 per cent. When a fish is filleted, from 55 to 67 per cent in weight is lost, depending on how closely it is cut, and when fillets are smoked 3 to 5 per cent additional weight is lost. It is evident therefore that the prices of headless or filleted fish must reflect these losses. For example, a shipper who purchases 100 pounds of haddock in the round, at say 2J cents per pound, pays $2.50. We will assume that the customer requires headless haddock, and thus a loss of 25 pounds in weight is at once incurred. The shipper therefore must receive $2.50 for the remaining 75 pounds, or three and one-third cents per pound. It is estimated that when fish is filleted, three pounds of round fish are required to make one pound of fillets. Therefore when a shipper buys one hundred pounds of fish for filleting, he must receive $2.50 for the resultant 33J pounds of fillets or 171 cents per pound to realize what he paid for the fish without any allowance for the labour of filleting or handling the fish.
There is therefore a considerable loss in the processing of fish; and when you add to this the express charges from the seacoast in the maritimes to the middle west, another four or five cents per pound, and on top of that two or three profits to wholesaler, middleman and retailer, you will readily appreciate why high prices are paid for fish in the middle west.


Murray MacLaren: In reference to the new rapid process of freezing fish for purposes of transportation, will the minister inform us what kinds of fish are so treated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Any kind of fish may be treated in that way, but at present cod and haddock are so processed.


Murray MacLaren: I can quite understand that any kind could be treated that way, but the question I asked was, what kinds of fish, as a matter of fact, are being so treated.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Cod and haddock.


Murray MacLaren: The haddock we have
had an opportunity of testing has been very satisfactory, but I have just heard a reference to salmon being so treated. Is it a fact that salmon are so treated at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not now.


James Charles Brady: The hon. member for North Winnipeg wondered how it was that there was such a marked difference in price between the fish as caught on the banks and when it reaches the consumer. I have been looking up some data lately and I find the very interesting fact that it takes two and a half pounds of round fish, or ex-vessel as they call it, to make one pound of filleted haddock, that is, a manufactured or processed fish. Consequently there must be one and a half pounds waste in order to produce the finished product. On this point I may say that I have information which leads me to believe that the United States, realizing the importance of processing fish, and appreciating the value of having the fish processed in that country, are very anxious that the Canadian fisherman should be content to sell his round or exvessel fish at a low price while they process them, getting the higher values. I think it is a suggestion which the government should seriously consider, to try to develop the processing of our own fish in Canada.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is there some arrangement in connection with the International Fresh Fish Corporation as to what they should charge the department for transporting fish by the boat which it is proposed to have call at Prince Edward Island? In view of the subsidy, which appeals to be a liberal one, of $1,800 a month or $60 a day, I think there should be an arrangement with regard to the charge for transportation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will not be more than
10 cents per hundred pounds.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: If they are
allowed to charge that on a product for which a minimum price of one cent per pound is supposed to be paid, the rate would appear to be very high. From my knowledge of what freight rates are and ought to be, taking the short haul in Prince Edward Island from the north side of the island to Georgetown. I think there should be a much lower minimum than 10 cents.


Finlay MacDonald: I noticed in one of the maritime papers a few days ago a despatch from Ottawa stating that the boat has been subsidized to carry other things besides fish. Is that so?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend's information is correct; the boat may carry other things.


Finlay MacDonald: What
other produce is it supposed to carry? In a newspaper article appearing in the Halifax
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

Herald a few days ago, and emanating from Ottawa, the statement was made that the boat would carry potatoes during the fall months.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Any kind of produce; if
the producer wants to ship it he will have the opportunity to do so.


Finlay MacDonald: Then I understand that this is to be a produce carrier from September on. Is that the understanding?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is available if they wish to take advantage of it, but it is a cold storage vessel.


Finlay MacDonald: And it
is to be used for carrying produce during September, October, November and December; is that the case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to be used for carrying fish particularly.


Finlay MacDonald: According to the Halifax report this ship is for the benefit of the agriculturists in the fall, as soon as their crops are ready to be marketed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is mainly for carrying
fish.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Did I understand the minister to say that the rate would be ten cents per hundred pounds?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that would be the
maximum.


Finlay MacDonald: If this
boat is to be used for the carrying of produce from September to December, why should this subsidy be paid out of the fisheries appropriation? That should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The vessel can cany other things than fish; our subsidy is for the purpose of having this vessel carry fish but that does not mean that it may not carry other produce so long as that other produce does not take the place of fish.


Finlay MacDonald: When
that boat is not carrying 'fish is this subsidy to be paid by the fisheries department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Finlay MacDonald: Or by
the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The subsidy will not be
paid.


Finlay MacDonald: The subsidy is not paid when fish are not carried?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If they do not carry fish
they do not get the subsidy.


Mr. KELLNER:: In view of the statements which have been made about cooperative marketing I want to ask the minister if there is not at present a cooperative organization for the sale of fish in northern Alberta?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is nothing under the Department of Fisheries.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I know it is not under
the Department of Fisheries; the wheat pool is not under any department either, nevertheless there is an organization out there which cooperatively markets fish at present. Their headquarters are at Lac La Biche, and I remember when I was there a couple of years ago they told me they were getting almost twice as much for their fish through that organization as they had received formerly. According to reports which I had something over a year ago the organization was operating with considerable success, and I think if the minister would get in touch with his overseers in that district they would instruct him that the organization is still successful.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no doubt that
such an organization is profitable; we know of the existence of the association mentioned by my hon. friend and we are prepared to try to induce the fishermen in the maritime provinces to follow that example.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The department did not render any assistance in the formation of this association; the fishermen did it themselves.


Finlay MacDonald: How
many fish collecting services have been established in the province of Nova Scotia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have two at present but we expect to have three or four a little later on.


Finlay MacDonald: Would the minister give us the location of these services?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is one on the southeast coast of Cape Breton island.


Finlay MacDonald: What section does this service cover?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From Port Morien to
Fourchu.


Finlay MacDonald: Where are the headquarters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In Canso.


Finlay MacDonald: Then one service is from Port Morien to Canso; where is the other?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From Westiport in Pictou county to Digby.


Finlay MacDonald: Where will the others be?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One is to be established from Port Bickerton to Canso and the other from Cape Negro to Lockeport, and there may be others also.


Finlay MacDonald: What is the amount of the subsidy in each case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the Pictou service we are paying $800 a month for one boat, and for the other service we are paying $1,200 for two boats.


Finlay MacDonald: What became of the service which was extended along the Guysborough shore last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it will be started again on June 20.


Finlay MacDonald: What is the subsidy for that service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount has not been fixed as yet but we will try to get it as cheaply as possible.


Finlay MacDonald: Are these boats owned by the government or hired from private individuals?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We hire them from private individuals.


Finlay MacDonald: Who are the .private individuals from whom the government hires these boats?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Two were hired from
Hendry of Halifax; one from Cruikshank of Sydney; and the other one from Crocker of Westport.


Finlay MacDonald: Were
those boats hired through an agent for the department, or direct from the individuals?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The transaction was carried on directly with the individuals.


Finlay MacDonald: I asked for the number of boats chartered by the various departments of the Dominion government from Hendry's Limited of Halifax for the years 1927-1928 and 1929, and I did not receive any information in connection with these boats in the fish collection service. A good many of us suspected that they had been hired from Mr. Hendry, and I would like to know why the department did not mention that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the arrangements were completed only a few days ago.


Finlay MacDonald: The return was tabled only a day or two ago, on Tuesday, June 4.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that these boats started just to-day and probably when the return was prepared to be tabled they had not, been hired.


Finlay MacDonald: How
long would it take to enter into an arrangement between Mr. Hendry and the department? This return was handed in on June 4 and the arrangement must have been under consideration at that time. It takes about three days for correspondence to come from Nova Scotia. What class of boats has been hired?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They must have a mileage of at least ten knots per hour and a capacity of at least 60,000 pounds of boxed fish.


Finlay MacDonald: Have
they cold storage compartments?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Finlay MacDonald: Suppose a boat should get a full load of boxed fish at Main a Dieu and unfavourable weather should arise and the boat be forced to lie up in Louisburg, or if she has a shallow draught she may have to make the port of Fourchu and may have to wait there for a week or ten days; at whose risk would these very perishable goods be carried?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it
would be at the buyer's risk.


Finlay MacDonald: Not at the risk of the fishermen?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Finlay MacDonald: Are the fishermen paid when the fish are put on board the collection boat, or do they receive their pay after they are landed at the plant of the corporation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give my hon.
friend that information because the arrangement is made between the buyer and the seller.


Finlay MacDonald: They are at owner's risk until delivered?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Buyer's risk.


Finlay MacDonald: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm)
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

knows that there is a passenger service between Mulgrave, Ariehat and Petit de Grat, for which service Mr. Hendry is receiving about $15,000 by way of a subsidy. According to Lloyd's register the boat on that service is some twenty-two or twenty-three years of age. She was built of Nova Scotia wood and I do not see any reference in the register of repairs having been made since she was built. Mr. Hendry had another boat, the Prince Albert, which went out of service some time ago, and which must have been twenty-eight or twenty-nine years old. A year or so ago her stern fell out at the port of Mulgrave and she had to be docked for repairs. During last winter this boat sunk at Mulgrave in the strait of Canso with 60 tons of freight. She happened to be at a wharf when she sank, so that no lives were lost.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The statement made by the hon. member as to there being freight on that boat is not borne out by the evidence we have in the department, which is that there was nothing on the boat at all except a few rubber boots. Our information is that there was not freight aboard.


Finlay MacDonald: The information which I have from people who were there and witnessed the sinking is that there were some 50 or 60 tons of freight aboard.


James Malcolm: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to take the information we have; I do not think the owners of the boat would give incorrect information.


Finlay MacDonald: When they would have a boat of that kind transporting passengers in the strait of Canso, 1 do not think I could take their word.


James Malcolm: 
Finlay MacDonald: The hon. minister is probably not as well acquainted with Nova Scotia timber and Nova Scotia ships as I am.


James Malcolm: I am not putting my own opinion against that of my hon. friend; I am giving the opinion of the underwriters who handled the insurance.


Finlay MacDonald: If the boat carried insurance then the underwriters were the losers. All the old boats in the province of Nova Scotia are being picked up by friends of this government and leased to the 
different departments, or they are put into different services under subsidies. The government is paying for public services and we should get wha.t we are paying for. No matter whether these people are friends of one party or of the other, the government should see that we receive the services we are paying for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $442,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: This'is probably the most important item in .the fisheries estimates. There was an increase of about $175,000 in this vote last year, but I observe that the appropriation has not been increased for this year. I should like to ask the minister if there has been any increase in the work, or if it is remaining stationary.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A program of expansion in the fish culture service is being systematically carried out. A portion of the appropriation is being set aside for the construction of new hatcheries and improvements in the existing hatcheries. In the last year four new hatcheries were completed at a cost of $127,774, as
follows:
Alberta
Lesser Slave Lake	 $46,714
Nova Scotia
Yarmouth	 $37,456
Antigonish	 32,666
New Brunswick
Florenceville	 $10,938
Owing to the necessity of maintaining and operating these hatcheries, less money is available for construction for 1929-30. It is 'anticipated, however, that it will be possible to carry out the following building project: Windsor Hatchery, Windsor, N.S.
Salmon and trout	 $30,000
Northern Saskatchewan,
Pickerel and perch	 40,000
Anderson, Lake Seton, B.C.
Soekeye salmon	  15,000
Shuswap Lake, B.C.
Soekeye salmon	  25,000


Alexander Duncan McRae: Where is it contemplated
they will get the spawn for the Shuswap hatchery and what system is there in that hatchery? Are they adopting the pond system ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a proposed establishment, and we expect to get the spawn from Cultus lake and Harrison lake.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Alexander Duncan McRae: Is it proposed to continue
the hatchery at Babine, which last year I notice cost $7,182?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I presume, as previously
done, the spawn will be taken from the head waters of the Skeena?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I want to protest against
this expenditure, first on behalf of the fishermen on the Skeena river-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that is the Skeena watershed.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I want, second, to protest
from a national standpoint against the transfer of that spawn. The fact is that the Skeena river is a purely Canadian stream where Canadian fishermen catch 100 per cent of the fish. Any contention there might foe that the head waters of that river are overstocked would not be borne out by the catch there for the last twelve years. In looking over the records I find that for the four years, 1917 to 1920 inclusive, the sockeye catch on the Skeena river averaged 116,000 cases annually ; from 1921 to 1924 inclusive the average catch was 104,000 cases, and since that time the average has been 81,000 cases, or a continual decrease from 116,000 cases prior to 1920 to 81,000 cases annually at the present time. I might observe that as many as 14,-
500,000	spawn were transferred in 1926 and the result of transferring that spawn to the Fraser river is that the fish find their way to the sea through the United States outlet and on their return 70 .per cent of them, and some times more, are caught by United States fishermen. Therefore we are taking this spawn out of a river where 100 per cent of the fish come back to our fisherman and to the business of this country and we are putting it into the Fraser river where only 30 per cent of the fish come back to our fishermen and 70 per cent remain in the United States with their fishermen. That is not a sound business proposition, and it is not sound business to spend $7,000 or $8,000 a year to bring about that change.
There is another matter that I should like to call to the attention of the minister. He says that a new hatchery is being built this year at Anderson lake. That hatchery in 1928 cost $6,856.28 to operate. What do they propose to do with the new hatchery which is to cost $15,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have no hatchery at
Anderson.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I misunderstood the location. Then I should like to ask the minister what is approximately the pack of sockeye salmon this year at Anderson lake and Uchuceslet inlet, which is the entrance to Anderson lake.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that statement
before me at present.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Perhaps I can make a reasonably close guess at it. That stream originally provided as high as 8,000 cases of sockeyes a year. This is very important because it leads up to a matter which I consider of sufficient moment to call to the attention of the committee in connection with our fish culture. Along in 1910, about the year that the hatchery was established, 8,000 cases was the maximum that was packed. The department will correct me if I am wrong as to the year. After the first cycle this fish largely disappeared, and from a river that had provided as many as 8,000 eases there was packed, after the hatchery returns should be in, less than
1,000	cases. Therefore I say that this hatchery has ruined the business at that point.
Much along the same line is the experience at the Naas, another rather important river in our section of the country. I notice that the report shows that 13,488,000 fry were released there in 1924. If in the cycle year, 1928, one per cent of those fry returned, we would have had 134,000 fish. If you take 12 fish to the case, which would be about right, we should have caught in 1928, 11,200 case; of fish. What was the pack last year in the Naas? It was 5,540 cases, showing that if nature did not do a thing, if the fish which ran into that stream did not spawn at all and the hatchery is given credit for eveiy fish that was packed there, the return is less than one-half of one per cent. The country has thrown away millions of dollars on fish culture when the department should have known for at least the last fifteen years, as everybody in the business knows, that we have not got value for our money. The department has spent on fish culture in our province about $2,100,000, and look at the fish we are getting to-day! The pack on the Fraser river, partly for this and partly for other Teasons dropped from 1,000,000 cases to 26,000 last year. The Skeena river has gone off from 116,000 cases to 81,000 annually, and the Naas river is down to the trifle of 5,500 cases this year. At least $2,100,000 has been spent in British Columbia on a system of fish culture which every man in the business in our province has condemned. I have had this matter up with the government before I was a member of this house, and I asked them to investigate

Supply-Marine, and Fisheries
the pond system which has prevailed in the United States with so much success. I do not wish to say anything unkind against the department, but I do believe that the only-reason we have not experimented in a real way with the pond system is because to do so would be for the department to admit that we have been following wrong methods. For fifty-five years we have been spending money in British Columbia for fish culture and our fish have been getting less every year.
I have heard many people speak of this great natural resource. We should be getting in British Columbia $50,000,000 a year from our fish. We have no market problem in connection with our fish because the world wants them and the world takes them. Our problem is to get the fish.
I want to offer to the committee, Mr. Chairman, the experience in the United States with regard to the pond system. I may observe that the treaty now under discussion provides for the pond system. The state of Oregon took up the pond system in 1912. It had been carried on by the United States federal government before that date, but in 1912 the state of Oregon took that work over from the federal government and turned it over to a commission of practical men, not a paid commission, not a commission for disappointed politicians like our harbour boards, but a commission of men who had the interests of their country and the interests of the business at heart. The president of the American Can Company in Portland was president of that commission, and these figures were given to me by him at that time. Consequently I give them to this commission, as being absolutely reliable. That work has been carried on under the jurisdiction of the Oregon game and fish commission, and later, for the last sixteen years, under the Oregon fish commission.
Under this system, the fish are carried in ponds and fed until they are about six or seven months old, and then they are turned out as fingerlings four or four and a half inches long, the idea being that the fish is then able to take care of itself. I submit to the committee that to turn out the small little fry as we are doing is but furnishing food to our trout, because they are not big enough to take care of themselves. That great difficulty was recognized in the state of Oregon in 1912, and since that time, under the propagation methods carried on by this commission, the fisheries of the Columbia river have been largely re-established, and re-established on a very sound basis.

The cost of those fish is rather surprising.
I believe the cost which I have here has been much reduced recently, but the cost at that time of turning out fingerlings was $2.50 to $3 per thousand. It was difficult to get the exact returns, because as you can understand there are always certain fish running in the stream propagating their kind as well. There was however one opportunity to get exact returns and that was in connection with the red sockeye which the commission brought from Alaska and which had never previously been in the Columbia river. They were brought down to the Columbia river and at the end of the four year cycle they jumped back into the hatchery ponds-the identical ponds they had left four years before and 600 cases of them were caught. Some years later 50,000 of them were tagged, and running true to form they came back at the end of their four year cycle. Three thousand of these tagged fish were caught, showing a six per cent return. On that basis the enterprise would be a highly profitable one commercially. No less a man than the president of the American Can Company in Portland has said that he would so regard it.
Now what have been the results? The Columbia river has come back until this year they got some 350,000 cases. The cost of that commission was $118,514.80 in 1928. The industry on the Columbia river is self-supporting and does not cost the country one cent Yet here we are to-day sitting down in this committee and spending about $800,000 in my province for an industry that you are running into the ground.
On the Columbia river there are nine of these hatcheries and they turned out 47,812,136 fingerlings last year. There are seven of these hatcheries in the state of Washington. Washington has followed the example of Oregon and has taken up this work. They have built on the Green river at Auburn on Puget Sound one of the finest pond systems hatcheries in existence, a pond system capable of turning out 10,000,000 fingerlings per year. Altogether they have seventeen of these hatcheries in that state and their costs are very much less than I have quoted for the Columbia river. They figure that if one fish in a thousand comes back, it will pay the cost.
We spent on our hatcheries in British Columbia in 1928, $112,532.65, a little less than the state of Oregon is paying, the only difference being that while it is a waste of money on our part it does not cost the state of Oregon a dollar. The industry there is entirely self-supporting, and so it is in Washington, I understand. I think this country has

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
gone on long enough throwing money away on the present methods of fish culture, and it is about time that we took Stock. If we are going to get any results we must change our methods. All you have to do to be convinced of that is to look at the decrease there has been in our fish production all along the line. I know that the answer which the Fisheries branch makes to that is that they are keeping up the annual value of our fish packs, but what they are actually doing is raking the bottom of all our streams to get the pinks and the dogs, the cheap salmon, which means no profit for the fisherman or the operator. Sockeye are worth on Puget Sound from 80 to 90 cents, and in our country 60 cents; pinks are worth 5 cents and dogs a little more. It is like bundling up the chaff on the prairie and letting your hard wheat go by.
The great handicap under which the province of British Columbia has operated in the past is political interference; there is no doubt about that. But we have passed that stage now because we have nothing more to interfere with. All we can do is to raise a great row because we fear we will soon not get any fish at all. We are rapidly approaching that stage. Stream after stream has gone, and there is no new propagation. Why is it? It is not because the information I am giving you here is not in the possession of the department; of course it is. It is because they are afraid to tackle this business proposition.
I want to make one suggestion to the government-and it may be a very useful one in connection with the sockeye treaty as well. What we want in British Columbia is a fish commission, say, of five members composed of representatives of the fishermen, the cannery men and the business men, because the business men of British Columbia have a deep interest in the restoration of the industry. We do not want a paid commission; you cannot get the proper class of business men to give their services on such a commission for the few thousand dollars that you pay your politicians on the harbour board. We want good capable experienced men on such a commission, for it will be no child's job to run it. If the people of Oregon can bring back their fishing industry to a flourishing condition, as they have, and if the people of the state of Washington see fit to fall in line, surely the people of British Columbia, if entrusted with their own fisheries, can restore the Fraser river and every other stream to their former flourishing condition. Under this pond system the whole industry is capable of great development and instead of the total export value of
our fish being $34,000,000, of which about 50 per cent comes from my province, the value of the British Columbia catch alone would soon be $50,000,000. This would benefit greatly, not only the province but the whole Dominion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not fail, Mr. Chairman, to appreciate the fairness of the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Vancouver. I quite realize that his observations are of a constructive character. I may tell him that we have already started the pond system, but in order to ensure the best results we have instructed the biological board to make a complete investigation. We shall be prepared to follow their recommendations. The observations and the statistics with which the hon. member has favoured us will be looked into with great attention by the officers of my department.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I have this to say about the efforts made by the present department to test the pond system. I believe the system was established in connection with that ill-fated hatchery at Anderson lake. I am informed-I did not see it myself; it is rather a hard climb to get to it-that the water in the ponds was very inactive and the fish were not properly developed. Anybody who has seen one of the modern Oregon pond systems in operation, where the water is very turbulent and the fish are developed the same as they would be in a natural stream, will realize that anything like a still pond is no good.
I have one word to say of the biological board. I do not see any reason on earth why we cannot take the experience which our neighbours to the south have gained during the last twenty-five years. I cannot see why we should wait for the biological board to report. How long is it going .to take them to investigate and decide on a system unless they take advantage of the experience of our neighbours; and if they are going to do that they should have done it years ago. Here we have the biological board starting in at the ground floor. That is the trouble with the board. You cannot talk with a fisherman in our country who has much regard for the work of the board. Our fishermen agree that its members are very fine individually, but they complain that the board do not accept or profit by the information they get from the fishermen who are on the ground. Our fishermen claim that the board are actually endeavouring to propagate fish in streams where, to the man who knows, it is absolutely impracticable to do so, and where the effort is worse than wasted. Let me state one instance with respect to the biological board; it will be sufficient. The board has spent a very considerable sum in an effort to ascer-



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
tain the damage done to fish by hair seals. Why, bless your heart, every fisherman in our country knows that hair seals literally tear his nets to pieces and destroy the fish in it. What we should do is destroy the hair seals. I am going to deal with that later. Our biological board should start out by taking advantage of all that the fishermen know and build up from that.


Arthur Edward Ross: This, Mr. Chairman, is a subject that I have been discussing in this house for the last four or five years, but my voice has been as "one in the wilderness." Now I am going to say a word in defence of the biological board. For several years the board has been demonstrating that our fish hatcheries have been in most cases miserable failures. They have proven to the department that the work of taking the finger-lings and fry and depositing them in our lakes and streams has been for the most part wasted effort. During the last four or five years the biological board has been condemned by those officials in the department who had no interest in and could not keep up with scientific research work. For years the biological board has been struggling along without very much sympathy from the department. The result is that one chairman resigned. I am glad to see that now a little light is dawning on the department, and its officials are recognizing the value of the work that -has been done by the biological board. Undoubtedly the board has proven that the stocking of our waters with fingerlings and fry was wasted effort. I know one lake that has been restocked for the last thirty years with fry of one kind and another, and I defy you to find one man who has caught a mature fish in its waters.
For years the biological board has been trying to get the department interested in this work, but no person would listen to its representations. The pond system has been in operation across the border with most successful results. I think the provinces can do more than the federal authorities in this matter. The pond system could be easily established throughout the Dominion if local clubs were organized, as they have been in the States, to look after the fry or fingerlings until they are strong enough to escape the pirate fish. I should not like hon. members to think that the biological board has been behind the times in regard to this work. It has been years in advance with very little encouragement from the department. And I could mention other lines of work in which the board has engaged without any sympathy or backing from the department. I agree that the minister may not have been properly

acquainted with the work of the board, but those in charge of the department should have kept him acquainted with it and stimulated his interest, because it is one of the biggest things that we can undertake in the Dominion, whether we regard it. from the commercial or the sports point of view. Every man remembers when as a boy he went out with a hook and line and had very little difficulty in catching all the fish he desired. But those days are past. Only a vigorous policy by this department can put our streams and lakes in the condition where they should be as fish preserves. It is a scientific subject, fish culture and fish production, and behind it is the study of aquaculture, with which so few are acquainted. These two, fish culture and aquaculture, will give us results if they are prosecuted. I should like to see more cooperation along this line. It does seem to me that we are wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on this fish culture and the work of the hatcheries. Some of it is good, In connection with salmon we have obtained some results, some good demonstrations; but in central Canada, where we are interested in sport fish, such as bass, very poor results have been obtained from the work of the hatcheries. The field, however, is one for cooperation; it is a scientific field, and I believe that only men with biological knowledge and information will get us anywhere in this work.


James Charles Brady: The hon. member for Kingston, speaking in reference to the biological board, has said he has been as "one in the wilderness". I recall, however, that as late as two days or so ago he held the stage, when the estimates for the Department of National Health were before the committee, and he helped considerably a great number of us who are neither doctors nor scientific men. To-night I wish to tell the hon. member that it is not from any personal reason that I am trying to get as much information as possible in regard to this important subject, and when the hon. member for North Vancouver mentions the Naas river I am very anxious to elicit from the minister some information regarding the future of the Sockeye fishery in that great river. I do not agree with the report that appeared in the Vancouver Rrovince about a week ago regarding the hopeless position of that river so far as the sockeye salmon is concerned. I went up there last year, going into the upper stretches, the headwaters of the Naas river, and I have in a little notebook the name of every river that flows into the Naas from Mezziad-sen lake right into that mighty river. I find that every one of those streams has an

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Indian name which means "Sockeye". In other words, in days gone by, that river was the centre of a great sockeye run. I will not believe any scientific man who tries to prove to me that that river was not originally the home of the great sockeye family of salmon. I wish to ask the minister a question and then I shall discuss this matter further for a few minutes. Has there been an overseer looking over the Naas area in the last twelve months Oir two years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The position has been
vacant for some time, but the Civil Service Commission is going to appoint an overseer.


James Charles Brady: Thank you. Now let us get the facts. Why is it that no overseer will go into the Naas? I know that no overseer will go in because his life is in danger and he is not going to venture among a hostile people at a salary that does not give him a living wage. To whom do I refer? I will tell the minister. On the Naas there are the largest Indian settlements in British Columbia; at Aiyansh, and Gitladamix and right down the whole of the Naas there are large Indan settlements. I went last year to investigate, merely as one desiring to get information, and I was ordered off one of the reserves because the Indians believed I was there for hostile purposes. However, I went" up there after the close season, when the sockeye were running up, and I can assure the minister that they were running up; but at the upper stretches the nets of the Indians were stretched across the river and the sockeye were caught before they reached the spawning grounds. Let me give some figures in connection with sockeye salmon tagged in these waters:
Sockeye Salmon Tagging-Haystack Island, Aug. 3 to 21, 1925
Number tagged 659:	returns 135:	20 per cent
Naas river	 80
Observatory inlet	 ]
Portland canal	 9
Wark canal	 3
Dundas island	 1
Skeena river	 13
Union passage	 1
Alaskan waters	 27
Total	135
In other words, to the Naas river went the great proportion of the salmon that were tagged at Haystack island. Yet what do we find? As the hon. member for North Vancouver says, only five thousand cases were obtained last year. I contend-and I am assured in the stand I take in this regard- that if we grapple with the problem in the Naas river and put behind it all the weight 78594-2141
of our strength and power, in five years we shall resuscitate the run of sockeye into the Naas. But I will admit to the minister that he has the biggest problem ahead of him in the Naas of all the rivers in British Columbia. There we find thousands of Indians who are given many privileges, and they overstep those privileges; they are taking a great toll of the sockeye salmon which are endeavouring to reach the spawning grounds. Why should the Indians at the headwaters of the Naas catch sockeye and transport them down the Naas river and sell them at the canneries? Why?-because there is no overseer. An overseer is the one man who must take a great responsibility when he goes there to perform his duty fearlessly and bravely. And you do not find men to do it with such meagre salaries. That is the position on the Naas river. The very word Naas, Mr. Chairman, is itself indicative of "sockeye" for in the Indian dialect it refers to sockeye salmon, just as Aiyansh means "early summer" and "early bloom". I urge the minister to obtain all the information he can in regard to that river, because if he takes courageous action and places two overseers there, one at the mouth and one higher up at the headwaters, he will obtain surprising results. I guarantee that in less than two cycles he will find there will foe not five thousand cases, but many times five thousand.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am interested in what
the hon. member says in regard to sockeye salmon. Were they able to trace all the sockeye salmon tagged?


James Charles Brady: No, they were not; out of
639 which were tagged 135 were caught in the various rivers I mentioned, and I believe over 70 per cent of the tagged fish came to British Columbia waters.


Alan Webster Neill: Eighty per cent.


James Charles Brady: No subject which has come
before this house during the present session is more important, not merely to British Columbia or to the Atlantic seaboard but also to Ontario and the maritime provinces, than this question we are now discussing. I desire to pay tribute to the minister and deputy minister of fisheries; I am afraid I must have worried them this year but I honestly believe they are trying to do the best they can under very adverse and difficult circumstances. However, as a very clever man has said, ignorance of the law is no excuse; I believe there is too much at stake in this matter to pass it

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
by lightly. Therefore I do not apologize for having taken up the time of the committee to-day. I have not spoken in the house very often this year, but in this case I did desire to express what I think was constructive and helpful criticism.


Alan Webster Neill: Referring to the remark of
the hon. member for North Vancouver, the hatchery at Anderson lake is in the district I represent, and I would not like the impression left with the committee that the work is a failure or that the superintendent is in any way to blame. I do not think this gentleman votes for me, so I am not boosting a political friend, but I know the superintendent to be a thoroughly capable and an ex-, ceedingly conscientious gentleman who has devoted many years to the prosecution of his duties, and I think he has made a success of his work.
The hon. member for North Vancouver instanced a case where the catch of the cannery immediately ibelow the hatchery suddenly fell off, and he connected up that falling off with the commencement of the hatchery operations. But he missed a cog in his description of the matter. What happened was this: The headquarters of this cannery were in Vancouver; it had been coming along very nicely, getting a moderate catch for a good many years. I forget the size of the catch, but it does not matter whether it was 4,000 or 8,000 cases; the proposition is the same. Then the management passed into the hands of people of the go-getter type and word was sent to the local manager that he must double his pack of sockeye salmon. He replied that it was impossible to do so in justice to the stream, which was small, but he was told that if he did not do so they could get someone who would. So he said he would double the catch and he did so the next year, but that was done by the most barefaced poaching. Perhaps the cannery people would deny that they did any poaching themselves; probably they did not, but they winked at it when it was done by their employees and they bought fish they knew had been poached. The cannery was situated on a bay about three miles long, into which emptied a narrow stream only a few hundred feet- wide, and it would be very easy to put a net across that stream. That was done day and night, and every fish going up to the spawning grounds was caught. That was the reason for the sudden drop in the catch. Then within a year or two the management realized that they had adopted a shortsighted policy; wiser councils prevailed and they decided to adhere strictly to 
the law. A capable fisheries guardian was put in, a man who could not be induced to wink at any violation of the laws, and the bay was closed for at least three or four years or possibly longer. The result was that in the course of a few years the bay was reopened and they are now getting a very satisfactory run of sockeye salmon there.
Mr. MoRAE: Does my hon. friend know how many cases they pack?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I asked the department and they could not give me the information. I should be glad if my hon. friend could tell me.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know, but I have been told that the pack has increased very much over the sudden drop which took place. The same thing occurred on the Sumas river, which is twenty-four miles away. The fish ran out entirely; it was over-fished. Then the river was closed for some years; fry were brought from this hatchery and put into the lake at the head of the river, with the result that there is a satisfactory run of salmon now. The river has been opened for fishermen again and last year they took a satisfactory catch of sockeye salmon. So. I would suggest that the hatchery was in no way to blame for any falling off in the catch; on the contrary, I believe the hatchery has been very successful.


Alexander Duncan McRae: I do not think anyone accused the hatchery officials; I had the system in mind. The hon. member for Comox-Alfoerni explained about the pack in one year, but I would remind him that the diminution of the fish required excessive packs for four years, since there 'is a four-year cycle, and surely during at least three years of this period the hatchery official must have been on the job. My information is that the great- falling off in the fish came about during all the cycle years after the hatchery had been established. I am sure my hon. friend is more familiar with his own line of business than with the fish business. He will agree with me when I say that for many years the great trouble with the fish on the Sumas river was due to a dam. This was later taken out, and it is true that there was some improvement after the dam was removed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Oyster culture, $35,000.
Harry Bernard Short: I have a few words to say in connection with this item. I notice that last year we spent only $10,000 for this purpose. The maritime provinces, particularly New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, at one time produced large quantities of oysters. In 1882 they produced 64,646 barrels while in 1926, according to the figures given before the royal commission investigating the fisheries, they produced only 19,898 barrels. Everyone knows that something has happened to these very valuable oyster fisheries. We produce to-day the finest oydters in the world. At one time the Malpeque oyster was known all over this country and the United States as having the finest flavour of any oyster produced, but it has become almost extinct now through the inefficiency of this department. Our production of oysters has been decreasing year by year, yet until quite recently, nothing has been done to restore it.
I am glad that at last the department is waking up to the fact that something should be done for this very valuable industry, but I do not think it can do very much for $36,000; probably $100,000 or $200,000 will be required. Even if it is necessary to expend that amount of money, it would be thoroughly justified in the end. I understand that oysters [DOT] are worth about $10 per barrel to-day, so it will be easy to estimate the revenue which would accrue if we could get back to a production of 64,000 barrels annually. I hope the department will give some attention to this valuable industry from now on and try to restore it to its former condition. There is no reason why this result could not be brought about if proper attention is paid to the spawning grounds. I direct this matter to the attention of the minister because it is one in which everyone in the country is interested. I repeat that I hope an effort will be made to restock these beds so as to bring the industry back to where it was years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of a bounty for the destruction of hair seals in tidal waters, $50,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for an investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut by the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the Pacific halibut treaty of 2nd March, 1923, $31,500.
Alexander Duncan McRae: Will the minister give thecommittee a report on the progress being made in this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The first report of the
commission was submitted to the two governments last year, and was approved. Extensive as well as intensive studies are being conducted. It is expected that the work which is being arranged for the coming year will cost $63,000. The United States government has arranged to appropriate one-half of that sum, and under the treaty the other half must be provided by Canada. Concentrated attention will be given to the publication of the results of the investigations made up to date. This will cover the migration of the halibut, which is being studied intensively by means of tagging and racial investigation. The growth, spawning and other pertinent natural history questions will be studied. Statistical data will be prepared which will show what has been going on at the different banks since the beginning of the industry. The investigations will cover the spawning conditions, migration, drift of eggs and so forth, and will be extended further west and possibly into the Bering sea. To enable this work to be carried out a staunch vessel is required, one which is seaworthy and able to stand very rough weather, the spawning time of the halibut being during the winter. The boat should have accommodation for four or five men in addition to the crew. There is no such vessel in the Canadian fleet, and the
33S0

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
United States fishing vessel Dorothy has been hired from time to time. This vessel has accommodation for seventeen men; she is 92 feet in length, 20 feet 6 inches wide, has a tonnage of 130, and is equipped with a 250 horse-power engine as well as an extra engine of 12 horse-power which can be used for sounding and other work. The rental has been at the rate of S50 per day for such days as the boat has been used, conditional upon the vessel being fully equipped for halibut fishing.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Has any improvement been
noted in the halibut fisheries on the banks between Graham island and the mainland?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there
has been over-fishing in those areas. No improvement has been shown up to date.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: This seems to be a very bald statement: "To provide for an investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut by the International Fisheries Commission," and so on. What will be done when this life history is obtained?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Regulations will be adopted as suggested by the commission.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The vote does not say that directions will be given to the department as to how it should operate after the investigations have been completed. I think it would be better if this amount had been added to vote No. 194 and a real effort made to rehabilitate and make commercially profitable the Malpeque oyster industry which made Canada famous. No suggestion is made that upon this history being completed any benefit will accrue to Canada. I am prepared to hazard the guess that when this report, upon which we are spending $31,500, is completed nothing will be taken from it. The minister has not suggested how the *country is to profit by this expenditure. More -money should be devoted to those things -which will produce coin in the cash box instead of making experiments of which the possible results are unknown. We are voting large sums of money without any prospects of a possible return. The minister is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but since I have been in the house nothing of real value has been done for the fisheries; I think the minister has been marine, and very much at sea. When we have such a splendid opportunity in the cultivation of our own fish, of our own oyster beds, it seems to me that the minister and the government ought to take a lead from what can commercially be done for the Canadian fisheries. How often have we heard it repeated in the house that 
the four basic industries are agriculture, lumbering, mining, and the fisheries? Since I have sat in the house I have never known of any real contribution to the development of the fishing industry by any one who was planning to turn this great industry to account. I do not wish to delay the committee, but if a considered and well-directed effort were made to turn to account the fisheries of this country, to prevent their depletion, to reestablish our oyster beds and to make the industry desirable so that citizens of Canada would enter it, something might be expected in the way of its development. If it is not developed in an earnest way, frankly I do not want it classed as one of the four great industries of Canada; and I defy the government to show that during the last eight, years anj' distinct effort has been made that has resulted m benefit to the fishing industry in any part of Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much has Canada spent on this international commission to date?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not the information before me, but the commission has been operating for the last four years and the expenditure is between $25,000 and $30,000 or $35,000 a year.


William Garland McQuarrie: Last year $31,500 was spent; would that be about the average?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: When did the expenditure start?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Four years ago.


William Garland McQuarrie: Have we obtained any results so far from the work that has been done? I presume the commission has been investigating the life history of the Pacific halibut during the four years the commission has been in existence. But is it a fact that notwitstanding the existence of the commission, the halibut fishing has been very greatly depleted and that there is grave fear that the halibut grounds will be barren in a comparatively short time? I assume the minister has read the last report of the commission. If he has, no doubt he has seen there a statement by the commission that this fishery is in a very precarious condition. What benefit is Canada receiving from the expenditure which is being made every year on account of this commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the treaty, a commission was to be formed to investigate the conditions of the halibut fishery. Everyone

Supply-Marina and Fisheries
will realize that it takes some time to make the necessary investigation in a matter of that kind. Under article 3 of the treaty the commission is to conduct investigations, make a report and afterwards suggest regulations to be adopted with a view of building up the industry and ensuring to the two countries the advantages which they should derive from such an important industry.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the commission
any power of regulation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it will make recommendations that certain regulations be adopted, and those regulations will afterwards be adopted by the government.


William Garland McQuarrie: But surely the commission must know that there are at present some real grounds for making recommendations; that there should be no delay in regulating the catching of the small halibut, the baby halibut as they call them. I can remember the time when it was unlawful to catch halibut which weighed less than 25 pounds. I do not know whether that is still the law or not, but my information is that the small halibut are being caught and the banks thus being depleted. The fishermen have been forced to go out further to sea; the fish have been driven away from the fishing grounds by reason of the over-fishing that is taking place, and there is a scarcity of halibut. If this condition continues it is only a question of time when there will be no halibut at all. Some action is required immediately. I do not believe in this policy of waiting, waiting, which has been followed in the case of other species of fish. I was told at one time in the marine and fisheries committee that the biological board was investigating the sockeye salmon on the Fraser river, and that it would some day make a report. I asked when we might expect that report, and the reply was: *"In ten years or so." Must we wait ten or twenty years, until the halibut fishing is extinct, before we get a report from the international commission? We are either throwing away our money or should expect some results from the work of the commission. I should like to know from the minister what results we are getting, and what results we may [DOT]expect.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The only answer I can give to my hon. friend is that the commission having been appointed we ought to wait for its report and give it the necessary time to investigate before adopting any measures.


William Garland McQuarrie: How long will the
minister wait?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We will wait until the commission has completed its investigation.


William Garland McQuarrie: How long will that be? The minister must have some estimate as to the time the commission will occupy in investigating. Surely there must be some limit.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The commission has already made a report and certain recommendations.


William Garland McQuarrie: I thought they had not yet made recommendations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The recommendations will be found at page 9 of the report, which has been tabled and is available to members of the house. The recommendations are as follows:
1.	(a) To establish areas, within each of which, if deemed necessary for the preservation of the fishery there, the total catch of halibut may be reduced by a predetermined percentage annually, commencing not less than one year after the putting into force of this recommendation, until the fishery therein shall reach a state of stability of yield.
(b) To determine upon the amount of this percentage reduction, and to revise the same from time to time as may be found necessary, the intent being to restrain any increase in the amount of fishing within such area.
2.	To close permanently to all fishing the two areas herewith defined, and known to be populated by small immature halibut, and to close such other grounds as may be found by the commission to be populated by a similar class of fish.
3.	To prevent the use of any fishing gear deemed unduly destructive.
4.	To extend the present closed season by two weeks at its beginning, making the closure for all fishing in all areas from November 1 to February 15, both dates inclusive, and to facilitate future alterations in the length of close season.
5.	To license all vessels fishing for halibut in treaty waters, under such terms as are necessary for the purpose of the treaty, including statistical returns, and for clearance to regulated waters.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the date of
that report ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was issued last fall!.


William Garland McQuarrie: What has the department done to carry out those recommendations?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The recommendations
have to be approved by the parliament of Canada and by the United States.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does not the minister
think that he should have brought down some legislation this year? When does he intend to bring down this legislation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are in a position to
pass legislation putting into effect these recommendations, but we are waiting for action by the United States.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Garland McQuarrie: I understood, first,
that the minister was waiting for recommendations from the commission. Now we find that he has recommendations from the commission, and he says he is waiting for action by the United States. It seems a most extraordinary thing that this session has gone by without some action being taken by the government in this regard.


James Charles Brady: I think that I have spoken
at greater length to-day than I have done during the whole of the present session. It is really the first day that I have been impelled to speak, and because of the importance of this vote, nothing can stop me, not even one of those up-to-date machines that can tear down forests, such as the hon. member for North Vancouver was telling us about the other evening when talking of the Peace River.
We are discussing to-night one of the most important treaties that Canada has entered into for many years. In the articles of that treaty there are three outstanding phrases, which, if given effect to would assure tO' Canada the perpetuation of the greatest fishing industry in the world. There is no part of the world that has a greater halibut industry than Canada. Let me briefly sum it up for those who are ignorant of the possibilities of the halibut fishing industry. The world's annual production of halibut to-day is 90,000,000 pounds. Halibut is the most highly prized fish food that the world knows. It is found on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. Of that 90,000,000 pounds produced annually we are producing in British Columbia waters,
50,000,000 pounds. What does that mean? It means that we are contributing to the world supply of this highly prized fish, sixty per cent annually.
The story of the halibut banks and their exploitation is one of the most thrilling that anyone could ever read. No novel has yet been written of it, but one shall be written some day, and it will be the pride of British Columbia to know that she contributes one of the ffloi interesting chapters in this country of romance. What was the origin of the halibut industry? It goes back to the year 1888. It started at Cape Flattery and extended until in the year 1910 it included 600 miles of the British Columbia coast. Between 1888 and 1910 more halibut were caught in those 600 miles than are being taken to-day with the area extended to 1,800 miles. Every member of parliament knows the map of Canada. Cast your eye to-night from Cape Mendocina, the first cape from the Panama, and travel up to Cape St. James at the

southern extremity of the Queen Charlotte islands. That stretch from 1888 to 1910 produced the greatest halibut return that the world has ever known. Where are we today? Follow from Cape St. James up to Cape St. Spencer in Alaska and then to the Aleutian islands. What is the return to-day in that stretch of 1,800 miles of water, even with the most up-to-date devices for catching halibut? We are catching forty per cent less halibut to-day than we were in 1910.
No man, I think, Should get up in this house and speak unless he has something constructive to say. I want to get behind this halibut treaty and to bring home to hon. members a few facts respecting the appalling toll that is being taken of our halibut. Are hon. gentlemen aware that there is no scientific method by which halibut breeding grounds may be developed? We have spawning grounds for salmon; we can propagate salmon under the most unfavourable conditions; but we know of no natural law under which we can propagate halibut.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


James Charles Brady: Because they spawn in the
ocean. There are three kinds of halibut sold in the market: the baby, the chicken, and the full developed halibut. The baby halibut is five years old. It is of no commercial value until it reaches that age. The chicken halibut before it begins to reproduce its kind must be ten years old. To-day a mighty toll is taken among the fish of that age. I have stood on the wharves of the greatest halibut port in the whole Dominion, Prince Rupert, which is the centre of the halibut market of the North American continent, and I have wondered why we do not realize that we are destroying the halibut industry, tearing up its very roots, when we sell to the fishing companies on the exchange the very fish that can reproduce their kind. The whole of the Pacific coast knows exactly what I am talking about.
Now, the first and most important article in the halibut treaty is this: we shall make a close season of three months. I ask the minister, did that work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told it did.


James Charles Brady: I will tell you why it did
work-for a time. It gave a breathing spell, but it did not go far enough. What then did the department do? They said: "We will now study the history of the halibut to ascertain whether it is a migratory fish, whether the various banks are isolated units, or whether certain spawning grounds are peculiar to certain halibut. They succeeded in getting a great deal of information. To my

Saturday Sitting
33S3
mind tihe most important article was the third-to make recommendations as to the regulation of the fishery. Number one failed; number 'two opened up our eyes to the fact that number three was essential. By number three we recognized that the halibut industry to-day is in a parlous state, and that something must be done to arrest the terrible toll which is taken of the fish from cape Flattery to Kodiak island. The halibut industry today is in such danger of depletion that, unless the great American nation, whom we admire because of their genius, their intellect and their energy, come to us-and hitherto they have failed to do so, as I proved this afternoon-unless they come to us and agree to restrict the terrific toll that their fishermen are taking of our halibut, we can do nothing to remedy the present desperate state of affairs.
Now, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) asked: What return are we getting for our money? Well, we are not getting very much. We are not getting the return that we should get from what should be, and really is, the greatest fishing industry the world knows. I know there are some who doulbt what I say, and for their benefit the following should be recorded.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 7, 1929