1933-04-24

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada. It will be recalled that a few days ago I laid an unrevised report on the table. It has now been completely revised by the board of grain commissioners, and is submitted herewith.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WT. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) : Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council passed pursuant to relief legislation.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition to the house. In connection with my presentation I adhere to the rules laid down in standing order 68 which require me to give information as follows, first, to state the parties from whom it comes. My reply is that it comes from citizens in the province of British Columbia. Then, secondly, the number of signatures attached. There are approximately 1,400, but I am advised several hundred have not yet

Soldiers' Pensions
been received. Then, thirdly, I am to state the material allegations contained therein. Those can be briefly stated as follows: In February, 1932, the Dominion government changed certain regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act. One of those changed regulations has enabled the provincial board in British Columbia, who administer old age pensions in that province, to claim that they have the right to refuse a pension to anyone who, under the provisions of the Parents Maintenance Act of British Columbia, has not sued his children. The petitioners claim that such a condition is undesirable for three reasons: First, it is unnatural ; secondly, it is utterly useless, because often the children are not able even to support themselves and, thirdly, there is no money [DOT]with which old age pension applicants can sue their children.
Then, the prayer of the petition is as follows:
Therefore your petitioners respectfully urge that the said amendment shall be repealed immediately.
In justice to these people I should add that the petition is an entirely spontaneous expression of their own. I had nothing to do with the instigation of it, although I heartily agree with it.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

Right Hon.   S@: On Friday last the house agreed to refer Bill No. 78 to amend the Pension Act, to a special committee, with power to report from time to time. The personnel of that committee has been arranged by the whips, and I therefore now move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes):
That the committee be composed of Messrs. Arthurs, Beaubier, Gagnon, Geary, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Power, Ralston, Ross, Sanderson, Smith (Cumberland), Speakman and Stewart (Lethbridge), and that the committee be given power to report to this house from time to time.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: My name appears on the list without authority. I now ask that it be not placed thereon.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I
was told that the list had been arranged between the whips. However we can substitute another name to-morrow, if the hon. member wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Minister of Finance if he has any announcement to make in regard to the provision in the budget address dealing with pensions?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rose at the same time as the hon. member for the purpose of making the announcement to which he has referred. With respect to the announcement contained in the budget regarding pensioners, who are in the employ of the government, it will be recalled that on March 24, last I made a statement which reads, in part, as follows:
Perhaps in this connection, however, I might be permitted to say one word, as there would appear to be some considerable misapprehension with regard to what is in the mind of the government in respect to pensions. The last thing in the world that we had in mind was any interference with the sanctity of the contract concerning pensions. Whatever merit there may or may not be attached to the suggestions contained in the budget speech with respect to pensions, it was never intended to interfere with pensions as such.
This will be found at page 3354 of Hansard. I may add further that it was never at any time contemplated that there should be any discrimination shown towards the returned soldier, especially as contrasted with what may be termed the civilian employee. On the contrary the whole proposal emanated from a desire to afford, during this period of distress, an opportunity to the returned soldier who served his country faithfully, but who, at the moment, finds himself, through no fault of his own, without either pension or employment, as contrasted with some of his comrades who, at the moment, receive a pension, and at the same time are given employment with the full salary attached to the position. To this course objection has been taken by representatives of the several returned soldier organizations upon two main grounds: First, that it would in effect, result in a violation of agreement or contract; and, secondly, would be taken as an example by other employers with detrimental results.
The whole position has been the subject of careful review at two conferences, the first held on March 24, and the second on April 19. At these conferences, the following were present, representing their respective organizations:
Major John S. Roper, M.C., K.C., President, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. J. R. Bowler, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. Richard Hale, representing Tuberculous Reference Section, Canadian Legion; Colonel W. C. H. Wood, Captain C. P. Gilman, Doctor P. B. Mellon, representing Army and Navy Veterans in Canada; Mr. Frank G. J. McDonagh,
Private Bills

representing Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War; Captain (Reverend) Sydney E. Lambert, Dominion President of the Amputations Association of the Great War; Captain E. A. Baker, M.C., representing the Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Soldiers and Sailors; Mr. Richard Myers, representing Amputations Association of the Great War.
After full discussion it was agreed that there would, for the present, be no interference with the existing procedure, but it was agreed:
1.	That any consideration of a general readjustment of the rate of pensions should be postponed until the next session of parliament.
2.	That an amendment shall be made to the Income War Tax Act providing that pensions shall be subject to income tax.
3.	That on and after May 1, 1933, there are to be no additions of dependents to the list of those who are eligible, or who may become eligible for pensions.
I desire further to announce that, as a result of extreme care in reviewing existing pensions, it is believed that while affording full protection to those who are justly entitled to pension, certain irregularities which have arisen through misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or otherwise, on the part of certain applicants will be remedied, and that this course will effect a substantial saving for the treasury.
In conclusion may I express on behalf of the government our appreciation for the generous cooperation we have received from the representatives of the above-named service organizations, and for the fair and reasonable manner in which they carried on their discussions and made their representations on behalf of the members of their several organizations.



UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP-VALCARTIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I see in the Montreal Gazette a statement that the unemployed who are being sent to Valcartier camp are being selected by my genial friends the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan), and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). I would like to ask my right hon. friend whether it is the policy of the government to give the privilege of selection to members of parliament, and whether it is exclusively given to members sitting on the other side of the house?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the hon. gentleman may be quite sure we will select very good men in any case. But I am personally not able to answer his question. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is not here to-day but I expect he will be to-morrow. '



MAJOR-GENERAL McNAUGHTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) but he is not in his seat. I therefore direct my question to 'the right hon. acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley). There has been a rumour in the press, or news to the effect that Major-General McNaughton, chief of staff, national defence, has had an increase in salary from 88,000 to
810,000	a year, and it was made retroactive to the first of January last. Is that report correct?


Right Hon.   S@: I would ask my hon. friend to put a question of that kind on the order paper.



DOMINION NOTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I would
like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) whether an order in council has been passed suspending the redemption of dominion notes in gold, under authority of Bill No. 54 which was passed recently; and if so, could he give us the date, and would he lay the order in council on the table.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer is in the affirmative. At the moment I am not in a position to give the exact date, but I will be able to lay the order in council on the table to-morrow.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 41, to incorporate the Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company-Mr. Gray.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.

Questions
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman,
hon. gentlemen will remember that when this bill was brought up a week or so ago the Prime Minister suggested that there ought to be some changes in, I think, two of the clauses. The time the bill was up last I think the hon. member in whose name it stands did not happen to be present in the house; suggestions for these amendments were handed to the Prime Minister but they did not meet with his approval. He had not time to consult with the sponsor of the bill regarding them.
I suggest that in the end it will not interfere with the passage of the bill if the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to allow it to stand until the Prime Minister's return, when he will be glad to discuss with the hon. gentleman the wording of the amendments, which they both agreed should be made.


Mr. GRAY:: I have no desire to press the
passage of this bill in the absence of the Prime Minister. But I am advised by the solicitor for the company that the amendments to sections 19 and 22 were submitted to the Prime Minister during the past week and I certainly understood that the Prime Minister had approved of them. I accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman who is leading the government (Sir George Perley) that that is not the case, and in view of the interest that the Prime Minister has taken in the bill I am prepared to allow it to stand provided the bill keeps its status.


George Halsey Perley: It will keep its
status.
Progress reported.



VANCOUVER, VICTORIA AND EASTERN-NORTHERN PACIFIC AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 48, to confirm an agreement between the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McDade.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Progress reported.

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1. Was Mr. Johnny Emond, of Riviere du Loup, employed as deputy returning officer, poll clerk, poll constable or enumerator in the town of Riviere du Loup, electoral district of Temiscouata, Quebec, at the general elections of 1926?
2. If so. what sum did the government pay him?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	In respect of how many cases did the government retain the services of Mr. Gustave Monette, of Moutreal. as a barrister, since the month of August, 1930?
2.	What is the total amount of fees paid to him by each department since that date?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MAROIL:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents bearing on the seizure of illicit liquor, alleged to have been found and seized on the property of Theodore Landry, of Miguasha West, county of Bonaventure, Quebec.


SHIPPIGAN, N.B.-SUB-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence with the Department of National Revenue, the Civil Service Commission and the Minister of National Revenue or any official of the department. in connection with the appointment of a sub-collector of customs at the out-port of ohippigan. New Brunswick.


Mr. CAHAN:: I would ask the hon. member to fix a date, so that we can know what subcollector is meant. Since 1930, 1931, or 1932?


William Duff: The year 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.


PORT DANIEL, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Charles Marcil: I or a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents, concerning the removal of_ George Prince as postmaster of Port Daniel West, Bonaventure county, and the appointment of Mrs. Rainier in his stead.


RADIO BROADCASTING
Right Hon.   S@: By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to alter the wording of the resolution, concerning the radio broadcasting commission, which appears under government notices of motion. I have been
Companies and Creditors Bill

informed that it might be made a little clearer, since 'this resolution is presented under section 9 of the Radio Broadcasting Act. I would ask that the resolution be altered to read:
Resolved that, pursuant to the provisions of the Canadian Radio Act, 1932, the House of Commons hereby approves the purchase of the radio broadcasting stations and equipment of the Canadian National Railways by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission for the sum of $50,900.
If that alteration is accepted I will move the resolution to-morrow. I understand that this requires previous notice, so I give notice now that to-morrow I propose to move this resolution.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: As I understand my right hon. friend's motion it relates largely to procedure and does not affect the substance of the resolution. If that is the case I think it will be acceptable.


COMPANIES AND CREDITORS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 77, to facilitate compromises and arrangements between companies and their creditors.
Ernest Lapointe: This seems rather an important bill, Mr. Speaker; my hon. friend introduced it towards the end of last week and it was only distributed at the end of the week. I do not think hon. members have had an opportunity to consider it as it should be considered, so I would ask my hon. friend to give us a couple of days to look over the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no objection to allowing the bill to stand, but inasmuch as the principle of the bill is very simple indeed, and I explained it on the introduction of the bill, I was going to suggest that perhaps the house would give second reading and go into committee on the bill. The first section then could be read and I would allow the bill to remain in committee so that members of the house who wished to suggest amendments might have an opportunity of considering them.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
should like to make a suggestion to the minister. This is really a very important bill, and I think those of us who belong to the legal profession will be in accord with the principle. But like my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) I may say that I

struggled to obtain a copy of this bill and only succeeded in obtaining a copy from the distribution office at noon on Saturday. I would suggest that the bill go to the banking and commerce committee for consideration and report to the house, and then hon. members would have ample time to study the bill much better than could be done in committee of the whole.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the principle of the bill is once adopted it simply becomes a question of the verbiage in the different sections. If the bill goes to a committee I think it should go to a special committee of say seven members, but the government felt that all members of the house should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to this bill if they so desired, and since there is not much doubt as to the principle of the bill being favourably accepted by this house the government thought it might be given second reading. Then it might go to committee of the whole, where one section might be read, after which the committee might report progress. In the meantime, since this is a government measure, the government would be very glad indeed if any hon. members who have suggestions with regard to amendments would send those amendments to me so that I might take them up with the law officers of the crown. In that way I think the progress of the bill would be facilitated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know that I have the right to speak again, but I should like to remind the minister that ever since I have been a member of this house I have been on the banking and commerce committee, and there never has been a bill or amendment of any kind relating to company law that has not been referred to that committee. I see no reason, with all due respect, why there should be any exception with reference to this bill, and I am pressing the suggestion I made a moment ago.


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to support the request of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson); I think this is a very important bill, and I believe it has been the practice in the past that bills of this kind should be considered by the banking and commerce committee.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to suggest to the Secretary of State (Mr Cahan) that this bill be sent to the banking and commerce committee, who are now carrying on an investigation into the whole question of debts and interest, concerning not only public bodies but private corporations and individuals as well. It seems to me that this

Supply-I n tenor-Salaries
bill deals with those very matters, so I think it should be sent to that committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If that is the general opinion of the house, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to moving that the bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce after it has been given second reading. My own opinion was that a bill of this kind would receive more efficient treatment if it were dealt with by a select committee.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a reflection on the banking and commerce committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I do not think it is a reflection on that committee; it simply means that a bill of this kind involves matters of procedure only once its principle is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Interior-salaries, $607,639.50; contingencies, $25,000.
William Duff: I noticed in the newspapers
a few days ago that the officials in one branch of the Interior department had not been paid since some time in March. Will the minister be good enough to tell the committee whether the officials of his department are receiving their salaries regularly like those of other departments.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: The branch of the department to
which I think the horn, gentleman refers is the national development bureau, the officials of which did not receive their Cheques on the 15th of this month. When the main estimates were being considered certain reorganization in the department was under review and therefore no item was put in those estimates for that branch of the department, the intention being to include the necessary amount in the supplementary estimates. That explains the non-payment of salaries on the 15th.


William Duff: Does that mean that they
will not get their cheques until the supplementary estimates are voted?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I should amplify my
statement by saying that those employees of that branch who were paid from the civil government vote received their cheques, but those salaries that were charged direct to the 53719-265
vote itself were not paid. Those officials will not receive their cheques until the supplementary estimates have been considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International boundary commission-expenses connected with the maintenance in a state of effective demarcation of the international boundary, $37,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the increase for?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In order properly to
answer the question I might read the following statement to the committee:
The treaty of February 24, 1925, made the international boundary commissioners responsible for the permanent maintenance in a state of effective demarcation of the entire international boundary between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Alaska, including that section of the boundary through the St. Lawrence river and great lakes.
Since 1925 the commission has made surveys necessary for locating and marking the boundary at a number of points on the St. Lawrence, Niagara, Detroit and St. Clair rivers. Necessary repairs to a number of reference monuments and the erection and location of others to replace several monuments washed out or otherwise destroyed are to be undertaken in the near future.
That gives a brief resume of the work of the international boundary commission. We are under obligation by these treaties to keep up our work comparably with that carried on by the United States. We are now slightly behind in our program and the extra amount asked for is to enable us to bring our work up to their level.


Mr. REID:: May I ask the minister to consider the necessity of marking a boundary between the United States and Canada in the district I have the honour to represent, namely, in the Semiahmoo bay, which is about ten and a half or eleven miles wide. There is no distinguishing mark across the whole length of the bay, with the result that difficulties, have arisen in the past in connection with fishing rights. The American fishing concerns have placed traps so close to the Canadian boundary that there have been doubts as to whether they were in Canadian or American waters. I appealed to the Minister of Fisheries and he was good enough to say that he was in favour of some distinguishing mark being placed there. I plead now with the Minister of the Interior. There has never been a mark in that bay and it is impossible to tell, standing on the shore, whether a fish trap is in Canadian or in American waters. Will the minister take the matter under advisement with a view to having a mark placed?

Sup-ply-Interior-Salaries


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of the international boundary commission, who, I feel sure, will give it their utmost consideration, as I will give it mine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the Northwest Territories Act and Ordinances, Northwest Game Act and regulations, Eskimo affairs, Wood Buffalo Park, reindeer industry, game preserves and sanctuaries, wolf and coyote bounties, exploration, investigation and development of natural resources, fire protection, construction and maintenance of buildings, schools, hospitals and roads, relief to destitute, maintenance and transportation of prisoners and insane patients, equipment and supplies, contingencies, etc., $218,000.
Mr. HEENAN:: I have no doubt the minister will recall the controversy in connection with the regulation of Norman dam at the outlet of the lake of the Woods, where some settlers were flooded out below the dam, in consequence of which a recommendation was made by the international joint commission that compensation should be given to all who had suffered damage. Before the former government went out of power the house voted $25,000 for the purpose of opening negotiations with the settlers. I understand that inasmuch as the provincial government of Ontario is interested, the minister has shifted the controversy to that quarter. I would point out that the settlers on the north side of the Winnipeg river are now being flooded for the third time within the last few years. They have small gardens and farms, and what is even more important the only way they have of crossing to the mainland is over the ice in winter and by canoe or boat in summer. Owing to the rise and fall of the Winnipeg river as a result of the regulation of the waters, it is dangerous for the children to make their way to school, consequently they are isolated. In view of that I wonder if the minister will take this matter up again with the Ontario government in order to have a settlement arrived at as early as possible.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This matter has been
brought to my attention on previous occasions and it is one with which the province of Manitoba, the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada are concerned. It is a matter of deciding if there is responsibility and where that responsibility lies. This question has not been determined as yet and until it is finally settled the matter cannot be dealt with. However, the discussions are proceeding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Dominion lands, parks, etc.-dominion lands, seed grain, mining lands and ordnance, admiralty and public lands, salaries and expenses, etc., $90,600.
Mr. VALLANCE:: Is it the intention of the minister to carry on the camps which have been performing a very necessary work in the national parks? Is it his intention to ask the Department of Labour which has been in charge of these camps to continue them this summer?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member is in error in saying that this work is being carried on by the Department of Labour; it is carried on by the Department of the Interior under the National Parks branch. It is the intention of the department to continue with this work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
progress is being made with the Big Bend road in British Columbia?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not know that I can give the actual number of miles constructed last year but I can state that the work was carried forward very considerably, in fact I think it wras the largest single item of work undertaken last year. I think we are within some twenty-five or thirty miles of Canoe river, which will be the end of the work as far as the Dominion government is concerned.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the minister giving any further consideration to the representations made regarding the boundaries of Riding Mountain park? It will be recalled that this matter was brought up last year and that requests have been made that the western end of the park should be excluded from the park proper.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Consideration has been
given to the matter of deleting certain areas from the Riding Mountain national park. Correspondence has been had during the year with the provincial government but no definite conclusion has been arrived at as yet.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What progress was made by the British Columbia government last summer in its share of the construction of the Big Bend road?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This work was carried on by the provincial government to a limited extent on the western section but I understand it is to be prosecuted this year with greater vigour as a relief scheme.


Thomas Reid: Is any of the tree seed extracted by the extracting plants used in Canada?

Supply-Interior-Dominion Lands


Thomas Gerow Murphy: A very small amount is utilized in Canada, the greater amount being sent to Great Britain and New Zealand.


Thomas Reid: I submit that more of this
seed should be used in this country. Before long there will be very few coniferous trees left and I see no reason why we should supply other countries. Will the minister take note of this matter and see if more seed cannot be used in our national parks and elsewhere throughout Canada. I think it could be distributed as an unemployment measure. We should not allow our natural resources in the way of timber to be depleted.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: For the information of
the hon. member I might say that the seed sent to the various parts of the empire is sent on a repayment basis; that is, the countries pay for the seed they get. There is nothing to prevent a greater utilization of this seed in Canada but I might state that the Department of the Interior is more concerned in conserving the present stands of timber than in reforestation work. It is much cheaper to save the trees than to reforest.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the
minister received any further representations in connection with the Garibaldi park in British Columbia?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: An offer was made by the British Columbia government.


Charles A. Stewart: Has there
been any progress made in connection with taking over the Mount Robson area for the Jasper national park?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No further progress has
been made.


Charles A. Stewart: What progress was made last year on the Lake Louise-Jasper highway, and how much money was spent as a relief measure?


Charles Marcil: While that is being looked up, could the minister tell the committee the total reduction which has taken place in the estimates for his department? I understand a large number of officials have been transferred and considerable of the work of the department has been transferred to other departments.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The amounts appropriated by parliament during the years named, were as follows:
Fiscal vear
1929-	30. .
1930-	31..
1931-	32..
1932-	33..
53719-265J
Amount $8,899,071 33 8,672,555 00 4,895,109 00 3,599,866 00
The salaries and the number of employees for those years were as follows:
Year
1929-	30	
1930-	31	
1931-	32	
1932-	33	
Number of
employees Salaries 2,371	$4,317,020	582,305	4,271,852	021,348	2,765,965	961,067	1,246,243	09
The last figure is for the period from April 1 to October 31, 1932, inclusive.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the minister expect to complete his portion of the Big Bend highway this year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Nothing has been included in the main estimates for the completion of that work this year, but it is anticipated that the work will be proceeded with under unemployment relief.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
action is the minister taking upon the offer of the British Columbia government with regard to Garibaldi park?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It has been decided that
at the present time the Dominion government will not add to the number of national parks in British Columbia.


George Gibson Coote: Were all these items lumped together under this estimate last year or is this a new procedure? We have here about ten different items all gathered together under one number.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I really think the hon.
member is in error. The votes and the numbers are in the same order as they have appeared in the estimates in other years.


George Gibson Coote: I was just asking for information. I did not say that they were not.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I beg the hon. member's
pardon.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that this is
a different procedure from that adopted in most departments and it is a very poor one because many of these branches are liable to be overlooked. Would the minister give us some information regarding the third item in this appropriation?
Advancement of forest conservation; national inventory of forest resources; investigation of forest conditions and rates of growth-[DOT]
And so on, amounting to $266,000. What work was done in connection with advancement of forest conservation?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This item is to cover the contribution by the dominion for the advancement of forestry in Canada. At the present time we have three laboratories, one situated at Vancouver, carrying on experimental work
Supply-Interior-Forestry

with British Columbia woods, one located in Montreal where the possibilities of the pulp and paper industry are being scientifically investigated, and our general laboratory at Ottawa where work of a more general nature is undertaken. Valuable assistance is also given in preparing information that will assist the industry in marketing Canadian forest products. In addition to that the Forestry branch, in cooperation with the various provinces, is endeavouring to make an inventory of the forest resources of the dominion. The information is supplied to the greater extent by the provinces and is compiled by the department at Ottawa. Besides that, scientific investigations are carried on by the department in the field as to the rates of growth of timber, forest protection, fire hazard research, timber land management, the study of wood lots on farms for the assistance of the farming community generally, and various other scientific studies. That, briefly, constitutes the duties and responsibilities of the Forestry branch of the department at the present time.


George Gibson Coote: Is the Forestry branch still
operating the forestry farm at Indian Head and are any trees being distributed by the department?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Those stations were transferred two years ago to the Department of Agriculture, but the work is being carried on, I understand, by that department and trees distributed throughout the three prairie provinces by the stations at Indian Head and Sutherland.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I assume the work in
connection with taking a national inventory of forest resources is proceeding? What progress is being made and what is the result so far?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: We have in the various
provinces our own officers who are working in cooperation with the provincial forestry departments in laying down certain standard methods of procedure. As the information is supplied almost entirely by officials of the provincial governments, our branch compiles the figures as they are submitted to them by the provinces. In some cases assistance is given by the various large companies who may have holdings in the different provinces.


Alfred Speakman: What progress has been made? Has the branch a fairly good idea now of the extent of our resources or is the work only partly done?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: A good deal remains to be done. The work has not been carried on for

any great length of time and therefore I anticipate it will be some years yet before it is completed.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: If I understood the minister correctly, the salaries which he gave for the last year were up to October 31. What were the salaries to the end of the fiscal year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am sorry I do not appear to have those figures, but I shall endeavour to get them for my hon. friend.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad if the minister will do so, because the fiscal year ended last month and the figures should be in.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister been able to find the mileage and the cost in connection with the Louise-Jasper highway?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The following figures show the values:
50 miles of reconnaissance survey..? 1,000 00
21-5 acres of clearing	
2,150	0095-2 acres of grubbing	
14,280	0027-9 miles of grading	
195,300	0024 miles of surfacing	
16,800	0058,000 feet of timber in bridges.. 3,486	00
62-7 cubic yards of concrete in
bridges	 940 50
285 lineal feet of piling in bridges. 570 00


Charles A. Stewart: Are those the expenditures from relief moneys during the past year? What is the total amount expended on the road, up-to-date?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The figures 'I have just quoted showed the values of the work done. The total expenditures for the year 1932 amounted to $235,294.


Charles A. Stewart: Was there not some work done in 1931, or is that the total expenditure?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is the total expenditure for 1932; the work commenced in 1931.


Charles A. Stewart: Did I
understand the minister to say about twenty-five miles had been constructed?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: About thirty-five miles have been constructed, including some mileage which has not been completely surfaced.


Charles A. Stewart: During the past year has there been any expenditure on the extension of the highway from Jasper westward, towards Redwater junction?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not under the relief program.

Supply-Interior-Forestry


Charles A. Stewart: Was there any expenditure from the parks appropriation? I am not asking for the exact figures.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: My information is that there were no funds expended from that during the past year.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister give us the names of the branches which have been taken away from the Department of the Interior since the present administration took office, and whether it is contemplated to take away any more from that department?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There have been certain amalgamations within the department, but no branch has been done away with. Certain portions of different branches have been given to other departments. A moment ago I instanced the nursery stations at Indian Head and Sutherland, which were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Formerly they were under the control of the Forestry branch of the Department of the Interior. No branches, as such, have been taken over by other departments.


Charles Marcil: Have they been taken over by the provinces?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


Charles Marcil: The expenditures in the department have been reduced to one-third of what they were previously. How is that reduction explained? Surely there must have been a great deal of work taken away from the department?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: On account of the transfer of natural resources to the three prairie provinces, a great deal of work was eliminated. Those provinces are now doing part of the work which was formerly done by the Department of the Interior. However the branches which formerly administered the natural resources are carrying on with a much reduced program.


Charles Marcil: How many officials were dismissed, as a result of that change?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There were 1,087 retired as a result of the transfer of resources.


Charles Marcil: Have any of those been taken back into the service, and any compensation given to them-retiring allowance, or anything of that nature?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: All those who were retired received retiring allowance or superannuation, as the case might be. Those employees who were retired from the Department of the Interior, owing to transfer of resources, have
been and are being absorbed into the service of various other branches of the government. In fact there is an order in council in existence which directs the Civil Service Commission to follow that procedure in cases where the employees have the qualifications necessary to fill the vacancies as they occur.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister say how many are still out, or how many have been taken back?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes. Of the number retired, 137 are now employed temporarily in other branches. In addition to that 256 permanent employees and 22 temporary employees have been taken over by the three provinces.


Charles Marcil: There are about 500 still out of employment?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Some of the employees are not anxious to be reemployed in the service-They prefer to take their superannuations; and retire permanently. The others are being: absorbed in the other departments as rapidly as conditions permit.


Charles Marcil: Is it contemplated to transfer any branches of the department to other departments, as has been done in the past? There was a time when the Department of the Interior covered the whole of the problems in the western country, but as time went on control over immigration, mines and other activities was transferred. I should like to know whether there is still any need for the existence of a Department of the Interior, and whether any heed is going to be taken to the requests, made by business men in different sections of Canada, concerning the curtailment of the number of departments? Can the minister tell us whether there is any movement in that direction?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not to my knowledge,
Mr. Chairman.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
like to bring to the attention of the minister a few things that have been on my mind in connection with national parks. I should like to see the minister complete that agreement with the British Columbia government for the inclusion of Mount Robson park. I think that while the government of British Columbia are in a mood to do so that agreement should be proceeded with and completed.
The other matter is this. While I would be the last one to complain about expenditure on the new highway from Jasper to Lake Louise, nevertheless I think that for the sake of having a trans-Canada highway through
Supply-Interior-Forestry

tihe mountains to the coast it would have been well to continue the expenditure on that project even to the extent of helping the British Columbia government. But more particularly would I stress the point that, having obtained the area known as Mount Robson park, the money should be expended to build a highway from Jasper westward to connect with the highway that will be constructed around the Columbia river. I am not raising any objection to the expenditure on the highway across the summit, but at the same time it hardly seems wise to build a highway across the summit and let remain in abeyance the completion of a highway via Edmonton and Jasper connecting with the southern highway that will connect Vancouver with Calgary, Banff and Lake Louise. I merely plead for the prosecution of those highways which will serve all the public. It will be very nice of course to go to Jasper and down across ithe new 'highway to Banff, but what I am asking for is the construction of the main highway to give us access to the coast, or indeed to take the circular trip if that is desirable via the new Columbia river highway, back by Golden and Lake Louise and Banff. I rather regret that the project across the summit seems to be getting the preference in construction. I would much prefer to see the other under construction, so that the citizens of northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta will have a direct highway to the coast as well as the citizens of the southern end of those provinces.
In considering a program for this year I would plead with the minister that those projects be concluded before you attempt to complete the highway over the summit because it will be a somewhat expensive undertaking and in my opinion it will not serve such a large number of patrons as if the construction were made by the route I have suggested.


Albert Joseph Brown: There is a small amount
included in this total that I am a little curious about. That is an amount of $1,500 to provide for expropriation of areas for right of way on the Savona-Port Moody section of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, also on the Pembina and Stonewall branches of the same road. Why is the Dominion government called upon to provide money to expropriate areas on the right of way of the Canadian Pacific railway?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In connection with those portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway which were constructed by the Dominion government and afterwards turned over to the
 |! 2
railway company, it is provided in the contract between the dominion and- the company that the necessary right of way for the railway will be acquired by the government where necessary. Before this department had advice as to what lands were affected by the right of way a certain number of patents were issued which contained no reservation of the lands required for the railway. Many years ago the necessary deeds were obtained from owners in a large number of cases, but some cases have remained unsettled up to the present time. The areas in each case are small, but in addition to paying for the land the government has to provide the necessary expenses for legal work connected with the transfer of title. It is impossible to forecast what expenditure may be required, as there are no means of knowing what price will be demanded by the various owners, nor are there any means of estimating what amount will be required for legal services, and possibly for expropriation proceedings. The sum of $1,500 is named merely as affording a basis for action to clear up these pending cases as far as possible in 1933-34. The Department of Justice has advised that it is the duty of the Dominion government to procure title for the railway in all these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Finance, salaries, $379,737.
John Campbell Elliott: Does this item include the superintendent of bankruptcy?
Hon.E.N. RHODES (Minister of Finance): There is another item for that.


John Campbell Elliott: What item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am unable to give it at the moment.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us what amount of New York exchange or gold has been given to different parties in Canada, if any, to meet payments of interest on bonds coming due in New York?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not that information before me, I can secure it for my hon. friend, except that it is not always desirable to disclose names. But I can give amounts.


George Gibson Coote: Well the government prohibited the export of gold some time last year. There is a belief among many people in Canada that the government may perhaps not have given gold to individuals, but that gold has been sent to New York to the credit of

Supply-Finance-Salaries
the government and the government may have given New York exchange to persons in Canada at a certain rate. That is the reason that I am asking the question. Could the minister say what persons were given this exchange and at what rate it was sold to them?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Speaking offhand, I do not know of any instance where we have given exchange in New York. We have permitted the export of gold under licence. If it were a question of assistance as far as exchange is concerned it would be at the going rate. I do not know what particular point my hon. friend has in mind.


George Gibson Coote: I think I remember seeing in the press where the government had given gold to some province at a favourable rate. From the way it was stated it looked as though it were a more favourable rate than could have been obtained at that time by buying exchange in the New York market. I just wondered whether the minister could say whether that is correct.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman, it would be the going rate in all cases as far as I am aware. I will verify that.


Thomas Reid: I would ask the minister if there is any gold going out of the country. I noticed in the paper the other day that gold was going to London, and that some banks were making money out of it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That was gold belonging to the banks. They had to receive an export licence the same as anyone else.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us if that gold was in possession of the banks before the Gold Export Act was passed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that I can give an accurate answer regarding that, I do not know that it is material whether it was or was not, but I would assume that it was gold that was in their possession prior to the Gold Export Act being passed.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me it makes a very material difference. No private party was allowed to export gold. Any bank that held gold that it had received prior to the passage of the Gold Export Act without paying the premium and is now allowed to export it and receive the premium certainly is getting something that the private citizen is not allowed to get. I do not see why the banks should be allowed that privilege. Anyone else having gold in their possession would have to take the legal rate for that gold. Why should the banks be allowed to export this gold and
receive a premium? Would the minister explain that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It might be to meet obligations of the banks' clients, and those clients might be municipalities, cities or provinces. That is the answer.


George Gibson Coote: In that case the gold received by the banks at par is being sold by the banks at a premium, and really that seems an injustice. I do not see why they should be put in a favoured position by the action of the government, by being allowed to export gold in that way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can assure my hon. friend that there is no question of favouritism so far as the granting of export licences is concerned. In each instance sufficient cause for the granting of a licence must be established; exportation is only permitted upon the merits of each individual case.


George Gibson Coote: Then might I ask the government whether, when the Gold Export Act was passed, containing a provision that export could be made only by the banks, it was the intention that the banks would be allowed to take advantage of that provision to export their own private holdings of gold.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course I cannot answer that question by saying yes or no. My hon. friend must remember that Canadian banks have branches in Cuba, in South America, in various parts of the West Indies, in Newfoundland, on the continent and in the United States. They have their obligations to meet in gold, and no doubt there are instances-in fact I have personal knowledge of some-when they must have a certain amount of gold in hand for the purpose of meeting those obligations. My hon. friend must not suggest that there is any question of favoritism because a licence is issued to a bank for the export of gold. I have known of instances when gold has been exported for the very purpose I have in mind and later brought back to this country when the necessity for the gold in the other country had passed.


George Gibson Coote: There are many municipalities in Canada that have to meet obligations in the United States, and until two weeks ago they were legally entitled to get gold from this dominion. But they were told there was no use getting the gold because they could not get a licence to export it. Under those circumstances I do not see that it is right to give the banks authority to export gold which they may have held for several years. They took it in at par but now they are allowed to export it at a premium, though so far as
Supply-Finance-Salaries

I know no one else can secure that privilege. Many people have obligations to meet in the United States, but they have been refused gold and told they could not secure a licence to export it if they did obtain it. I have had people come to me who found themselves in that position; they have been told by the government that there was no use of their getting gold because they could not export it. I might refer to the case brought up the other day by the hon. member for New Westminster, who referred to a United States tourist who brought in a bank draft, some United States currency and some United States gold. The Canadian bank in Vancouver gave him a premium on the United States draft and the United States currency which he held, but they refused to give him any premium on his gold. Then, when he wanted the gold back, the bank said, "You might as well leave it with us because you cannot take it out of Canada." That tourist was a citizen of the United States, but the Gold Export Act would not allow him to take out the gold which he had brought in. Apparently under this act the banks can take gold from tourists at par and send it to the United States or England and obtain a premium on it. If that is not making favourites of the banks I do not know what you might call it. Certainly it does not seem a proper practice.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to say at once, and as firmly as my vocabulary will permit, that there is no suggestion of favouritism so far as the banks are concerned. The banks are not selling gold as a merchantable commodity; they are transporting gold for the purpose of meeting obligations in foreign countries. As I said before, these obligations might be obligations of the banks, of the provinces, the cities or the municipalities. My hon. friend suggests that municipalities should be allowed to come down here and get gold without the payment of the premium. If I might say so without the slightest desire to be in the least offensive to my hon. friend, that idea seems preposterous. If we did that we would not have any gold in Canada in twenty-four hours. As a matter of fact the municipality, like anyone else, can get gold if there is excess gold so far as the government is concerned by paying the premium, and in no other way. My hon. friend does not suggest that the government should pay a premium for gold and then sell it at par.


George Gibson Coote: No, I never suggested that the government should pay a premium for gold; that was the government's own idea. I have often wondered under what authority

that action was taken. Perhaps the minister would tell me by what authority the government pays a premium for gold, and whether it is the intention to continue paying that premium.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no doubt at all that Canada will continue to pay a premium on gold. I hope it will never lose its sanity to the extent of not doing so, and until we are prepared to pass a statute confiscating gold I do not see why the practice should be discontinued. If we are going to confiscate gold, of course, we might as well contemplate the confiscation of other kinds of property. Until that time comes there is nothing to do but pay the current rate for gold.


George Gibson Coote: What advantage is there to the government in paying this premium?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is a very great advantage to the government. As a matter of fact the stimulation of the production of gold in Canada has been one of the saving factors in the present situation. It has not only enabled Canada to meet her obligations in foreign countries without undue strain and undue pressure which would be created if we attempted to buy foreign currencies with our own paper money; it has had the additional effect of stimulating the development of gold in Canada to such an extent that the Canadian gold industry to-day is the second in the world. It has given employment to many thousands of men, and my hon. friend must remember that to the extent that mining is made profitable not only do we bring about the employment of many men and provide a market for large sections of our country, but to the extent that they make money 12J per cent of that profit comes to the exchequer of Canada from the company itself. Then, when the dividends go to the individual shareholders, we get another slice of the profits by way of income tax. So, taking the balance-all round, it does seem to me that we have profited very largely by the development of the gold industry in Canada.
In that connection may I point out this fact, that to-day there are gold mines in Canada which are operated at a modest profit, and in some cases at a very bare profit, which would not be able to operate at all if they had to sell their gold without a premium. That has had a very marked effect in stimulating the development of the gold industry in Canada.


George Gibson Coote: I think perhaps the minister misunderstood my last question. What I should like to know is why the government.

Supply-Finance-Insurance
does not allow the mining companies to sell their gold freely to the highest bidder. Why does the government insist that the gold be
delivered to the mint in Ottawa?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon.
friend that there seems to me a very important advantage to Canada in being able to secure gold at the New York price or at the London price, as the case may be, but payable in Canadian currency. If we permitted the mines to sell their gold freely and had to resort to the purchase of gold in New York or London, as the case might be, to meet our commitments we would find a strain upon our exchange which would mean a higher premium, so it is all to our advantage that we should continue the practice of having gold with which to meet our commitments.


George Gibson Coote: It is difficult to understand
why we would have to pay a greater premium; we are paying whatever premium exists on New York funds at the present time, so surely there would be no difference. May I point out that although England went off the gold standard in September, 1931, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, said it would not interfere with the free gold market, that gold would be allowed to be freely bought and sold on the London market as had been the case previously. I have been trying to find out why the government of Canada adopted this other policy of commandeering all the gold, but paying certain rates of exchange for it. I want to find out if there is any advantage to be derived from that practice.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend has not understood my explanation all I can say is that I am sorry. I have given an explanation which, to my mind at all events, is as clear as an explanation possibly could be. I have pointed out that there is a very distinct advantage to Canada in being able to secure gold within Canada, payable at the New York or London rate as the case may be, but payable in Canadian currency, with the gold deliverable here. If the companies shipped their gold freely to London or New York, as the case might be, and the government had to resort to the purchase of gold in New York or London to meet its obligations, exchange would stiffen and we should have to pay an appreciably higher premium in purchasing foreign currecny with our own Canadian notes. It seems to me apparent that the advantage is very markedly in favour of the present system.


George Gibson Coote: The minister is trying to take advantage of two different arguments. He says that the higher the premium for gold the
better it is for the gold mines and consequently for Canada, inasmuch as it stimulates work; and now he says we should purchase gold at the exchange rate so that it will not go higher. Apparently he is now doing something which is keeping the gold mines from getting the returns which a moment ago he said they should get. He is trying to ride two horses at once.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
give it up.


George Gibson Coote: I suggest to the minister that this government has not made a very good job of handling the question of gold since September 1931. My hon. friends have until the las'; few days refused to suspend the redemption of dominion notes in gold, and they have illegally refused many requests for gold since September 1931. They have now seen the error of their ways and have passed an act which gives them power of suspension. They first suspended redemption without legal authority and then prohibited the export of gold except under licence and except by chartered banks, and now they allow the chartered banks to export gold for their own private use. So far as I know they have not allowed anyone else to do so. If they have, I should like to know who the parties are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance-salaries, $89,460; contingencies, $64,000.
George Gibson Coote: I had no idea that the question of insurance would come up to-day, but there is one point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, though I have not with me the necessary papers to deal with it fully. I have read that some change was made in the Insurance Act last year under which companies may allow a policy to lapse though there may be sufficient loan value in the policy to cover the premium due. It seems to me it should be a statutory condition, in any life insurance policy issued in Canada that if the policy has a stated loan value whioh is sufficient to cover a premium due the company should not be allowed to have the policy lapse because the premium is not paid. The amount necessary to cover the premium should be automatically advanced and charged as a loan against the policy. That is done under most policies which carry a clause making special provision therefor, and if that condition is not statutory it should be. I do not know whether this is under the jurisdiction of the dominion Department of Insurance, but I should like to get some information from the minister on this point. I am told that lapsed policies in the case of one com-

Supply-Finance-Insurance
pany amounted last year to S20,000,000. Many men have been unable to pay the premiums on their policies owing to the deflation to which we have been subject in the last three years, and if some of these policies carried a loan value which would cover the premium, and if the premium was not automatically advanced, then in my opinion it is a shame and the law should be changed so as to make it compulsory that in any such case the policy should be carried, the premium being automatically advanced as a loan against the policy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Speaking offhand, I am not aware of any change in the conditions surrounding the issuing of life insurance policies as contrasted with the conditions which have hitherto obtained. I may point out however that if there was any change it was made by this parliament and is therefore a matter of the statute law of Canada, and the proper time for the hon. member to make representations will be when considering an amendment to the Insurance Act. However, I will make closer inquiry into the matter. As I say, speaking offhand, I do not think there has been any change, but if there has been it is in conformity with the Insurance Act as passed by this parliament.


George Gibson Coote: An amended Insurance Act was passed last year and I protested three or four times against its being put through without previous reference to the banking and commerce committee, so that all these questions might be dealt with fully in that committee instead of in committee of the whole house. Every hon. member will recall that protests were made repeatedly against the passage of the act through the house without sending it to the committee. We asked to have it sent to the committee first. I am not sure that the act as amended last year made any change in regard to this particular point, but I am told that it did; certain sections were changed or omitted. This is a matter which in my opinion parliament cannot afford to pass without some remedial measures if the situation is as I have stated it to-day. That is the way it has been represented to me. I have been told that many policies have lapsed though they had a sufficient loan value to cover the premium due. The premium was not paid by the insured party. In many cases they took it for granted that the loan value would be used to cover the premium and that the premium would be advanced and charged automatically against the policy as a loan. The insurance policies which I carry myself contain that clause, and if there are policies issued 
without it the Insurance Act should be amended so as to make that impossible. I know that many people are under the impression that if a policy has a loan value sufficient to cover the premium, the premium will be automatically advanced. I am sorry I have not here a letter which I received recently and which would I think corroborate the statement I am making now. I should like to see the minister interest himself in this matter, and if the Insurance Act stands as I think it does it should be amended before this house rises. It would not require a long bill to do it, but the matter is too important to leave it in its present state.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will make inquiry at once.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the hon. member mean to say that where there was credit coming to the insured under the policy, after a request had been made for extension, the policy was cancelled?


George Gibson Coote: No. The case stated to me was this, that in many instances where there was a loan value under the policy, sufficient to meet the premium, the premium was not advanced automatically the insured party not having written to the company requesting that a loan be issued and applied to the payment of the premium. I know that in many policies there is a clause which provides that if payment of the premium is not made on the due date the amount will be automatically advanced and the premium paid, and a charge will be made against the policy. My contention is that if that is not statutory it should be made so in every life insurance policy issued in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
hon. gentleman suggest that it should be done without a request from the insured? I gather from what he states that the insured paid no attention to securing a loan. Is that right, or did he apply and was refused? I happen to know that a great deal of that sort of thing was done last year-not cancellations but the carrying of policies that had sufficient equity to see them through.


George Gibson Coote: What I am saying is this.
Most policies contain a provision to the effect that if payment is not made by the policy holder the premium will be automatically advanced by the company itself and charged as a loan against the policy. I am not saying that in any case the company refused to make a loan to cover the premium; but where the insured does not take the trouble to write to the company to ask that that be done, it is not automatically advanced and the policy

Supply-F inance-Miscellaneous
lapses. One who tried to get his policy once again placed in good standing was told: You can have your policy put in good standing by having a medical examination. I contend that where there is a sufficient loan value on a policy to cover the premium, that premium should be automatically advanced and Charged against the policy, even though the insured does not take the trouble to write and ask that that be done. I understand a great majority of the polioies contain a clause to cover such an advance and most people take it for granted that such a clause is in their policy. However, many people do not take the trouble ito read over their policies to find out if they do contain such a clause. A great many policies have been lapsed and I think the Minister of Finance should see that this is made a statutory provision in our insurance act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Superannuation - to provide for retiring allowances to former employees of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $10,800.
Charles Marcil: Acoording to the newspapers, an investigation is being carried on with the object of reducing the cost of operating this department; could the minister tell us just what results have been obtained?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the item refers to
superannuation.


Charles Marcil: It refers to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. I understand a subcommittee has been appointed to look into the expenditures of this department in order to see if any economies could be practised.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A committee was appointed but it was not appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the printing department, it was appointed with a .view to studying the use of printed matter in all departments and the uses to which government publications have been put. The idea was to see if a saving in cost could not be brought about without impairing the efficiency of the service rendered. I understand that committee is doing very excellent work and I hope that it will be possible to effect a very substantial saving in the public service without any disadvantage to the public generally.


Mr. BURY:: My recollection is that the
superannuation act reads, "The governor in council may make payments." It is not obligatory that the payments shall be made and, as I understand it, a civil servant has no absolute statutory right to a pension. I
cannot understand why the act is worded in this way, unless it be to have the pensions freed from tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The word "may" has been construed as "shall" on all occasions. Where a public servant is dismissed for malfeasance or misfeasance, discretion may be used but that is the only limitation in connection with superannuation.


Charles Marcil: What about dismissals for
political partisanship?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know of any person entitled to a pension who has been dismissed for partisanship.


Charles Marcil: There have been a large
number of dismissals by the present government for this cause and I was wondering if a precedent was being established to be followed by other governments.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think any prospective pensioner has been dismissed for partisanship.


Charles Marcil: But if he were dismissed,
would he lose his pension?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps the hon. gentleman should leave that until an actual case arises.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous

amount required to provide for grants to be made to the provinces of- Nova Scotia,	$875,000; New Brunswick,
$600,000; Prince Edward Island, $125,000.
Thomas Reid: Are these all the subsidies paid to these three provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These are the subsidies
which have been voted since the Duncan report.


Thomas Reid: Are there other subsidies paid to the provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Oh, yes, there are other
statutory subsidies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be subject to the approval of the treasury board, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $80,000.
George Gibson Coote: What is included in this
item?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This item is the usual provision for expenditures of an unforeseen character, all payments being subject to the approval of the treasury board. The items vary from year to year. In 1927-28, which was the highest year, the expenditure rose to

Supply-Finance-Miscellaneous
$131,000, and in 1928-29 it was down to $70,000. The amounts vary. Let me give some cases in point. The city taxes on the British legation property in Ottawa are paid under this item. This is a matter of reciprocal arrangement between Canada and the mother country. The British exchequer pays the taxes on the Canadian High Commissioner's office in London and we pay the taxes on the property of the British legation here. As the committee knows, Sir Josiah Stamp refused to accept any payment or salary for the work he did here and the sterling silver candelabra which was presented to him in appreciative testimony of that work was purchased under this item.


George Gibson Coote: I might save the minister some time. I wanted to find out whether this covered miscellaneous items of that nature.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: If so, I do not want to trouble him to read all the other items, being anxious to save a couple of minutes so that the committee may allow me to bring up one matter which might be considered under this item. I refer to the provision of a clothing allowance for pensioners who are receiving relief from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. According to a letter that I have received from a pensioner on relief residing in my constituency, it seems that in Calgary pensioners who are on relief are getting a clothing allowance, but pensioners who live in the country do not receive any. I should like to take two or three minutes of the time of the committee to bring up this matter This is a copy of a letter written by this man to Major Bell in Calgary. He says:
Dear Sir,-
Re our conversation, on the 13th instant in your office regarding the department's ruling, that pensioners, who are receiving D.S.C.R. relief, and residing in rural areas, are not eligible to receive clothing, similar to what is being issued to pensioners that are receiving D.S.C.R. relief, and who are residing in the city of Calgary.
It seems strange, pensioners, that are drawing D.S.C.R. relief should be considered, they do not need clothing in the rural areas like brother pensioners who reside in the city of Calgary.
This ruling, though harsh, to the pensioner affected, must strike his sense of humour; -when he remembers a little while ago the government placed 1,000 Doukhobors in jail, for running around in their birthday suits.
I am wondering they didn't send them to the rural areas where clothing is not considered necessary, by at least one department of the government.
He goes on to point out that he has not only himself, but his wife and daughter to clothe.

It seems very strange that a department of the government should be giving clothing allowance in connection with relief which they extend to pensioners in the cities and refuse to accord the same treatment to pensioners in rural areas.
As I believe the estimates of the Department of Pensions are pretty nearly through, I am taking this opportunity of discussing this matter. The Minister of Finance in the final analysis has to decide whether money will be granted to clothe these people or whether they will be sent out to the island on the Pacific coast to live with the Doukobors, and therefore I am simply asking him whether he will give this matter consideration. If he does, I am sure he will give the clothing allowance to pensioners who live in rural areas as well as to those who reside in urban districts. Has the matter been brought to the attention of the minister and, if so, will he give consideration to it and see that the same treatment is accorded to those in the rural areas as is now given to those in the city of Calgary?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On the hypothesis that
the minister in the last analysis is responsible for the raising of funds for conducting various branches of the public service, my hon. friend could apply to me in regard to every department. I shall take his representations as they appear in Hansard to-morrow and bring them to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Pensions. I do not know there is any other answer I can give my hon. friend because of course he will understand this is not a question to which I can give any other answer.


George Gibson Coote: I thank the minister for the answer he has given me. I should not have brought this matter up now were it not for the fact I think the estimates of the Department of Pensions are nearly through and I might not have an opportunity to bring it up again. I do not think the government would allow such a condition to continue once it is brought to their attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-Indian Affairs-salaries and contingencies, $135,688.50.
Charles Marcil: I presume these decreases
refer to the ten per cent cut in salaries all along the line in civil government. What is the explanation?


William Duff: A stenographer got married.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Apparently the observation of the

Supply-Civil Service Commission
hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is correct. I understand there is one position of stenographer, grade 2, in the medical branch vacant.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Does this item include
salaries of Indian agents?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government

Public Archives-salaries, -§89.1 IS; contingencies, $12,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to move that the sum of *$59,118 be reduced by $1,380, so that it will stand as $87,738. Since these estimates were prepared, one of the caretakers has passed away and it has been decided not to fill the vacancy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Public Printing and Stationery-printing, binding, etc., the annual statutes, $10,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In this particular case we
have reduced the distribution of the statutes and have accordingly reduced the estimate for printing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent Record, $35,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Last year this vote was
reduced by $10,000. We found however that owing to the number of patents for which applications had been made, it was impossible to publish the record for the smaller sum. For that reason the amount has been increased.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission-salaries, $196,020; contingencies, $25,000.
Charles Marcil: Has the appointment of a French-Canadian been made to the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, one appointment has
been made, but the second, I understand, is still pending.


John Campbell Elliott: It is practically settled, is
it not?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know.


Charles Marcil: Who has been appointed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Bland, who was formerly in the civil service.


Charles Marcil: Will Mr. Roche remain in
office any considerable time, or will he retire?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He will ultimately retire.
However he has been retained temporarily so that he may advise the new commissioners in becoming more thoroughly acquainted with their duties.
Mr. MARCIL. The two former commissioners have gone?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What gratuity was granted?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Tremblay will receive $5,000 and the other gentleman $2,500.


John Campbell Elliott: Why the difference?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my memory serves me
correctly it is because of Mr. Tremblay's long service.


John Campbell Elliott: They were both appointed at the same time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But one had been a long
time in the civil service-twenty-two years, if I remember correctly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister believe that is a fair adjustment? After all, a man retired from the public service has still his future to make. It is presumed that if his services are equally satisfactory he should receive an equal gratuity.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My judgment was not the
deciding factor. In fact, I do not know that I was present when the gratuities were fixed. However the fact is that one has been in the public service a long time, and the opinion of the council was that owing to his longer service the larger amount should be given. Taking into consideration his length of service I believe Mr. Tremblay will not receive a retiring allowance larger than that which would have been proportionate to the longer time he had been in the service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was informed both gentlemen were told they would receive the same retirement allowance.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the right hon. gentleman wishes the item to stand, I Should be content to agree. I understand however that the House of Commons committee which last session considered civil service matters recommended a larger retirement allowance in one case than in the other.


John Vallance: The minister is absolutely correct.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought so. I understood, further, that the order in council was based upon the report of the committee.
4208	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission


William Duff: I notice that savings have been made in a number of items over which the minister has control. I should like to congratulate him upon economizing. However, in view of the financial condition of the country, and in view of the fact that there is a good deal of criticism of this particular branch-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is there?


William Duff: I shall try to show that there
is. In view of those facts, has 'he given any thought to the matter of abolishing altogether the Civil Service Commission, and saving the country about $200,000. At this time that sum of money could be well used, and the people generally would appreciate the saving.
I do not know whether or not the minister has to do with many changes in the public 3ervi.ee, either in regard to appointments or dismissals. Perhaps I am correct when I state that there is no department of government in connection with which there are so few changes as in the department now before the committee. It is a well known fact, however, that in other departments many changes take place. Not only are there thousands of dismissals, but there are thousands of appointments.
In my opinion the Civil Service Commission is nothing more or less than the fifth wheel of a coach. In nine-tenths of the appointments by the Civil Service Commission they act only as rubber stamps. The minister of the department, on the advice of perhaps a member of parliament or his deputy, suggests an appointment to the Civil Service Commission which, in turn, makes the appointment. Let us take an example. We will suppose a postmaster is to be appointed. Quite true, in connection with those appointments there is not only a good deal of red tape but considerable expense. The Civil Service Commission is asked by the Post Office Department to advertise for applicants. The commission sits down seriously and sends out notices to different postmasters, with instructions to post the notices up so that applicants may have an opportunity to apply. All applications are received in Ottawa. Immediately the Post Office Department-not the Civil Sendee Commission-recommends to the Civil Service Commission a number of people who are to act as a board to inquire into the qualifications of the candidates. That is another unnecessary expense. I have known cases where officials have been sent all the way from Ottawa either to British Columbia or the maritime provinces to investigate the qualifications of a postmaster or lighthouse

keeper. They go down with certain instructions. They look over the list of applicants and come back and report to the minister. I have no hesitation in saying that in nine appointments out of ten the member of parliament influences the minister and the minister influences the particular member of the government, the particular member of the government tells the Civil Service Commission who they want appointed and the Civil Service Commission recommends that appointment. I am not criticizing it; I am all for it; I think it is the proper thing, except that it should not go through the Civil Service Commission. I say to the minister that if there is a vacancy in his constituency he is the proper man to make the appointment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I say to every hon. member, if there is a postmaster or lighthouse keeper to be appointed in his constituency he is better qualified to choose that man than three men in the Civil Service Commission who are perhaps two or three thousand miles away from where this man is to be appointed. I have always taken the ground that the Civil Service Commission is a useless piece of machinery. I have no objection to the commissioners themselves; I have no quarrel with the officials, but in the interests of the country the business would be much better carried out by the recommendation of candidates to vacancies by the member of parliament or the defeated candidate than by having all this red tape which does not mean anything. These commissioners really do not make the appointment ; all they do is to put the matter through after either the minister or the officials in certain departments make the recommendation.


Charles Marcil: My hon. friend from An-tigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has spoken about boards going around the country to inquire into the qualifications of applicants. They have a simpler method than that in the Post Office Department. They ask the inspector of the district to send one of his assistants to the constituency, and he is told beforehand the name of the man who is to be appointed to that office. So he goes through the formality of giving a rating to the different candidates, and the man to be appointed naturally gets the highest rating. The Civil Service Commission, who have no officials of their own, must trust to the department, and they simply rubber stamp the recommendation and appoint this man who has the highest rating. I could keep this house for two or

Supply-Civil Service Commission
three hours if I wanted to scan the fifty or sixty dismissals which have occurred in my county and which really make the Civil Service Commission as it works at present a perfect farce and a great expense to the country.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister wishes to reply I do not want to take any time. I am opposed to this item, and have been for many years; therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, that item No. 14 be reduced by $100,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With regard to the Civil Service Commission, the Secretary of State occupies an irresponsible position. I think his sole responsibility is to place the estimates of the commission before the house, and he is the medium through which the commission report to parliament from year to year.
With regard to the dismissals for partisanship or other matters, I can simply say that I am not responsible for any dismissals as far as I know. There has been no dismissal in any branch of the department of the Secretary of State or in any of the departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible as minister. Further I may say that in respect of the appointments that have been made by the Civil Service Commission I certainly have never been consulted in any particular. Consequently the only recommendation I have given to the commission is a personal recommendation as to character for one of the employees of the department of the Secretary of State with whom I had been in close contact for two or three years, whom I believed to be a man of very high character, and when he applied for promotion in the civil service I wrote a certificate as to his character and industry and competence. That is the only association which I have had personally with the commission.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It does seem as if it ought not to be necessary every session, and sometimes two or three times during a session, to debate this question of the Civil Service Commission. I think perhaps the only good thing which can be said with regard to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was that it was short. I have no desire to make a long speech or go into the merits of the case at any length to-day. Yet I think those of us who are in favour of a civil service commission cannot let a protest of this kind go unchallenged. Surely if there is anything wrong with the Civil Service Commission and the way in which they do business
the necessary action is either to bring in amendments to the Civil Service Act or to change the commissioners. I do think that the government is very slack indeed in not having appointed new members to the commission-


Charles Marcil: Perhaps they have no applicants.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Civil Service Commission was more or less discredited by a report that came in last session, yet the same gentlemen have carried on, and apparently there has been no fundamental change in their way of doing business. I think the government have been very slack in that connection.
But when we consider the alternative, if the Civil Service Commission were abolished it would mean a return to patronage in a larger degree than we have had it during the past few years. It seems to me that no one who has the welfare of the country at heart can advocate that in real seriousness. I cannot think that any member of parliament, even though he may be located near the scene of action, is necessarily the man to decide who is the most suitable applicant for a position. In fact I think the very fact that he is the member of parliament and is necessarily more or less partisan in his way of looking at things disqualifies him from making recommendations as to the fitness of candidates. I think that position can be well argued. He may know the moral character of a man in his district and may make a recommendation of that kind-


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does not the hon. member frequently make recommendations to the Civil Service Commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not.


Frederick George Sanderson: Have you never made
any?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I have not,
that is to the best of my knowledge.


Frederick George Sanderson: To the best of your
knowledge?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I cannot recall at any time having done so. As everyone here knows, I have said again and again that I believe in the principle of appointment on merit after competitive examination, and I have referred applicants to the Civil Service 'Commission, but not with recommendations.
4210	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission


Frederick George Sanderson: Then may I ask
another question? The hon. member says that in all his career as a member of this house, and he has been here many years, he has never made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot recall any. I am not under examination, and before making a final statement I would have to be given time to go over the matter. The nearest I can recall to having done anything of the kind was away out in the west, not in my own constituency, when either a minister or the Civil Service Commission asked me if I could indicate some medical man who could recommend someone upon whom reliance could be placed, and I indicated a medical man that I happened to know in that area, and I do not know who he recommended. To the best of my knowledge that is the nearest I have come to any recommendation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then may I ask this question? In all his career the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has never made any recommendation to the Civil Service Commission?


James Shaver Woodsworth: To the best of my knowledge, no.


Frederick George Sanderson: Your knowledge and belief?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not to the best of my recollection.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am prepared to leave it at that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If sworn evidence were brought in I might have to accept my own signature, or other evidence like that, but my statement is according to the best of my recollection. I am dealing with principles, and on principle I have avoided doing that. It may be that those of us who are independents are not subjected to quite the same temptations as others; I am not suggesting that I possess any higher degree of morality, but perhaps I occupy rather a unique position. That has been the position I have taken, and perhaps for that very reason I have been able to advocate the retention and extension of the Civil Service Commission a little more disinterestedly than some other hon. members. I felt very sorry that the appointments recently made in connection with the radio commission did not come under the Civil Service Commission, so far as I have been able to learn, but were made directly by order in council. If I am misinformed I should be very glad to be corrected.


William Duff: That is quite right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is correct, and it is regrettable indeed. By these means we are really undermining the authority and usefulness of the Civil Service Commission, and if this undermining goes on very much longer I might come to agree with my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough and regard the commission as a fifth wheel. But I do not want to see it made a fifth wheel; I think we need an independent body who will have some definite knowledge of the qualifications of individuals and of the needs of the departments, and I hope nothing further will be done to weaken the Civil Service Commission. If this amendment is pressed I shall have to vote against it.


Charles Marcil: In addition to what I said a moment ago with regard to appointments in the country districts, section 25 of the Civil Service Act enables the department to accept or reject the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, and when by any accident a Liberal is appointed that recommendation is rejected. I have a case in point in my own constituency. A returned soldier was appointed as lighthouse keeper; he was the father of a fairly large family. This did not suit the Tory organization and the appointment was held up for six months. The temporary appointee received his salary during that period, and when the six months was up the choice of the Tory organizer in my constituency was appointed. The returned soldier, who had been legally appointed by the commission, was simply thrown aside. The recommendation of the Civil Service Commission was completely annulled under section 25 of the act, which enables the department to accept or refuse any appointment. When the appointee does not suit the men of the day he is not accepted; in this case the soldier who had been appointed was simply thrown out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not see that the hon. member for Bonaventure has very much to complain about. During the ten years his party was in power that section was invoked day in and day out in order to get rid of candidates who had received the highest rating by the Civil Service Commission. If the hon. gentleman wants to refresh his memory let him look at the debates of 1930, when the post office estimates were under consideration. My complaint against the Civil Service Commission is that at times they allow themselves to be influenced by others, and the merit system is not always to the fore. If the hon. gentleman wants a concrete illustration let him look at the case of the Camp-bellton postmaster.

Supply-Civil Service Commission


Charles Marcil: I had nothing to do with that; I only know that an appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission and that now an attempt i3 being made to have that cancelled. Of the one hundred postmasters in my constituency I think about fifty have been dismissed. The other day a man was dismissed by the Postmaster General despite a fervent appeal made on his behalf by the Lord Bishop of Quebec. Mr. Sweet-man, the postmaster in question, who had held office for thirty-four years at Port Daniel Centre, and who was kept in office under the Borden government by Sir Robert Borden himself when an attempt was made to oust him, has been let out. I am in favour of merit, but the merit system does not work properly. All the government officials are trembling with regard to their positions. If a post office inspector is sent down to my district, what does he do?- The easiest way is for him to see the member who has the patronage for the county. In my case my opponent does not bother with patronage; he has passed it over to a former minister of the crown, Hon. Doctor Paquet, who was a member of the Meighen administration. He is handling the patronage now, and this dismissal was carried out on the recommendation of Doctor Paquet in spite of the appeal of the Lord Bishop of Quebec, who I am sure could be compared with Doctor Paquet any day of the week.
I could bring up any number of similar instances. These things are done for party purposes; I have sat here for thirty-three years, and I know what I am talking about. When my hon. friend from York-Sunbury goes back to his people he will have to account for the expenditures of the present government. I know he has a pretty safe constituency, but he may find that conditions have changed, and that the people are in earnest. They may want to know if only individuals and private companies should economize or whether the Dominion government should not set the example. I am sure my hon. friend and I could sit down and reduce the budget by millions of dollars. Many things are all right when the country is prosperous; it is all right to have representation at Geneva and elsewhere and commissioners galore when the country has money, but I think we could get along without a lot of these things now. Here we have a tax of 2 cents a pound on sugar; we have to put 3 cents on every cheque no matter how small it may be; we must raise $70,000,000 by increased taxation this year. At the same time the trade of Canada for the
month of March was $28,000,000 less than our trade a year ago, and I do not know how many millions less than our trade in 1928 and 1929. So I think the time has come when we must economize, and I am in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission entirely, so far as the outside service is concerned. Let the minister of the crown assume the responsibility for appointments, and let him make those appointments on the recommendation of the man who has been chosen to represent the people of that constituency. If I make a foolish appointment I am responsible first to the minister and then to my electors. Then the minister will have someone to whom he can look with confidence, because I must assume the responsibility, as every member of parliament must. That is the way the civil service should be administered, but to-day we have this costly farce, the Civil Service Commission. It gives no satisfaction to anyone; the appointments are made purely for party purposes, and in each case a large number of good partisans are dissatisfied. If you want to get into trouble, change a post office; that is the old story, and my hon. friend knows it very well. I know my hon. friend is sincere; he knows in his heart that we could save millions of dollars if we really wanted to do so. We should cut our budget down to compare with our revenues, but here we are this year with a deficit of $150,000,000. What is to become of this country if trade does not pick up or if something is not done at Washington or some other place? Where will we be in the next two or three years? I put that question to my hon. friend, and he will have an opportunity to answer it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A moment ago the Secretary of State said that he, as a minister of the crown, had never asked the Civil Service Commission to make an appointment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or as a private member, so far as I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that the only action he had taken along that line was to give a certificate of character to someone who was seeking a position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And in that case the gentleman had been in the State department under me, where I had been able to supervise his competency and intelligence. I do not think he has received the appointment, at that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite so, and I think in making that statement the minister felt that he was expressing the proper



Supply-Civil Service Commission
attitude of a minister of the crown with reference to appointments under the Civil Service Commission. A few days ago we were discussing in the house a measure which related to the appointment of wardens in penitentiaries, and the Minister of Justice at the time told us that one reason a certain clause in the act had been drafted as it was was to remove altogether the possibility of the minister making the recommendation for the appointment of wardens. He said that it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the superintendent and that the minister should not interfere at all. We accepted in good faith what the minister then said. I have in my hand a return asked for a few days ago by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) and I wish to read to the committee two or three of the communications that appear therein. They illustrate to what extent the Civil Service Commission really functions in the matter of some appointments. This return relates to the appointment of a warden at Kingston. The motion asked for:
A copy of all correspondence, telegrams, recommendations, reports, memoranda and other documents on the files of the Minister _ of Justice, the Solicitor General and of the Civil Service Commission in respect to the appointment of K. M. Allan to the position of warden of Collin's Bay penitentiary.
The first letter is dated Ottawa, January 14, 1932. This is a memorandum signed by the Minister of Justice and forwarded to the superintendent of penintentiaries:
Please instruct Inspector Jackson to return to his regular duties at Ottawa as inspector, and place Mr. Allan in charge of the preferred class penitentiary, Collin's Bay, as acting warden. Please also apply to the Civil Service Commission for the promotion of Mr. Allan to be warden of said institution, and for the promotion of Mr. Hawkins to the position now occupied by Mr. Allan.
That was a pretty straight statement on the part of the Minister of Justice as to what the Civil Service Commission should do. Then there is a communication from Mr. W. S. Hughes, superintendent, to Mr. Allan. It is dated January 18, 1932:
Dear Mr. Allan,-
Acting under instructions of the hon. the Minister of Justice, you are to proceed immediately to the preferred class penitentiary, Collins bay, and take charge of that institution.
That communication is addressed to:
R. M. Allan, Esq., Structural Engineer, Penitentiary Branch, Ottawa.

On January 21, 1932, there is quite a long letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice, addressed to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Ottawa. It reads in part:
Sir,-
Re-Promotion, Structural Engineer R. M. Allan, J.PA. 17, to position, warden, grade 1, preferred class penitentiary, Collin's Bay, J.P. 2001.
Relative to the above, the position of warden at the preferred class penitentiary, Collins bay, has not been permanently filled since its creation. The hon. the Minister of Justice is desirous of having the above mentioned officer promoted to this vacancy.
Then the communication gives certain reasons and concludes:
May I ask that steps be taken to immediately promote Mr. Allan to the permanent position of warden of the preferred class penitentiary, at the salary he now enjoys, viz., $3,180. The customary requisition is attached hereto.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.
A little later there is a communication from the Civil Service Commission intimating that this has been done, and there is a communication signed H. C. Fatt, acting superintendent, addressed to the warden, Collin's Bay penitentiary, Kingston, under date April 11, 1932:
Sir,-	_
Please be advised that certificate has been issued by the Civil Service Commission, promoting you to the position of warden, grade 1, Collin's Bay penitentiary, with salary at a rate of $3,360 per annum, less allowance, from 1st April, 1932.
There is the file. I have not read all the communications but the pertinent ones, and I have not left unread any communications which hon. gentlemen would wish to have quoted. That file indicates that in the filling of positions such as that of warden, the Minister of Justice simply told the superintendent whom he wanted appointed. He had his deputy write to the Civil Service Commission, indicating who was to be appointed, the Civil Service Commission made the appointment, and the superintendent notified this gentleman that the appointment had been made. If that is the method of proceeding under the present government, so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned, the motion before the committee at the moment is wholly inadequate. Instead of reducing the salaries paid to the commission we ought to abolish it altogether. This is the file as presented and I shall be glad to send it over to my hon. friend if he wishes to see it. It is an exemplification of what wre on this side have been

Supply-Civil Service Commission
saying, that so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned, as apparently it is functioning at the present time, it is simply acting under instructions from the minister, the minister giving directions to his head officials or his deputy and, through them, instructing the commission what to do.


George Halsey Perley: It seems to me
the right hon. gentleman has taken too highhanded an attitude in this matter. As a matter of fact, these are not instructions to the commission at all. The commission are not bound to carry out the wishes of the minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: But they did.


George Halsey Perley: They axe not
bound to carry out these instructions unless they see fit, and my experience of the commission is that anyone whom I recommend very seldom gets any consideration. Indeed, I no longer recommend anyone to the commission. The minister or the deputy minister might say that he would like to have such a man appointed, but that does not constitute instructions to the commission. If the commission refused to appoint the man the minister could not compel them to make the appointment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Acting Prime Minister listen to this.
May I ask that steps be taken to immediately promote Mr. Allan to the permanent position of warden of the preferred class penitentiary, at the salary he now enjoys, viz., $3,180. The customary requisition is attached hereto.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.


George Halsey Perley: They considered
him a proper person to be promoted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter says, "to immediately promote".


George Halsey Perley: "May I ask that steps be -taken" cannot be regarded as instructions. As a matter of fact, the minister could not instruct the commission if he wished to.


William Duff: I can understand that the Acting Prime Minister would not wish to have very much to do with the Civil Service Commission, nor would he ask them to make appointments, but he is a member of this government and he cannot get away from some responsibility in the matter. I will refer to one case that occurred in the last couple of months. A radio commission was appointed and it was found necessary to have certain officials. The commission asked for a secretary, and although the commission was requested to advertise 53719-266 J
for applicants for that position, although two hundred applications were received by the commission, although these poor devils of applicants each paid $2 when he sent in his application, the appointment of Colonel Landry was made the day before the applications were due. Who made that appointment? Was it made without the advice of the Civil Service Commission? Was the Civil Service Commission not told to appoint that gentleman instead of one of the two hundred applicants who sent in 82 each, and from whom the government derived S400?


George Halsey Perley: This is something I know nothing about. Does my hon friend say that the appointment was made the day before the applications were received?


William Duff: Before they were due.


George Halsey Perley: Before they were received?


William Duff: No, before the time was up.


George Halsey Perley: Has the hon. gentleman anything to prove that?


William Duff: The Acting Prime Minister can get the proof better than I can. I would suggest that he ask his colleagues.


George Halsey Perley: I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has any written evidence.


William Duff: I have made the statement that this was done and I would suggest that the Acting Prime Minister make an investigation Let him ask his colleagues whether it is true or not.


George Halsey Perley: I will have the matter investigated.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: My views with reference to the Civil Service Commission are well known to all members of the committee and I do not propose to repeat them at this moment. I have had occasion time and time again to express my views and they will be found in Hansard. I have agreed in the past with the principles underlying the Civil Service Commission, and I repeat my agreement. I agree with the principle of having a body to appoint people to the civil service under the merit system. If there are any defects in this system, it is not due so much to those charged with the administration of the law as it is to the law itself. If a change were made in the act in an impartial manner and irrespective of parties and the like, a lot of the trouble now being experienced would be removed. I am one of those who believe in the merit system and I see no other way
4214	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
in which it can be administered except by a properly constituted commission operating under a proper law. I notice there is a reduction of almost S50.000 in the vote for this commission. I shall not repeat what I have said before, but notwithstanding my great friendship for the hon. gentleman who has moved that the item be reduced, I shall very gladly vote against his amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman tell us how many recommendations he has made to the Civil Service Commission between 1921 and 1930 and how many times he has tried to influence appointments?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: When anyone came to me and asked me to recommend him to the Civil Service Commission, I did so when I felt that he wag worthy of appointment. However, I might say that as far as I know, not one of these applications has been accepted. Since the change in government, people have come to me asking me to recommend them for positions. As my hon. friend knows, the application form contains a space for three recommendations. Since 1930 I have been quite willing to place my name upon the application forms of those whom I thought were fitted for positions, but not one of them has been appointed.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I should like to bring a matter to the attention of both the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and the Minister of the Interior. A gentleman in my county acted as chief migratory bird officer for over nine years in the province of Prince Edward Island. It was decided to hand this work over to the mounted police and this man's name was placed upon the eligible fist of the Civil Service Commission. Just recently the position of fishery officer in my county became vacant, a position which entails work similar to that which this man had done. When the natural resources were handed over to the provinces, many positions in the Department of the Interior were wiped out, but the minister knows it was intended that these men would be taken care of. This man to whom I refer is a returned soldier and I think the minister will bear me out when I say that he had a splendid record with the department. The Civil Service Commission was about to advertise the position of fishery officer when this man put forward the claim that as he was on the eligible list, he should receive the appointment. The commission agreed with this, but in order that this man should not receive the position an order in council was passed stating that it would not be filled in

a permanent way. A couple of days afterwards another man was put into this position upon the recommendation of the gentleman who opposed me in the last election. A man who had been in the department for nearly ten years was passed over although the commission had admitted that he was eligible for the position and should receive it. I do not know whether this man was a Liberal or a Conservative, I just want to point out that there are many ways of getting around the act. This man was wounded in service overseas, he has given splendid sendee in the department but he is now thrown out in the cold simply because someone else wants to place another man in the position. The Civil Service Commission were ready to appoint this man and I have their letter to prove it.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office, $1,741,148.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does this item relate to the comptroller who has just been visiting the western provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What success has he had in having the1 provinces appoint comptrollers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot give my right hon. friend any other answer than to say that his report came in only to-day. It is very voluminous and I have not had an opportunity of considering it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister consider that there is anything in the nature of interference with the domestic affairs of the provinces when the federal government issues directions of the character of those set forth in the Prime Minister's letters to the premiers of the provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is entirely within the discretion of the provincial governments whether they will subscribe to the suggestions contained in the letter of the Prime Minister. In that sense, provincial autonomy is not being interfered with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out that when the matter of grants to provinces came up in the first instance, we on this side urged very strongly that the Auditor General or some of his agents ought to be permitted to audit the various accounts. The Prime Minister then took the position that it would be an insult to the provinces to ex-

Supply-Finance,-Miscellaneous
pect that any federal officer should have anything to do with supervising the accounts of the provinces. I recognize that the federal comptroller is not supervising, but had the course which we suggested at the outset been taken, it might not have been necessary to send a comptroller with certain instructions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The position taken by the Prime Minister to which my right hon. friend has referred, had reference to the auditing of the accounts which are paid for in part by the provinces themselves and which are administered and dealt with by the provinces, whereas on the other hand the letter of the Prime Minister had reference not to the creation of accounts but to the question of requests which have come to the dominion for advances, loans and financial aid to enable the provinces to carry out their own provincial undertakings. Therefore my right hon. friend will see, apart from the question whether the attitude taken in the latter case by the Prime Minister was correct or not, it was entirely different from the question of auditing provincial accounts as such.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It all relates
to provincial expenditures which have been incurred and paid as a result of grants in aid.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. On the other hand,
the lender is the man who lays down the terms on which the borrower is to receive an advance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is
that at the outset the government should not have regarded it as an insult to. the provinces to lay down any terms. We were taking the very strong position that being the lender, the federal government ought to safeguard the dominion treasury in its loans. Had that course been taken, the position of the provinces to-day would not have been the difficult one it is; it would not have been necessary to tell them that the time had come when they had better get a comptroller or they would not get help.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think there is any difference in view between my right hon. friend and myself except that he is confusing two things. The question of auditing accounts as approved by a province where the province itself administers and pays a portion of them is one thing, while the question of the federal government saying to a province which comes to the dominion treasury requesting the loan of a certain sum of money:	Yes, we will lend you the money,
but on condition that you will do thus and so, is entirely different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we are agreed, I am satisfied.


Charles Gavan Power: The answer to the minister
by the provinces would be this, that if the federal government had not initiated these enormous expenditures, the provinces might not have been in the difficult position in which they are. If they are asking for money to assist in carrying out certain undertakings under a relief act, it is because they were obliged to make these expenditures. The federal government simply said:	We will
spend so much and you must also spend so much; if you do not, you are to be held up before the inhabitants of your province as not being willing to cooperate with us. The provinces have been actually forced into the expenditure of large sums of money.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot allow the statement of my hon. friend to pass without a moderate protest.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not expect the minister would.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may quite well be that the dominion must assume a share of responsibility for certain public works expenditures which were participated in by the provinces and that to the exent they did participate in certain public works expenditures, there may have resulted a modicum of financial embarrassment at the moment. That may have been a contributing cause, but it was not by any stretch of the imagination the main cause of the difficulty in which the several western provinces find themselves at present. One must go far beyond that for many of the expenditures that they are called upon to make to-day. When I say that, I am not referring to parliament buildings which cost many millions of dollars and other undertakings of a like character which at the time were beyond the purse of the provinces to meet. Let me take one illustration. In the drought area in Saskatchewan, there was a case where one-third of the population of that province was impoverished, not in a position to pay a single dollar of taxation and, on the other hand, having to be the recipients of direct relief to the extent of one hundred per cent. That one instance alone would cause a diminution in the revenue of Saskatchewan of a very large sum of money. Then, of course, the provinces are also subject to the general conditions of depression which exist to-day.
Supply-M iscellaneous

Mr. POWER I do not know whether this is relevant to the discussion or not, but may I ask the Minister of Finance whether persons who have received assistance in the drought area of Saskatchewan have pledged themselves to repay either to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission or to the federal government the loans made to them?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My recollection is that in many, if not in most cases, a promise to pay was taken by the Saskatchewan relief commission and, while I am speaking from memory, I think I am accurate when I say that already a substantial sum has been repaid to the federal treasury as a result of those obligations.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it the intention of the federal government to insist that the Saskatchewan relief commission endeavour to collect those amounts?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not say that the government would insist, but I think it would be the duty of the dominion to insist that those who could pay would honour their obligations and that the federal treasury should be recouped so far as possible for those advances. No doubt many of them will never be returned, but when they can be they ought to be.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood the
minister to say a minute ago that he had just received the report from the comptroller of the treasury. Is that in connection with the four western provinces or just some of them?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Three of the western provinces.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is it the intention of the minister or the government to lay those reports on the table?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hardly think it is a report that ought to be brought down. I say that offhand and without having had an opportunity of conferring with my colleagues. The report is more in the nature of a confidential document for the purpose of informing the government as to conditions in the west. I would like to turn the matter over in my mind and confer with my colleagues before deciding whether to bring the report down, because the committee will see there are of necessity many matters of inquiry which could not in the public interest be disclosed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $18,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I note that
this item is for clearing rivers and building fish ladders. There is a lake in my district which requires a fish ladder. As I understand it, sockeye salmon eggs were put into that lake four years ago, and the run is due to come back this fall. I have made inquiries from the department, and learn that the proposal is to wait until they come back, and then to think about building a ladder. That may seem reasonable to the department; they may choose to adopt that course rather than to build a ladder before the run. But the history of the Pacific coast tells us that if we put sockeye eggs into a lake we can count on it that they will return four years after. The department states there is a precedent in connection with Stamp falls, in which instance they waited until the run came back. In that case however the falls were not of a character which made the ascent of the fish prohibitive. Those falls only made it difficult for the fish to get up, and their efforts were supplemented through provision by the department to carry them up a distance of perhaps a couple of hundred yards in some kind of pail or bucket. Out of a fairly prolific run one could imagine how many would ascend in that way. The efforts of the department were of course supplemented by the fact that the falls were not impossible of ascent, and that at least to a certain extent the fish could get up in any event.
In the particular instance to which I allude, however, I am advised the fall is much deeper, about fifteen feet straight down, and that it would be impossible for fish to get up unless a fish way were built, or some blasting done. I am not asking for a large expenditure, but I do say a little blasting would make it possible for the fish to get up. But expensively to propagate fish, to wait for four years until they come back, and then to carry them up in a bucket, does seem a waste of public money. How many of a run could be taken up in that way? The sockeye salmon is a fairly large fish weighing ten or twelve pounds and in my view the government would be well advised to spend money preparing the falls so that the fish may get up in the natural way. Some preparation of that type would not cost any more than carrying the fish by hand, and the result would be that all the

Supply-Fisheries
fish, rather than one per cent, would get up. The particular place I have in mind, one with which the minister's deputy is familiar, is Maggie lake.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: The only answer I can give is that we are experimenting to see if the stocking will be successful. If so we will make a fishway. I shall inquire, however, and see if something can be done.


Alan Webster Neill: But while we are waiting for the grass to grow, the horse will die. It takes time to build a ladder, and while we are waiting for the building of it the run will be over.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall inquire; the
vote before us will cover any expense necessary.


William Duff: Before the item carries I should like to apologize for being about a minute late when the committee reassembled at eight o'clock. I am told that item No. 17 under civil government passed without discussion. I presume I am out of order in speaking to it at this time, unless the committee will give its consent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unanimous consent.


William Duff: I should like to ask the government when a Minister of Fisheries is going to be appointed. I am willing to admit that my good friend the Minister of Marine and acting Minister of Fisheries is a very oapable minister of the crown, but there is no question that the .Canadian fisheries, being a very important industry, require a minister of their own. Since my good friend the Minister of Finance was promoted to that responsible position, there has been no minister of fisheries. I should like to know if the minister or the government could tell the committee when a minister of fisheries is to be appointed. I suggest of course that the appointment should go to the maritime provinces. Further than that, I suggest it should be given to the province of Nova Scotia. While the Minister of Finance represents that province, and is a very estimable gentleman indeed, yet with his great responsibilities as Minister of Finance he cannot be expected to look after the fisheries. I should like to know what the government is contemplating in this connection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
AntigoniSh-Guysborough, with his knowledge of parliamentary practice, will appreciate at once that any answer to his question could be given only by the Prime Minister, whose prerogative it is to select the members of his
administration. The only answer I can give is to say that upon 'the Prime Minister's return I shall direct his attention to the remarks of the hon. member.


William Duff: Everybody knows that politically I am not a very good friend of the Prime Minister, but I must take issue with the Minister of Finance when he throws responsibility for the present vacancy in the Department of Fisheries on the shoulders of my good friend the Prime Minister. A short time ago the Minister of Marine was asked with regard to the appointment of a deputy minister of marine. On that occasion he, too, passed the buck very nicely, stating that he could not give any information to the house with regard to the appointment of a deputy minister of marine, because it was a matter purely within the control of the Prime Minister. Of course it is quite possible that in the final analysis the Prime Miinster has to sign his name on the dotted line, whether the appointment be that of a minister or of a deputy minister. I understand that the Prime Minister has the entree to His Excellency the Governor General, and I presume that when an appointment is made of so important a character as that of Minister of Fisheries, His Excellency will see only the Prime Minister. Nevertheless other ministers of the crown have certain responsibilities in regard to this important vacancy. Again I say that the fisheries of this country is a very important matter, not only to the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast but also to the district of the great lakes. I say it is not fair to the people interested in that great industry that this post should be vacant for such a long time. I see just coming to his seat my good friend the minister without portfolio from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Macdonald). He is a member of this government, without portfolio it is true; but if in the wisdom of the government someone should recommend that that hon. member be appointed as minister with portfolio, as far as I am concerned I should be very glad to say amen to that appointment. But surely the present situation is not fair to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) who has grave responsibilities regarding his own department; for he has the Gibb report on his hands-such a weighty matter that he cannot decide what to do with it this session and it is to be held over. Looking at him now one can see that he has a number of responsibilities. He also has had to put over the shipping bill; he has so many other matters that he cannot deal with it this session. Why should this minister be loaded up with another depart-
Supply-Fisheries

ment which needs the attention of a man with special qualifications to look after this great industry, one of the foremost we have, an industry which 'has never cost the country very much, and which is always bringing new money to the country. I say that this government should decide immediately to appoint a minister of fisheries. I do not want to embarrass any more of my hon. friends on the other side, but may I say this-and I am glad the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) is not here: if the Minister of Finance will take my advice, if he does not want to relieve the present minister without portfolio from Prince Edward Island of his present position, then I say he has in the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis a man well qualified for the office of Minister of Fisheries. I strongly recommend that something be done to fill this position, which has been vacant since my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was elevated to the exalted position he now occupies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $75,000.
William Duff: 
Alfred Duranleau: The reason for the
large decrease in this appropriation is that the cost of certain services provided for is working out at much less than was expected. For the year just closed the total expenditure will slightly exceed $80,000 and certain costs can be further reduced. Provision was made last year for an expenditure of $40,000 in the campaign undertaken for expanding the demand for fisih in Canada. With the cooperation of the Canadian Fisheries Association this work is being done with satisfaction to the industry and on a very economical basis. The cost for the past year was approximately $13,000 and it is not expected to exceed $12,000 this year.
Provision was made for assisting fishermen's bait associations in establishing bait freezers to the extent of $30,000. No freezers were built last year, but an expenditure of $1,278 was incurred in meeting the requirements at Canso, and $504 in paying a portion of subsidy of a freezer built the year before. It is not anticipated that more than $1,500 will be needed this year. It is expected that the Nova boats will not be needed for as long a period this year, and that there will be less expenditure on that account by about

$5,000. It was estimated that $15,000 would be needed for educational work, but the cost was about $11,000. It is expected that $12,000 will be needed this year. Scallop investigations cost $2,000 less than was expected. These account for $66,000, and the remaining $9,000 is made up of several small items which appear in the statements I have here. The anticipated expenditure is:
Nova boats	$35,000
Port service	 1,500
Bait freezers	 l'500
Expanding demand for fish	 12,000
Fisheries exhibits	 3,000
Educational work amongst	fishermen	12,000
Scallop investigation	 6,000
Miscellaneous	 4,000


Alan Webster Neill: I failed to catch whether any considerable, or in fact any part of that sum was to be spent on the Pacific coast. Would the minister kindly indicate how much of that $75,000 is allocated to the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: There are no special allocations for different parts of the country. The vote is for the whole fisheries of Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: As a matter of plain English, it is all to be spent in the east, isn't it?


William Duff: Would the minister be good
enough to tell me whether in addition to the subsidy paid to what he terms the Nova boats, which are chartered to carry lobsters to Boston, any other boats received a subsidy?


Alfred Duranleau: There was a small
subsidy paid to another one for a certain number of days last year when there was a rush.


William Duff: What name?


Alfred Duranleau: Isle Madame.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I would like to
have an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-AIberni (Mr. Neill) as to whether any of this vote is to be spent on the Pacific coast or whether it is all for the Atlantic coast.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt
that the expenditure for expanding the demand for fish covers the whole of Canada. The work has been carried on from ocean to ocean. And if there are other urgent demands on the western coast the vote is not especially for the east, it is for the whole of Canada.


Olof Hanson: Would it be possible to have at least what was spent out of this vote on the Pacific coast last year, and what was done there?

Supply

Fisheries


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the exact figure, but I know that Mrs. Spencer was on the Pacific coast for more than two months last winter, during January and February and part of March.


Alan Webster Neill: But even she would not account for S75,000. The minister has practically admitted that almost all this money was spent in the east, and I am not grudging it; if it was needed there it should have been spent there. That brings me to the consideration of another feature, however, and I am sorry my hon. friend from Digby-Anna-polis is not here to-night; I know he would support me.


Alfred Duranleau: There was no admission of the kind made by the minister.


Alan Webster Neill: It was a tacit admission. I did not expect the minister to say it in so many words; that would be expecting too much of human nature. This brings me to the consideration of an item in connection with which I have made an annual protest for some years. I hope perhaps this will be the last time I will have to bring it up because I have a premonition, which other people might call a hunch, that my protest will prevail this time. I refer to the allocation, or the lack of allocation, of the $160,000 granted annually for fisheries bounties. On this occasion I am more confident of success, though I always have had justice, equity and law on my side. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis and the hon. member for Cape Breton South always have given me their moral sympathy and admitted I was right, but they have always insisted that because they have had this graft in the past they should continue to have it. No doubt this is the result of some lingering aura of old Scotland hanging around the fogbound coast of Nova Scotia. This year, however, I have a higher authority to call to my support; I refer to the minister himself. On February 27 the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough asked the acting Minister of Fisheries with regard to the fishing bounties, and on that occasion I spoke as follows:
Has the minister considered giving British Columbia and the Pacific coast its share of that fund?
Mr. Duranleau: The money will be divided according to the statute.
That is all I ever asked, that the money should be allocated according to the statute. In years gone by I have found that if you go to a French speaking cabinet minister and get him to promise something, his word is good; forever sacred remains the word of a French speaking minister. In the case of an English
speaking minister I have sometimes found it desirable to call around a few days later to see if he had forgotten about it.
I need not go over the whole question again; the minister and his deputy have all the records before them. This money is voted under a special act, not connected with something else that happened four years before. The act was passed in 1882, if I remember rightly, simply directing that out of the consolidated revenues of Canada the sum of $160,000 should be taken yearly and devoted to the stimulation of the fisheries of Canada. I claim that we are a part of Canada, but we have been neglected, ignored and robbed of our share from 1882 until the present day. I do not wonder that the hon. members to whom I referred are not here tonight. They cannot defend this action; it is indefensible. The Minister of Finance made a stab at it one day, but he could not get away with it. They say that this refers to a transaction under which the United States paid a large sum of money into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada in return for allowing certain fishing privileges to the fishermen of the United States. We are told that when the United States paid that amount the Canadian people surrendered a portion of their privileges, and that was a portion of my privileges as well as the privileges of the people of Nova Scotia. In any ease, Mr. Chairman, the money was paid into the consolidated revenue fund, and there it lost its identity. Several years later, for reasons with which I am not acquainted and with which I am not concerned, the government of Canada decided to vote out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $160,000 yearly for the improvement of the fishing industry of Canada. In those days we did not ask our share because we did not have very much in the way of fisheries, but we are here now clamouring for what is rightfully ours. We do not want to go back into the sad past, but we want our share in the future.
If any further reason need be given I will only refer to the way the money is being frittered away now. The Minister of Finance needs money and does not know which way to turn, but here is $160,000 being frittered away in little dabs here and there. One man gets $6.80; another man gets $5.80 and another man $1 a ton on his boat, all for the support and stimulation of the fishing industry. If the money was spent in a reasonable way we would still have a claim to our share. That famous Duncan report particularly said that this method of distributing the money was unfair and useless, and that this was a waste of public money.
Supply-Fisheries


Alfred Duranleau: Do I understand that my hon. friend's views are that these bounties should not be given?


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am not adverse to the spending of the money in a proper manner in order really to stimulate the industry, but I think in whatever way it is spent it should be divided equally between the Pacific and the Atlantic.


Alfred Duranleau: But if it is money wasted on the east coast-


Alan Webster Neill: I would not say it was wasted, but we seem to be getting very little for it.


Alfred Duranleau: -would it not be wasted also on the west coast?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not understand how giving a man $580 is going to stimulate his interest in the fishing industry. That is what is given each man who goes out in a boat, and that is supposed to stimulate the deep sea fisheries of Canada. I do not know what goes on down there but I do not see how this is calculated to promote the object in view.


William Duff: I do not want to get into a controversy with my good friend from Comox-Alberni, but evidently he is not acquainted with the facts concerning this vote for bounty purposes and the history surrounding it. In the first place the hon. member said this parliament voted $160,000 each year for bounty purposes. That is not correct; there is no amount voted by this parliament for bounty purposes each year. This is a statutory amount, just as the judges' salaries are statutory. Where does this money come from?


An hon. MEMBER:: God knows.


William Duff: God does know, and I am going to tell the committee. This money does not come from the taxpayers of this country; it was paid by the United States in return for certain privileges they obtained along the Atlantic coast. It has nothing at all to do with the Pacific coast. In 1870, if I remember correctly, a commission was appointed to investigate the fisheries of the Atlantic coast, in which the citizens of Canada, the United States and Newfoundland all had certain privileges. That commission decided that $5,000,000, if I remember oorrectly, should be paid by the United States in return for certain privileges, $4,000,000 coming to Canada and 81,000,000 going to Newfoundland. That $4,000,000 has been in the treasury of Canada ever since, and this $160,000, which is never voted by this parliament-


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Are you sure of that?


William Duff: Yes, I am quite sure it is not voted by parliament. The interest on that $4,000,000, at 4 per cent, is set aside because the fishermen of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Gaspe gave certain privileges to our neighbours to the south. It has nothing to do with the Pacific coast. Whether the fishermen of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Quebec received $5.80 or $6.80 is irrelevant. This money belongs not to the people of Canada but only to a certain number of them living in certain parts of the country, and so far as the people on the Pacific coast are concerned they have no right to it, nor is it any of their business how the. money is spent. By an arrangement made fifty or sixty years ago it was decided that this money should be divided in two ways: first, by allowing the vessels $1 per ton up to 80 tons, and then by dividing the balance of the $160,000 among the fishermen engaged in the industry in the particular season. Some years they received $6.80 and other years, when there were more fishermen, $5.80 or $5.90. As regards British Columbia however they certainly have no more right to the money than I have to any money voted by the congress of the United States. I cannot understand why my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni should get up and claim that the fishermen of British Columbia or of the great lakes or the fishermen on lake Winnipeg ought to participate in this particular amount which was devoted to a specific purpose.


Alan Webster Neill: I admit that the hon. member has done his best, but he has a very poor case to work on. He went back seventy or more years. The money obtained from the United States was I believe $5,000,000 and in 1878 it was placed in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. The hon. gentleman says that this money was provided as compensation to the fishermen of the maritimes for giving up certain privileges. It was not; it was to provide compensation for the fishermen of Canada. Does he mean to say that if I had gone there in 1882 I should not have been allowed to fish? Of course it would have been my privilege to fish there as it was the privilege of any Canadian. He says we did not vote this money. Well, that is merely a play on words; we voted it in a lump sum in 1882, when the act was passed. The hon. member says it was placed in the consolidated revenue fund in 1878. The hon. gentleman evidently hopes that it is floating around in the consolidated fund to-day. If he can find it there I will give him an equal amount.


William Duff: Have you got it.

Supply-Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: It was placed in the consolidated revenue fund and it went the way of all consolidated revenue funds. Four years passed and possibly because an election was coming on, who shall say, the parliament of Canada passed what is known as chapter 74 of the revised statutes, the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, which provided that an annual grant- not a bonus but a grant-of $160,000 should be ;aken out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose indicated; but there was not a word, not a whisper, not a syllable of reference to the situation which the hon. gentleman has outlined. It was something quite independent of and apart from that. It was said that it was to be used in aid of the sea fisheries of Canada and for the improvement of the conditions of fishermen. What fishermen, pray, and where? The fishermen of Canada. And we, in British Columbia, are part of Canada. The hon. gentleman is inclined to forget that. If you will look at the .aw you will see that they have no right to the whole of the money as that law exists, and as a matter of fact we are deprived of our share simply in consequence of the regulations made by the minister. He could not possibly do it under the act, because the act is quite explicit; it must therefore be done by regulations which the minister is empowered to make. It is a well known principle of law that you can pass regulations only if they amplify the act; you cannot make regulations that constitute another act. But that is what .he minister did from time to time; he made mother act by his regulations. By means of /hose regulations he removed British Columbia from the operation of the act of 1882, and I say he has no power to do that. All that my friends from the maritimes can claim is this. They say, "What the member for Comox-Alberni says is true and legal, but it should not have been done." Possibly it should not have been done, but it was done, and they fall back now on the time-honoured argument that it has always been like this and what we have we will hold. But time does not justify a wrong. I ask the minister, in view of his pronouncement that he would distribute the money in accordance with the act, to take appropriate steps in this matter. Chapter 74 of the revised statutes provides that the money shall be for the benefit of the fishermen of Canada, and as the minister is a new man I should like to hear him say that he will live up to the promise he gave me, as indicated in Hansard of the day I have mentioned, and distribute the money in accordance with the act.


William Duff: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says that the act which he has cited provided that the money should be devoted to the fishermen of Canada. What else could it say? It could not pick out one province and declare that the money should be for that province. In these estimates there is $300,000 for fish culture and I have no hesitation in saying that seventy-five per cent of that sum is spent in British Columbia, ostensibly for the benefit of the fisheries of Canada. We are not complaining about that; because $22.5,000 of that $300,000 is spent in British Columbia we are making no complaint, nor should my hon. friend, because of the act which he has referred to, argue that this money was intended for the fisheries of the dominion at large. It could mean any particular part of Canada. Take another illustration. When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget the other day it contained an item with regard to what is known as the stabilization fund, and when inquiry was made as to what that item meant with regard to the fisheries it was shown that practically the only part of Canada that would benefit to the extent of hundreds of thousands was British Columbia. Did my hon. friend from Victoria-Carieton or my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis object to it? No. Yet my hon. friend now brings forward an act passed fifty years ago to bolster up an argument that cannot hold water. He says that this money provided for the maritimes should also be given in part to British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: May we hear from the minister.


William Duff: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No. If we are not going to hear from the minister I take it that his silence is assent to my argument. He has seen the virtue of my argument, and that being settled I will pass on to something else. This item deals with the conservation of fish, and I have had a number of complaints in regard to what is considered the rather too common habit of dumping fish. We know we spend enormous sums of money, running into millions of dollars, for the preservation and conservation of fish. I have letters here, from one of which I will quote:
In connection with the dumping of edible salmon back into the water, we wish to draw your attention to such a condition in this district.
In this district a cannery wanting_ cohoe for canning has been sending out boats' with instructions to bring in only cohoe and a limited number of bright chums, with the natural result
Supply-Fisheries

that hundreds of salmon have been caught, picked over, and then the poorer ones turned back into the water where they w'ill die as they cannot survive the handling. In one case we know of several hundred chums being thrown away because it did not suit the convenience of the company to handle them though they were prime fish.
On another occasion, it is alleged, twelve thousand fish were dumped overboard by one cannery. There does not seem to be any provision in the act or in the regulations to guard against such a thing. I have a letter from the department in which it is stated that the practice cannot be stopped. The letter reads in part as follows:
If salmon caught in conformity with the regulations do happen to be dumped, the occurrence, however regrettable from the standpoint of wastage, does not contravene such conservation regulations.
It may not contravene the regulations but I contend that a man who proposes to dump ten or twelve thousand salmon should be forced to notify the fisheries officials and obtain their consent. Although it would not be in conformity with the act, it might be possible that arrangements could be made so that the fish could be disposed of to a reduction plant and thereby not be a total loss. If my suggestion were carried out the officials would be advised as to the amount of dumping and if a certain individual or cannery was dumping too many fish, discrimination could be carried out in the matter of granting them licences. Until I notified the department they had not the slightest idea that this practice was being carried on. I submit that there should be some attempt made to keep a check upon this dumping. If sufficient publicity were given, the practice would be discontinued because these men would not care to have their names appear too often upon a blacklist. If they did persist in the practice, they could be penalized when licences were being granted.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to another matter. Last fall I applied to the department for permission for the unemployed of Courtenay to take pinks out of the river. This is a second-class fish which was selling at two cents apiece at that time, but my request was turned down. I was told that the guardians would have sufficient common sense not to interfere with anyone taking fish for food. That is all very well, but these junior men feel that they must live up to their instructions. The result was that the poor of the town of Courtenay were not able to go out and jig a few fish for their own use. The amount they would have taken would not have been a fleahite as far as

conservation was concerned. We all know how sensitive people are when they are down and out and forced to rely on relief. These men who were not permitted to go out and catch a few fish for their own use heard of this dumping of nine or ten thousand fish. Such things make for discontent. I suggest that the department should endeavour to keep itself informed on these matters and see that a close check is kept.


Alfred Duranleau: I will take note of the suggestion my hon. friend has made and if it is necessary to adopt more strict regulations, they will be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $300,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Why is the west coast of Vancouver island not getting some Atlantic salmon? The experts say that the lakes and creeks of the west coast of Vancouver island cannot be surpassed for the propagation of Atlantic salmon. In these hard times I was quite prepared to be told that our day would come, but I was rather surprised to see in one of the bulletins issued by the department that Atlantic salmon eggs have been shipped to the state of California. Are not the waters of Abana and Pharpar greater than the muddy waters of the Jordan? Are not the waters of the west coast of Vancouver island as important as those of the state of California? I know the argument will be used that these eggs were sent on an exchange basis, that we received from the state of California a certain quantity of steelheads, but it must be remembered that steelheads are almost of no commercial use. They are nothing more or less than a sport trout and the commercial use of the fish would not be more than one per cent of the total catch. If we had Atlantic salmon on the west coast of the island we could develop a considerable tourist trade. We have lost the advantage of liquor, but we still have our scenery and climate, and Atlantic salmon would bring people from all over the world. I think we should come before the state of California and I should like to know why it was thought advisable to ship eggs to that state when the west coast of the island could not be supplied.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told by my officials that we have been sending Atlantic salmon to the Pacific coast for years but it has not proved successful.


Alan Webster Neill: I am referring to the west coast of Vancouver island. They may have sent some to the Pacific coast, but not to the

Supply-Fisheries
west coast of Vancouver island. I am reminded of a shipment of lobsters which was sent out to the west coast many years ago. For twenty years afterwards the argument was used that the propagation of lobsters had not proved successful, but it was proved that they had forgotten to untie the legs of the lobsters before putting them into the water. Even though nature furnishes an ideal setting, when man comes along and does a thing like that, there is only one result to be expected. We have ideal piscatorial conditions on the west coast of the island and I guarantee that if Atlantic salmon are sent out they will prove to be just as successful as they are in the state of California.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Oyster culture, $13,000.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: What progress has been made wth this oyster culture?


Alfred Duranleau: This work is being confined mainly to the Malpeque bay area.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know that it is being confined to that area but I am sorry to say that the situation there is not just as we would like to see it. The fishermen feel that this vote should be spent in developing areas for public fishing, while the department seems to be of the opinion that it is better to lease these areas to private individuals for development. Did the minister not receive a petition signed by some two or three hundred fishermen protesting against the leasing of these areas?


Alfred Duranleau: Protests were received.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Did the minister give any consideration to the request of the fishermen?


Alfred Duranleau: The agreement was
entered into by the late government in order to establish a very large industry there. This agreement contemplated the development of the oyster industry by encouraging oyster farming on areas that would be leased for long terms so as to enable the lessees to develop their holdings. Section 5 of the agreement specifically provides that the government of Canada shal have the power of control and administration not only over the live oyster beds but over all areas that are suitable for that purpose and it expressly states that the government of Canada shall take such means as are deemed proper and advisable for the development and improvement of the growth and culture of oysters and other molluscs in the said areas. Following upon this agreement it was decided that
before encouraging anyone to go into oyster farming, the department would make an investigation to ascertain the methods by which success would be achieved. This investigation took three years and immediately thereafter the contemplated method of encouraging oyster farming was launched.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Is the minister of the opinion that the department is on the right track in leasing those areas? Does he not think he is treading on very dangerous ground? The moment he takes any public fishing area away from the public fishermen and gives it to private individuals, does he not think he is immediately courting trouble for his department and is dealing unfairly with the public fishermen?


Alfred Duranleau: What the hon. member suggests has not been done by the department.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Does the minister mean to say that no public areas have been leased?


Alfred Duranleau: No public producing areas have been leased.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I can hardly agree with the minister in that regard because the leasing has been done in areas where the oysters are showing signs of coming back. If those areas are not now producing in large and paying quantities, what we hoped was that with the government's cooperation with nature on the oyster areas, the beds would be brought back for public fishing. I am placed in a very difficult position in connection with this matter because a division of opinion exists and I have good friends on both sides. There are some who believe the leasing is all right and I understand they have taken out leases. There are many others who believe the oyster fisheries should be retained for the public fishermen, and any money expended should be spent with that aim in view, namely, to bring back the areas for the public fishermen. If you follow this question a little further, there are other oyster areas in the province. I see members from other counties of my province present. They have oyster areas in their counties and I do not think they would for a moment approve of the wholesale leasing of those areas. It would not be fair to them or to the fishermen of their constituencies for the department to do that.
The department may be quite honest and sincere in this matter, but I am sorry I cannot agree that the minister, through his department, is pursuing the right course in this regard. As I have stated, the moment you start handing over to private individuals the public fishing areas of any community, you are start-
Supply-Fisheries

ing trouble. I do not know what the aim of the department is; perhaps it thinks the people who take out those leases will begin to develop the areas and the Department of Fisheries will not be obliged to spend the money it otherwise would. If that is the idea, it is false economy, because it will prove a source of trouble. It has been attempted before with disastrous results to the fishing industry and we feel sure the same thing will happen again. I do not wish to emphasize this too strongly, but I might inform the minister that very largely attended indignation meetings were held in that district last summer. Those meetings were attended by as many as 500 or 600 people and committees were formed which were authorized to act on behalf of the fishermen. They protested against the leasing; they sent petitions and protests to the department and still the latter continues to lease those areas. I would like to know from the minister whether he intends to proceed with the leasing of the areas notwithstanding the fact that those protests have been received from such a large body of the fishermen.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: One would
think the hcxn. member for Prince, who lives alongside this area, would give the committee a fairer picture of conditions than he has done just now. He knows very well the areas about which he speaks are not producing; that areas which are producing are not being leased by the government; that the agreement under which those areas are being leased was made about five years ago by the previous government with the then government of Prince Edward Island and that this government is only carrying out regulations contained in that agreement. I have yet to learn that the hon. member protested at that time against the agreement made by the two governments of which he was a supporter, but now he comes forward with these objections. He also speaks about meetings having been held there, which I understand were largely engineered by himself for the purpose of embarrassing the department and the government.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have every respect for
my hon. friend, but I would ask him to withdraw that statement because it is not correct.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: If my hon.
friend says that it is not correct, I shall withdraw it. The main point, however, is this: the areas to which he refers and which are being leased are not and would not be made productive, certainly not in our time, if some 
person did not lease, cultivate and make them productive. Therefore in those sections where the effort is being made it is for the good of the industry, to revive and keep alive something which would otherwise not have been revived.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Replying to the hon.
member for Kings, I did not wish to introduce a political viewpoint into this discussion. As I stated at the beginning, as many of my political friends are in favour of leasing as are against it. He refers to the agreement which was entered into by the former government. May I tell the committee frankly that under the former government and through my own instrumentality, receiving assistance from scarcely anyone but the then Minister of Fisheries, we had an appropriation placed in the estimates in order to bring back the famous Malpeque oyster. It is well known the Malpeque oyster was the most famous oyster in the world and at present oysters are being sold on the markets in various cities as Malpeque oysters although they do not come from that section at all; they come from across the border. The chairman asks why Canadian oysters are not sold in the parliamentary restaurant. The reason they are not sold is that we are not producing them in quantities sufficient to supply the market.
We did ask the Dominion government to reestablish oyster areas. Away back some fifteen or twenty years ago oyster areas were under the control of the Dominion government. At that time the local government in Prince Edward island conceived the idea that if they had the oyster areas they could lease them to private individuals, and in that way bring great revenues to the province. The local government did take over those areas and began leasing them. The result was that oysters were brought into that area indiscriminately from the southern United States, and disease became apparent on the beds, wiping out the total oyster production in that great area. The beds lay dormant a number of years. The local government had not money to expend to bring them back to production. I was particularly interested -because the area was in a district near my home. I am not ashamed to tell the committee that as a family of boys, my brothers and I made good money out of the oyster areas, and the farmers and fishermen of that community did the same thing, before the disease wiped out the industry. Then the Dominion government agreed to take over the oyster areas, and to expend money towards bringing them back to production. At this point I should like to take issue with the hon. member for

Supply-Fisheries
Kings when 'he states that those areas were taken over with the idea of leasing them, because under section 9 of the agreement there is provision that before leasing is undertaken the department at Ottawa must obtain the approval of the provincial government at Charlottetown. When the Liberal party was in power here the provincial government in Charlottetown never gave its consent to leasing, nor was any policy of leasing decided upon. If the former Minister of Fisheries were in his seat he could verify my statement, and the deputy minister can now verify it, that as a representative of the county in question, and the only one really interested in the matter, I never gave my consent to a policy of leasing. Further, leasing was never decided upon or announced as a policy of the department.
However, following a change of government in Prince Edward Island and another change here the policy of leasing was decided upon. The federal department consulted the provincial government. Advertisements for leases were inserted in newspapers and the leasing of the areas was proceeded with. The hon. member for Kings states that no public areas which were producing were leased. I ask him on what authority he makes that statement. I have been in close touch with the fishermen, and I am told that the public areas now beginning to produce are being leased. They have made similar representations to the department. Therefore before any further leases are issued I suggest very careful consideration should be given the matter. There are oyster areas in other rivers and bays. Why should Prince county be picked out and the areas leased, thereby taking away from the fishermen the public rights afforded fishermen in other counties? If there is to be one policy for one part of the province and another for another, well and good. I say however that such procedure would be quite unfair.
I do not wish to make this a political issue in any way, but I believe it is my duty in this committee to defend the rights of the public fishermen, and that the money being expended by the government should be spent in the interests of public fishermen. The hon. member for Kings states that the public areas cannot be brought back to production by the department, but that they can be brought back by private owners. I should like to know why that is so. Oysters for seed purposes can be obtained only from restricted areas where the beds show life and are now producing. The government could take the oysters off the restricted areas which
have been set aside for breeding purposes, clean the areas, and protect them properly, as well as private owners can. To say that private owners can bring back areas and that the department cannot, is begging the question, because one has as good a chance to do so as 'has the other.
The minister should give this matter his personal and careful attention; it is a matter much too serious to be trifled with. As the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has said, one day we have one Minister of Fisheries and the next day we have another. Despite the fact that they are good men, they are busy with other work and are not giving the attention to the fishing industry that it merits. The deputy minister is doing his best, but he is nailed down to his desk, and receives very little assistance. Important matters are left to drift, and they are not given the careful consideration they should receive. I wonder if any hon. member in the house would submit to the leasing to private individuals of public fishing rights in the rivers and bays of his constituency? I venture to say there is no man in the house who would support any such policy.
No doubt I shall receive a great deal of criticism from some of my personal friends. I feel it my duty, however, to defend the rights of those public fishermen who are not here to speak for themselves.


Mr. PRICE:: As I understand the matter,
only nonproductive beds are being leased at the present time. I believe there has been no interference with private beds. Not one man out of fifty can make a success out of barren beds. It has been tried in my constituency; men with money have spent thousands of dollars in an endeavour to make nonproductive beds productive, and in every instance they have failed. This vote of 813,000 is for the oulture and protection of oyster beds. I believe the department is trying to do something to advance the oyster industry. The experience in the past has been 'that only those beds which have been privately owned have been successful, so far as production is concerned. In the county of Kent the Barnes Company some years ago were given a lease of certain beds, of which they have made a success. Outside of that, the beds otpen to the general public are much abused. I believe the department is 'taking steps to improve that condition, and also to improve oyster culture. I have no doubt it is endeavouring to do its best, and I suggest this small vote of $13,000 should receive the approval of the committee.
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. MYERS:: In my view the hon. member for Prince county has not given the committee a fair picture of the circumstances. We have been led to believe by the hon. member that the rights of public fishermen on public beds are being interfered with. This is not the case as I understand it. The public beds are very extensive in the bay referred to, and they are still available to the fishermen at large. And the Department of Fisheries has been for a number of years carrying on extensive and useful work there in clearing up the bottoms that formerly were productive but for a number of years have been non-productive by reason of that disease. The department has been sweeping, dragging, dredging and cleaning up these bottoms in the interests of the fishermen at large, and has been very successful in bringing back the fishing on those public beds. The bottom that is being leased is bottom that is not known as public fishing beds. It is non-producing, barren bottom and does not form part, as I understand it, of 'the public fishing ground of the oyster fishermen on that bay. It is being leased for the purpose of producing oysters in areas that did not produce oysters before. The former premier of Prince Edward Island, Hon. Mr. Lea, on October 26 of last year, before the maritime board of trade in the city of Charlottetown, went into this question fully. He reviewed the action that had been taken by the former government in Ottawa, and the government over which he presided as premier of Prince Edward Island; he referred to what was being done and said that it was in the best interests of the fishermen at large.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) says that as far as 'he is concerned he has never yet given his open consent to the leasing of these bottoms. I know the hon. member for Prince county fairly well, and sometimes 'the idea occurs to me that he is more interested in fishing for votes than in fishing for oysters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Howard Myers: If that is out of order I withdraw it, but it is said anyhow. The hon. member has a faculty of always withholding his consent to anything and everything, and then when the government finally takes action, if he can just get a little sympathy from some fisherman or farmer or anybody, he is quite willing to take the opposite side to that which the government has taken and try to curry favour with a few of his constituents. That has been his record in politics since I knew him first.


William Duff: "Speak for yourself, John."


John Howard Myers: Never you mind. If I were the hon. member for Prince county I would be more than proud to stand up and back the Department of Fisheries for the noble efforts they are making on behalf of his constituents and his county to restore that important industry, and I would do anything and everything I could to strengthen the hands of the department. I will say that if the hon. member does not appreciate that $13,000 that we are voting, that is being spent almost entirely in Prince county, then we will make a recommendation to the Department of Fisheries that for the time being we give Prince county the go-by, for we are mighty willing to spend it in Kings and Queens.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think my good friend from Queens is measuring other people's corn in bis own half bushel. I am not quite as smooth as my hon. friend is and not so able to fish for votes as he is. I wish to tell my hon. friend in the first place that we are not objecting to the spending of this money.


John Howard Myers: What are you objecting to?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We are objecting to the leasing of the areas. My good friend is an inland farmer, and I would tell him to stick to his potatoes and leave things alone that he doesn't know about.


John Howard Myers: I do not know that you are much of a fisherman.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend is not entitled to talk about the oyster industry in the county of Prince. He is a good-natured gentleman from an inland district, and we must pardon him if he has not a full grasp of the situation as it appears to us who are right on the ground and know. The difficulty is that these areas are being leased to people, whose farms front on the rivers and bays. Naturally the oysters are coming back in the heads of the rivers and bays, in shallow water near the shore. The deputy minister knows perfectly well that where the areas are being taken is not out in the big bays and rivers but along the shore fronts of the different people who reside along these fronts. These are ithe places where, the fishermen tell me, the oysters are coming back. Nothing would please me better than if under this private ownership a great industry could be built up, but my hon. friend from Queens knows very well that it was attempted before, and he knows that an industry that was worth millions of dollars to the province of Prince Edward Island was wiped out of existence

Supply-Fisheries
through that policy. Why should we go blindly into the same trap again, just when the disease has run its course? Scientists told us at the time that this disease had been introduced from some unknown source and that it would likely run its course in seven or eight or ten years. They were right in that, because after ft had killed out everything in the way of shellfish in those bays and rivers the oysters began to come back, and, as I have said, they are coming back at the heads of the rivers and bays. There is no one more interested in this than I am; I am willing to accept any good, constructive suggestions, but I do not want to be classed as one who is endeavouring to do an injury to the oyster industry or anyone interested in it. What I want is to bring the oyster industry back for the public fisherman, and I do not think that once the whole shore area right around the rivers and bays is leased there will be much chance for the public oyster fisherman to make a living.
I am not going to labour this any further; I leave it with the Acting Minister of Fisheries and his deputy. I think that in the interests of all concerned no more leases should be granted until the matter is looked into thoroughly. I would invite my hon. friend from Queens to come up there and meet the fishermen. I would invite him and his colleagues and the hon. member for Kings to go out there on the patrol boat and see the areas that have been leased, see the work that has been carried on, and if they will just give the word there will be a meeting called that will be attended by thousands of people so that they can get the viewpoint of the fishermen right on the ground.


John Howard Myers: I do not wish to prolong the debate on this question. My hon. friend thinks that I do not know an oyster from a potato. That is hardly true. I happened to be a member of the local government in Prince Edward Island from 1912 to 1916 when the oyster areas were taken over from the federal government by the provincial government. They were taken over at that time for the express purpose of attempting to plant oysters on what was then barren bottom. At that time the active beds were producing oysteTs in great quantities and they were not interfered with in any way. In order to plant these bottoms and build up the industry, areas that were known to be barren were leased to fishermen mostly, and men who are known as farmer-fishermen-men who engage in both occupations-who are adjacent to the areas leased. For some reason or other small seed oysters were imported from the state of 53719-267
Rhode Island and planted on these barren bottoms. Shortly after that some disease visited these oyster beds. Some of the scientists-I do not know whether or not they are very great scientists-blamed that disease upon the imported oysters from Rhode Island, but I am not able to subscribe to that theory, though. I am not a scientist, I am a plain, ordinary inlander, as my hon. friend from Prince calls me, though my farm does touch the Northumberland straits. To my mind this is the question: If the disease was imported with those seed oysters from Rhode Island why were there any live oysters left there; why were they not dead of the disease before we brought them here? I want to tell the committee that around the shores of Prince Edward Island we have mussel mud beds from which we farmers dig mussel mud for fertilizer. These beds are known to be sixty feet deep in places, and to my mind that proves that these periodical waves of disease or epidemics have been going on since Adam went into long pants, and will continue as long as the sun rises and sets.
So I could never subscribe to the theory that the disease was imported from Rhode Island or anywhere else. It did happen, however, that a very valuable type of oyster, the Malpeque oyster, was wiped out, and we all regret that very much. Let me say, however-and I have this information from the Department of Fisheries-that all the oysters did not die; apparently some were immune to the disease and survived the epidemic. These are now restocking the beds, with the aid that is being given by the Department of Fisheries. It is the same old story; I am not a medical man, but I have been told that if a wave or epidemic of typhoid or diphtheria sweeps through a settlement people here and there will not contract that disease; apparently they are immune to it. This seems to have been the case with the oysters; a few survived the storm, and these beds are being restocked by these surviving oysters. As I said before the Department of Fisheries is making every effort, in aid of the fishermen at large, to restock the public beds, but it is the barren bottoms that are being leased to these fishermen and farmer fishermen in order to rebuild a great industry in Prince county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for a grant to the United Maritime Fishermen, $4,500.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like some details in connection with this vote. Is 8160,000 not enough for them; must they have another chunk? I think it was Solomon who said

Supply-Fisheries

there were three things that were never satisfied, but if he had lived in these days I think he would have said four; he would have added the maritime appetites. I think it is a very excellent thing to stimulate cooperation among the fishermen, but why should it be limited to the Atlantic coast? It has been well said by someone that cooperation is only organized desperation, and it almost has to come to desperation before you can get certain people to cooperate, farmers and fishermen, for example. We had a cooperative association in British Columbia, but partly through the fault of the management it went bankrupt. Possibly if we had been given some educational facilities such as are afforded under this vote that would not have happened. I should like to know what this money is voted for, if it is not to promote cooperation down there, and why it should be confined exclusively to the maritimes.


Alfred Duranleau: The association mentioned in the item is the United Maritime Fishermen, which is an association formed with the object of enabling them to better their conditions by cooperation and other means.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Alfred Duranleau: The association is
proving to be of assistance in fisheries development. It enables the department to consult with the officials who represent the fishermen as a body. Through its efforts improvements in the handling and preparing of fish for market can be brought about more quickly. The association must depend on fees from the members to meet its expenses. Owing to the present depressed condition of the industry it seems impossible for the association to procure sufficient funds to enable it to function properly. Hence it applied to the department for aid; $4,500 was provided last year, and it is proposed to continue the grant this year.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a very useful work, Mr. Chairman, but why can we not get the same thing? Will the minister guarantee that if we make application we will get similar favourable treatment?-because God knows we need it.


Alfred Duranleau: Would my hon. friend suggest the name of any association similar to this?


Alan Webster Neill: I could suggest the names of half a dozen. That is the trouble; we have too many associations. We want educational ' facilities to help bind them into one large union, and that is just what this money would be used for.
fMr. Naill.l


Alfred Duranleau: Which one would you suggest?


Alan Webster Neill: I would have one something like our C.C.F. friends, a holding association for them all, which could be worked up into one strong association. I am not here to advocate the claims of any oije association, though I am a member of one. I certainly would not recommend one above the others, but if the money weTe available for real educational wTork I believe they could be brought together. For every one of the reasons given by the minister this would be of substantial value to the fishermen of the west coast. Will the minister give me some encouragement; will he say that he will consider such an application?


Alfred Duranleau: If the demand is made by a similar association it will be considered.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you. Just before we leave this vote I should 'like to refer to something I probably should have mentioned in connection with item 163. I notice that the department, with laudable enterprise, has been holding classes for the fishermen of the Atlantic coast. They have been attended by some thirty-five men and are appreciated so much that this year there was quite a rush to join. Many more fishermen applied for enrolment than could be admitted, and they had to limit the number. These fishermen's courses include instruction in such subjects as the preparation of dried, boneless and pickled fish, the coopering of barrels, navigation, motor engines and refrigeration, and there is also elementary instruction in chemistry, bacteriology and biology. I applied for our share of this, but I was told that the biological board did not think it was necessary, which was a very nice compliment since it implied at least that on the Pacific we did not need instruction. While I am proud to accept that compliment on behalf of our fishermen there, I do not think the men themselves would admit that they were beyond instruction or the need of information. I do submit that, if they do not receive anything out of that $160,000 grant made in the other vote, they might at least be given a share of this instructional vote. We are told that the fishermen on the Pacific coast do not want to learn anything about pickling cod. Quite so, but we want to know about pickling and smoking herring; we want to know how to put up to the best advantage the various fish we catch. Our fishermen would also appreciate some information in connection with motor engines, and some elementary instruction in

Supply-Fisheries
the other subjects mentioned. I cannot see that the discrimination can be justified by putting us off with some compliment to the effect that we are so advanced as not to need instruction. That is not so. I do submit that these classes should be inaugurated on the Pacific coast as well as on the Atlantic. Our friend from Antigonish-Guysborough tells us that we were not in existence at one time so far as the fishing industry is concerned, that we are amateurs, that we have just come into the business. Well, isn't that all the more reason for our getting some instruction? Certainly. I submit that the fishermen on the Pacific coast, particularly those who are newcomers to the trade, should be encouraged to make the best of their facilities. The minister is taking steps to see that this is done on the Atlantic and it is unfair not to do the same thing on the Pacific.


William Duff: I do not quite understand the point of view of the hon. gentleman. If he would ask the department to increase the vote so that a certain amount might be spent in British Columbia I could see the force of his remarks. But he is trying to take the money voted for work on the Atlantic coast.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


William Duff: He tried to get part of the $160,000 which the American government paid this country for purposes distinctly applicable to the maritimes, and now he objects to a vote of $4,500 to provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, a grant to maritime fishermen. The difference between myself, representing a constituency in one of the Atlantic provinces, and the hon. gentleman from Comox-Alberni, is quite apparent. If you will glance at the estimates you will see that just before this $4,500 item was called we passed without discussion or criticism from maritime members a vote of $29,500 entirely for Pacific coast fisheries. We do not object to this government spending money on the Pacific coast; whatever is necessary for the development or the protection of the fisheries there, we as members from the maritime provinces will vote for it. But when the department thinks that it is in the interests of the fishermen that a small amount of $4,500 should be voted to encourage fishermen in the maritime provinces, it ill becomes the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to object. We are passing tens of thousands of dollars in the interests of British Columbia fishermen and I do not think he should object to a vote for the maritimes.
53719-267J


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member has mistaken me; I was not trying to take his money aiway. I applauded the vote and said that it was for a useful purpose. I only want to extend it to the Pacific coast.


William Duff: That's different. Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


William Duff: Are you opposed to it?


Alan Webster Neill: I want to have it extended: I wish the minister would give an expression of opinion.


Alfred Duranleau: I have not much to say except that it would be difficult at this time to increase this vote, especially when some of my friends on the other side are urging the government to cut down expenses. If the hon. gentleman is not asking for part of the vote which is being spent in the east it means that he wants an increase in it, double the vote, in order to provide a school on the Pacific coast. I am sorry that at the present time the government is not disposed to ask ithe house to vote any increase.


Alan Webster Neill: But it could be taken out of the $160,000 for the conservation of the deep sea fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,022,000.
Thomas Reid: I have already protested against an order in council passed on March 10 last allowing purse seine fishing at the mouth of the Fraser river, and I want now to reiterate that protest. First of all I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the committee on fisheries is not being given anything to do. The committee is struck every year and the names of the members are printed; yet important matters are put through by order in council without the committee on fisheries being given an opportunity to discuss them. This is all the more serious when we remember that this prder in council was passed while the house was sitting. It may be argued that it is necessary to pass certain orders in council when the house is not in session, but I think it is something to be taken serious note of that when the house is in session matters affecting an industry should be put through without any reference whatever to the committee. When the house is sitting matters affecting any industry should go before the particular committee concerned. When the Minister of Agriculture had certain matters under consideration with regard to
Supply-Fisheries

agriculture ihe referred them to the committee, and we should be treated in like manner with respect to the fisheries.
I wrote to the minister on February 8, protesting against the order in council I am now discussing, and I received an answer on the tenth. I wish to take issue with some of the statements made in that letter. For instance, it was said therein that the question would receive consideration, though as a matter of fact, at the time this letter was sent out, the order in council I believe had been passed. I do not think that is a fair way to treat any member especially when he writes protesting against something that affects twelve or fifteen hundred fishermen. At 'least it should have been pointed out that the order in council had been passed. I received the letter on the tenth saying that the matter would be given consideration, but as a matter of fact it had been put through by order in council and was later published in the Gazette. The letter also states that if these advanced fish could be caught before the Fraser river is reached their full value for canning would be safeguarded. I am informed that these salmon are caught by the average gill netter before they reach fresh water. For the information of the committee I would point out that one seine boat will do away with perhaps twenty or thirty individual fishermen. In these days when we are endeavouring to find work for the unemployed, and when that is almost impossible, I do not think that seines should be allowed to operate right in the mouth of the Fraser river and up to tine international boundary. The average seine boat carries a net about twelve hundred feet long and eighty' feet deep. It forms a sort of purse. They make a circle and the bottom is drawn, and they will pick up anything from one thousand to five thousand fish at a time. Another of the disastrous results of the operations of these seine boats is the fact that they break up the schools of fish. The fish previous to entering the Fraser river are in schools made up of thousands and thousands of fish and if these seine boats are allowed to swirl in with their purse sines they will break them up. It takes some time before the schools gather together again before making their way up the Fraser river to spawn. These seine boats will also catch some late-run sockeye. I have it on the authority of fishermen who are conversant with the river that the seine boats will catch two pink salmon to one sockeye. While it is intended that these boats will catch only pink salmon, the fact is that considerable sockeye will be caught as well. Protests have been made to the minister and to the department and indignation meetings have been held
CMr Reid.]
against this order in council. I have received many letters from individual fishermen, and I would like to quote one as follows:
If they are allowed to use seines at the mouth of the river, it is goodbye fish on the Fraser. They are the most destructive means of fishing; they are floating traps, etc.
That is also the contention which was put forward when the deputy minister held his meeting in New Westminster. It is very unfortunate that this action should be taken at a time when a bill to do away with traps at the international boundary was being introduced into the legislature of Washington state. I have a newspaper report reading as follows:
Abolition of Fish Traps is Proposed in Washington
Olympia, Wash., Feb. 13.-Abolition of fish traps and seine nets in Washington waters, was asked to-day in a house bill introduced by Hugh Herrin of Pierre county. Seine and drag nets, fish traps and wheels would be prohibited in rivers and lakes, and in all Washington waters when used commercially, the bill provided.
It was very unfortunate that this order in council should have been passed at a time when a bill to abolish traps was being presented before the Washington state legislature. Seine traps are used in the state of Washington close to the international boundary and the argument is put forward that we should also allow the use of seines. Several canneries have also always advocated the use of traps. As I say, it is most unfortunate that this action should have been taken just at a time we were trying to get through a sockeye salmon treaty and when a bill was being introduced in Washington state to do away with traps and seines. Between 1,200 and 1,500 fishermen will be thrown out of employment if this order in council is continued in force. I appeal to 'the minister to cancel it right away. I know the argument will be used that we are after quality fish, that we want to be able to command the best markets in Great Britain, but if the minister will look up the figure he will find that the great percentage of the catch of pinks is not made in the Fraser river. The last time this matter was before the committee I sent a map across to the minister which showed that the seines which are being allowed to operate in the Fraser river would operate in shallow water. Under this order in council, the seiners will be permitted to fish where individual gill netters now operate. I have been over this area oftener than even the deputy minister and I know that the gill netters use the shallow waters and the waters of the gulf. If the seine boats are permitted to enter this area, the individual fishermen

Supply-Fisheries
might just as well give up business entirely.
I again repeat that this matter should have been referred to the fisheries committee so that full discussion could have been had in connection with the whole matter. More than fifteen hundred individuals will be affected and most of these fishermen are heads of families. The danger is that once these seine boats are allowed to operate, the cry will go up for the use of traps. The seine boats are practically floating traps and no gill net boat will be able to operate. These seine boats are powered and carry a crew of from four to seven. They use nets twelve hundred feet in length which form a purse eighty feet deep. When they get into a school of fish, they lift up the net and I have heard of instances where they have brought up from seven to eight thousand fish in one lift. Trouble is also caused by the breaking up of the schools. Once they are broken up it takes days for them to collect together again before making their way up the river to spawn. I ask the minister in all seriousness to reconsider this matter and have the order in council rescinded. When the matter was up before I asked him to send it to a committee and he said at that time he would consider my suggestion, but nothing further was done.


Alfred Duranleau: The day the letter
was sent to my hon. friend this matter came up before the cabinet. It was considered from every angle and the cabinet finally came to the conclusion that the regulation should be adopted. The experts claim that this will not affect the fishermen of the Fraser river. The first reason is that when the fish come up the Fraser river they are not in good condition and would not be accepted to-day on the market. The second reason is that seining is restricted to an area largely south of the Fraser river waters in which practically no gill netting is conducted. The third reason is that the seine fishing is also restricted by the regulations to the period when the pink salmon and late run sockeye are moving in large quantities, that is from August 25 to September 30, and providing that in years when there is a large run of late sockeye, fishing may go on until the end of October. Fishing by gill netters will not be interfered with. They may fish as heretofore, but as previously pointed out, after the pink salmon or late-run sockeye reach the Fraser, very few of the fish taken will meet present canning requirements, and to the extent that the gill netters fish out in the gulf of Georgia, the catch will be as marketable as in the past. Hence, if seining were not allowed, the run of pinks and late sockeyes which are heavily
fished in the United States would have to be permitted to supply largely our requirements on the Canadian side. It is estimated that a canned product having a value of from $500,000 to $1,000,000 is involved. The pack of pink salmon in the Fraser river and Puget sound for the past four years is as follows:
Year-	FraseT River Number of cases	Puget Sound Number of cases1928.. ..	.. .. 2.881	5,8161929.. ..	. . . . 158,290	727,7481930.. ..	.. .. 30,754	3,7121931.. ..	.. .. 21,534	705,580
This shows that the larger fishing is done at Puget sound. After our experts' explanation, we came to the conclusion that this regulation should be adopted and we are making a trial. We shall see how it works for a year and if it is advisable later on to amend the regulation, this will be done.


Thomas Reid: But the department this year is departing from its oft-repeated policy which was to keep the seines down to as few as possible.
As regards the letter that I received on the tenth, it said that the department was considering the question. My complaint was that while I was told so in that letter, as a matter of fact the order in council had already been passed and I was not informed in the letter that the order in council had been passed. I should like to know who asked that seining be allowed in the gulf. If seining had been allowed close to the international boundary, it would have been bad enough, but not as bad as it is at present. If the minister will examine the map of which I sent him a copy and look at the area covered by the order in council, he will see that it practically blocks off the mouth of the Fraser river, and right to the waters where the gill net boats operate. It may be true, as he says, the Puget sound pack is high as compared with the Fraser river pack, but I would point out that the pack of pink salmon in the Fraser river was comparatively small as compared with the pack of pink salmon over the rest of British Columbia. The salmon caught further north in the Skeena and Naas rivers is caught in salt water and is I believe first-class fish and the pack in proportion to that of the Fraser river is very large. Why should the fishermen who are involved not be considered? I have here a letter from an association dealing with these conditions, part of which states:
Under the circumstances why the department should even consider changing its oft repeated policy of eliminating seines wherever possible and permitting gill netting so as to employ more men in the industry is a puzzle
Supply-Fisheries

to fishermen, for more than ever before should the stated policy now be adhered to. Seines, merely mobile, floating traps, "ride" the schools of salmon to utter extinction, while gill nets allow a good escapement to seed the spawning beds.
I do not know whether a copy of tha-t was sent to the minister, 'but it is sent to me by the British Columbia Protective Fishermen's Association.
Another letter states:
Unfortunately, however, your letter arrived this morning and in this evening's Province is an item under Ottawa date saying that seining has been granted in the Gulf of Georgia during the period between August 25 and September 30 in odd-numbered years and between September 1 and September 30 in even-numbered years. Also they may seine for sockeye during the "big run" of late fish until October 31.
This simply means farewell to the medium and late runs of sockeye-
The fishermen say that not only will the seines catch pinks but the late-run sockeye "will be interfered with.
-so far as the Fraser river fishermen are concerned. There are always sockeye mixed up with pinks, or humpbacks, as the fishermen call them, and the ratio is often three pinks to one sockeye.
It certainly is disheartening to see such a fine bunch of settlers on the Fraser river, who are manfully struggling to keep off the relief lists, sacrificed for the canners and seine boat owners-
-who, I believe, are the ones who asked that seining be allowed in the gulf of Georgia. I believe the minister as well as his deputy know the fishermen have long protested the use of seines. When the deputy minister was out on the coast last fall he attended three, if not four meetings and at two at least vigorous protests by the fishermen were made against seining. Why the department has now departed from its oft-repeated policy is something the fishermen and the rest of us cannot understand. In spite of all the minister says, I believe the order in council should not be put into effect; it should be rescinded, especially in times such as we are going through when it is impossible for men to obtain any kind of job. This is going to affect 1,200 or 1,500 fishermen. Surely the minister will agree with me that the men who are in the business, who have fishing boats, Should know something about the matter and should reoeive first consideration. I ask the minister seriously: W'ho requested this and why could the matter not have been placed before the committee on fisheries? Why was that committee appointed, if not to discuss matters of this kind? Those are two pertinent questions I should like to ask the minister.


Alfred Duranleau: The request for that regulation was made by the United Fishermen's Association composed of over 1,000 fishermen, and also by all the canners in , order to increase business, because they contended that those fish when caught up the Fraser river were no good for the market and this was a loss to the fishermen and to the canners. There was no objection on the part of the Fraser river canners.


Alan Webster Neill: The canners.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that the
United Fishermen's Association is composed mostly of seine boat owners?


Alfred Duranleau: Some; not all.


Thomas Reid: Naturally they would advocate this. The fact that seine boat owners urge more latitude in seining is hardly an argument.


Alfred Duranleau: But the government
has to look after the interests of all the fishermen.


Thomas Reid: There are 1,500 fishermen involved in this, who are protesting against the use of seines.


Alfred Duranleau: But it was represented and proof was put before the government that it did not affeot the 1,200 fishermen of whom my non. friend speaks, because those are salt water fish and when they are up the Fraser river, they are of no value to the market and are a loss.


Thomas Reid: Proof was placed before the deputy at the meeting held in New Westminster. Protestations were made before a full meeting; they have always protested seining in that gulf.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member has askedl why there was no meeting of the fisheries committee to study that regulation. Does the hon. member suggest that before any regulation is adopted it should go before that committee, and that we should wait until the house and committee are sitting before passing any regulations? The act gives power to the governor in council to pass regulations, and that power was exercised.


Thomas Reid: To be fair, the minister should have added that the house was sitting at the time. We were here in the month of February when the order in council was passed. This is a matter of great importance, affecting 1,500 people. Protests were received by the minister and by many members of parliament, and it is of some importance. The minister

Supply-Fisheries
should have referred the matter to the fisheries committee. Earlier in my remarks I pointed out that had the house not been in session there may have been some excuse for enforcing some minor regulation, but when we were in session a matter of such importance as this should have gone before that committee for discussion and consideration. In regard to the inspection of hay and straw the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to move that the matter be referred to the agriculture committee. The Acting Minister of Fisheries asks: Would you have referred this matter to a committee? My answer is that I certainly would have, and why not when the house was sitting?


Alfred Duranleau: I ask the hon. member not to be so insistent; let us have a trial for a year, so that we may see what will happen. There is a difference of opinion among the citizens of the Pacific coast; some share my ihon. friend's views, and others are of a different opinion, namely that the regulation does not affect the fishermen of the Fraser river. Let us try out the regulation, and if later on it is felt that it is not favourable, and that the injury done to the fishermen of the north Fraser river is greater than the benefit received by other fishermen, the regulation can be changed. Let us try it out for a year.


Thomas Reid: I have not expressed merely
my own opinion, but that also of the British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association. Their statement is to the effect that the regulation is certainly detrimental, and that it means good-bye to fishing on the Fraser river. There will be practically a trap in the mouth of the Fraser river. As I have pointed out, this regulation is but the thin end of the wedge. Cannery interests, and others, have advocated that we put traps along the international boundary, and use seines, as the Americans are doing. Our effort has been towards conservation of the fish, and if possible to get the Americans to stop trapping and seining. It so happens that this year a bill was presented in the legislature of the state of Washington asking for the abolition of traps and seines on the American side. In the debate on that bill I understand it was stated that Canada did not use traps or seines. Now, however, they will be able to say, "Well, Canada is using seines, and so we will continue their use."
I still press that the regulation should be held up. The British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association did not make merely a wild guess when they stated that 1,500 fishermen would be affected.


Alan Webster Neill: Of course it goes without
saying that seiners would be in favour of the regulation. After an argument has been advanced against a certain policy it seems to me that the suggestion to let the matter rest for a year is a very poor one. It is not always well to do that. Sometimes irreparable damage is done in a year's time, and to say that the Fraser river fishermen will not be harmed is a burlesque on the facts.
There is one point I should like to add to those mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster. The minister has stated that through the use of seines the fish will be fresher when caught. As to the habits of these fish, they are out in the open ocean, on their own; that is, they are not associated with other fish. As they draw nearer fresh water they do not go.straight up the river, but hang around. I do not know whether or not some biological condition is responsible for their actions; I am simply stating what they do, not why they do it., After playing around for some time, they bunch; that is the time for which the seiner is waiting. He does not take them when they are loose, because that would not pay. The placing of the seine is an expensive and long operation, The seiner waits until the fish school; they are schooling about the time they are ready to go up the river. Sometimes they hang around for weeks. The gill netter can afford to catch them before they school. They gc in and out ahead of the seiners, catching the fish when they are separated, and are certainly of better quality. In a year when there was a heavy run of water probably the fish would not linger, but in a dry season they linger a great deal. Fish caught in .the gill nets would be probably of a better quality, because they are caught at an earlier period. It is a well known fact that it does not pay the seiner to set for fish which are not more or less schooled or bunched together.
The minister suggests that we should try the regulation for a year. Fishermen on the Fraser river have been operating for over thirty years. It is now proposed in these days of unemployment and distress to do something which certainly will affect their livelihood. The business would be placed in the hands of a few seine boats employing half a dozen men each. Every seine boat would put at least twenty gill netters out of occupation. It will put them out of other fishing, because this is only a sort of fill in. If they lose at that time they are liable to lose their livelihood altogether.
I wish now to revert to the notorious order in council No. 206 passed on February 3,
Supply-Fisheries

providing that salmon could not be inspected and get a certificate unless they had been landed on the wharf where they were canned within twenty-four hours after being caught, unless being gutted and iced. On April 4, I brought the matter to the attention of the minister, stating that the British Columbia legislature had unanimously passed a resolution against this order in council. Upon that occasion I asked him what he purposed doing. His reply was that he would check up on the accuracy of the report-a poor compliment to me-and then would take the matter into very serious consideration.
From the votes and proceedings of March 29, of the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia I read the following:
Half-past eight o'clock p.m.
The house resumed the adjourned debate on the motion moved by Mr. Loutet on March 21-
Eight days before.
-as follows:
That this legislature goes on record as being emphatically opposed to the order in council P.C. 206 passed on February 3, 1933, by the government of Canada, regarding the delivery of salmon at a cannery within twenty-four hours after being caught.
The debate continued.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A week elapsed between the introduction of the motion and its adoption. Further debate ensued after which the motion was unanimously agreed to. In the light of the information which he has received I ask the minister now what his decision is. The document I have read is authentic; can the minister tell me Whether or not he will revise his opinion, or what his decision will be?
Alfred Duranleau: I inquired this
morning from the officials of my department;
I find we had not as yet received any reply from the government of British Columbia on this question. No decision has been arrived at.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think the chances of ever receiving a reply are good. The government of British Columbia is in a state of flux at present, liable to dissolve into its constituent molecules at any moment. If on the fourth of April the minister was advised, as he was, it would not have taken him long to send a wire to the premier or provincial secretary asking about the passing of this resolution, which was passed on March 29.
I think it was up to the minister to carry out his pledge that he was going to check it up, before now. Here at least it is the actual official report, the votes and proceedings of British Columbia. That has been in my possession for weeks; the motion was passed 
on the 29th of March, nearly a month ago. The session is wearing to its end; this is the last occasion to debate it, and still he says 'he is waiting for the premier of British Columbia to get around to expressing an opinion. What opinion does he need? The legislature passed it; fifty premiers cannot gainsay that. He did not oppose it; he had a huge majority, and we must presume that that is the reasoned decision of the legislature of British Columbia. I am sorry the minister has not got a definite statement; I must assume, I suppose, that he does not intend to change his decision.
I want to take this opportunity, while protesting against the lack of action, to refer to a meeting of the board of trade in Vancouver a few days ago. The record of it appears in the newspaper in big headlines three-eighths of an inch high, reading:
Reds blamed by Salmon Canners.
Objection to Twenty-four Hour Packing Order Charged to Communists.
It is popular nowadays to charge everything to the communists. I think we as public men ought to give a lead and cut out this nonsense


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: -that everyone who disagrees with us is a red or a bolshevik. The bolshevik phase is passing; we now call them reds. Here is a whole column of the views of a Mr. Richard Bell-Irving addressing the board of trade on that occasion. That was on the front page. What about the other side of the picture? Here is the other side, a little paragraph three inches long on the back page of a subsequent issue, and small headlines: "Denies Communists Prompted Protest. A man named Johnson, an executive of the fishermen's organization, says his organization is not communistic; it is affiliated with the trades and labour council; its membership consists of 1,200 fishermen of whom 300 are returned soldiers. Communistic principles are not entertained, and the body is merely endeavouring to improve fishing conditions." But that appeared on the back page in small print. The popular idea goes out to the world, or to British Columbia, that the fishermen have been caught with the reds behind them spreading this propaganda.


Alfred Duranleau: Do I understand that the Vancouver board of trade approved of the regulations?


Alan Webster Neill: I would give them credit for more sense. This was an address given by Mr. Bell-Irving, and it is not on record that

Supply-Fisheries
any action was taken. He was speaking at a luncheon of the foreign trade bureau of the board. As to whether the board of trade of Vancouver ever took any official action, they may have, but I do not know.
I quote again from this article:
Objections . . . were inspired by printed handbills distributed early in March by communists. The measure meets with approval of all "practical fishermen."
In those few words there are two deliberate falsehoods. The measure is not approved by all practical fishermen, and the objections to it were not inspired by printed hand bills distributed by communists early in March. I spoke in this house on the 21st of February, so the communists could not have inspired it by handbills early in March.
There was a reference in that same address of Mr. Bell-Irving to myself-a somewhat slimy reference; I will not bother the house denying it. It did not appear in the press; but it was taken down in writing, and he will be given an opportunity either to prove or to retract the statement. But I will not take the time of the house with my private troubles.
Then we come to another quotation about this meeting:
Objections to the new regulations, Mr. Bell-Irving charged, did not come to the surface for a week or ten days, and were "inspired" by a few small operators whose single-cannery operations might be affected.
Note that. The regulations were printed in the Gazette of February IS-that was a Saturday-and I spoke on the subject the following Tuesday, the very first opportunity that presented itself; the statement that it did not come to the surface for a week or ten days is nonsense. He may have had privy knowledge of it before that, I do not deny it; because he was the instigator of the whole movement, but the general p-ublic knew nothing until the regulations were gazetted on the 18th of February. Then he says it is "inspired by a few small operators." It was said before to have been inspired by the reds, but now, in the same column, it is inspired "by a few small operators whose single cannery operations might be affected." Is there anything wrong in having a single cannery? Is the right of way in legislation and policy to be given only to those who control a dozen canneries? There is nothing improper about being only a single cannery operator; he has a perfect right to express his sentiment. It is rather funny, if he is an operator, that the operators should not all think alike in the matter, if it is as Mr. Bell-Irving says.
Then we find that Mr. Bell-Irving made a vigorous defence of the regulations providing that canned salmon can be given first grade certificates only if canned within twenty-four hours after the catch. That is a total misstatement; that is not the regulation, and no one knows it better than Mr. Bell-Irving. If it were that it would have quite a different aspect. The regulation is that it be landed at the cannery, where it is going to be canned heaven knows when, within twenty-four hours after being caught-a different proposition altogether. I have a letter in my possession from a cannery man who says he has known the fish to have been brought in in the evening and left on that hot floor-and it is a hot floor in the summer time in these little inlets where the sun beats down on a tin roof-from one evening until the following afternoon. Is that provided against in the regulations? No; it is only to compel them to bring it to the cannery wharf within twenty-four hours. That shows the insincerity of the thing.
Now let us go back to the reasons alleged for the objections made. Two contrary reasons are given-one that it is inspired by the reds, and the other that it is inspired by the single cannery owners. And they are classed both together as being unworthy of credit. What about the city councils? Why did three city councils unanimously pass a resolution against this order in council? And one was the city of Victoria, not noted to be red in its colouring. Boards of trade all over the lower province passed resolutions against it. Then we find a resolution introduced in the local house by Mr. Loufet, the alble Conservative member for North Vancouver. Would you call him a red? We in British Columbia do not so regard him. Then again, what about passing it through the legislature? Are they red? They consist, if my memory is correct, of 48 members, 36 of whom are Conservative, 11 Liberal and 1 Labour. It is hardly a place one would expect to find red propaganda very successful. But the reds put it all over the legislature of British Columbia, it is suggested, and the other side was invited and expressed its views; the cannery men had a delegation. But the reds put it all over the legislature, or was it the men with the single cannery that did it? It is funny how it was unanimous.
But let me tell the minister this is the way to make reds. He says the reds distributed handbills. I know nothing of that. They may have done so; they may have taken advantage of the facts, but who brought the facts into existence? They may have taken advantage
Supply-Fisheries

of the gross injustice perpetrated by order in council 206 to arouse and stimulate discontent. That is their job and their policy, though I think it is a poor one. They may have done that, but the blame must lie at the door of those who passed the legislation which made it possible for a red to appeal to the sense of injustice aroused among the fishermen and the single cannery owners. This question was not discussed at the meetings attended by the deputy minister; it was not discussed in our fisheries committee; it was put through by political pull. I do not hesitate at all to make that statement.
Let me outline what happened. There are three large cannery companies who claim to represent ninety per cent of the output of canned salmon in British Columbia. I do not for a moment certify to that statement in the light of the contradictions to which I have already referred, but certainly they do represent a large portion of the canning industry of British Columbia. They were out, as they have been for many years, to stop competition in canning and in buying salmon. That is their purpose, and this is the latest method they have adopted to put through their policy. Unfortunately I happen to hold some bonds of one of those companies, so I may be held to be disinterested when opposing them, but I doubt very much whether even from the point of view of the canneries themselves this is a wise policy; in fact I am sure it is not. My idea of the way to promote success in any industry, canning or anything else, is to have shrewd and careful management and very close cooperation with customers and employees, and those with whom you have to deal. That is not the way these cannery owners are going about it; they are trying to create depression, distress and ill-will among the fishermen whose cooperation is of the greatest value to them. Therefore I say I do not think this is a good policy even from their point of view; certainly they should not go about trying to put their competitors out of business by political means.
At any rate they decided to try to put this over. They did not say anything at the meetings called for that purpose in British Columbia, to which they were especially invited and which were attended by the deputy minister or the minister himself. Not a word was said about it imtil after the minister had gone home and peace had descended. We thought we knew the worst that could happen to us, but then a delegation came to Ottawa. On January 20 the department went on record that they did not know anything about the
	.
matter. I heard some rumours about it and I wrote the department, who replied that there was nothing of the kind contemplated or had been brought to the attention of the department. Then on February 3 the whole thing was cut and dried and the order in council signed. All hon. gentlemen know that it takes quite a while to get an order in council signed after it has been prepared, so it is easy to imagine the rush with which this was put through. My letter was dated January 20, and I do not know what interval elapsed after that before the order in council was prepared, but certainly it was put through in a very short time.
The other day the suggestion was made that this was not going to work out in the way I predicted, that it would not do away with competition in buying from the fishermen. We were told that there were lots of canneries, that there were ten or fifteen in every distriot. There are thirty-six subdistricts in British Columbia-I counted them the other day-and last year there were thirty-five canneries operating. In previous years there have been as many as seventy-five, but last year there were only thirty-five. Some of these subdistricts may not have a cannery at all while others may have two, but I know of no subdistriot in my territory that has more than two. You know how easy it is for two competitors to get together and make an arrangement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But there are only three
districts.


Alan Webster Neill: There are only three districts having supervisors, but they are so big that you could not carry out this plan within their borders.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was the reference
to the number of canneries in a district, not what my hon. friend is seeking to suggest now.


Alan Webster Neill: I was referring to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said they were divided into subdistricts, and I was quoting the subdistricts. The three large districts about which the minister speaks now are so large that you could not carry out this twenty-four hour rule in any but district No. 1. Speaking on another subject, and indeed referring to this matter, the minister asked the other day why we should not try this out for a year, and then change it if it did not work out well. These identical words were used last year, Mr. Chairman, when the government introduced their system for the inspection of canned salmon. I took exception, not to the principle, which was

Supply-F isheries
admirable, but to the method, which I said was entirely unsatisfactory and would prove unworkable. The argument advanced then was, "Try it for a year, anyway, and see how it works." We did not need to wait for a year; it proved so utterly ineffective that it had to be changed on three different occasions, so that finally the regulations occupied five and a half times their original space. I am not going into that just now except to say that I am going to take the minister at his word. Speaking of these inspection regulations in April last the minister said, "Well, try it for a year." We did not even try it for a year. The regulations did not come into effect until June 1, and they could not possibly apply to the inspection of canned salmon until a couple of months later. On February 3, however, five months later, it was suddenly found that they were all wrong, [DOT]that they were all wet, although they had been changed three times. It was found necessary to change not a clause or a detail of administration but the whole system. I have here a quotation from a Conservative newspaper in British Columbia, no doubt inspired by the cannery interests. Here they make a report on this inspection; they say that the system became operative last June, and only about a little over one per cent were found unfit for the certificate. That is a fine record. There were 968,500 cases of salmon examined, and 1-2 per cent were found unqualified for the first certificate. That looks as though the pack had been pretty good, doesn't it?
The figures testify plainly-
This is not my opinion; this is the cannery-inspired information appearing in the press.
-to the quality of the salmon which go into the cans in British Columbia and to the efficiency and care which is used in the cannery operations, for members of the inspection board are experts of long experience and established reputation in the salmon trade, and canned salmon, which they find worthy of certification must be of unquestionable quality.
I suppose that was not intended to help put over this twenty-four hour deal. Then the picture changed suddenly; between January 20 and February 3 it was found necessary not to amend the regulations but to upset them altogether. Previously these highly qualified men looked at the salmon and their duty, according to their instructions, was to pass it if it was good and to condemn it if it was bad. What is the position with this newfangled idea? If it is bad they can condemn it but if it is good they cannot pass it. It may be as good as any salmon they ever saw in cans, but they cannot pass it unless they get some proof that the salmon were landed
at the wharf where they were afterwards canned within twenty-four hours after being caught. How can they find that out? A cannery man may pack 60,000 or 70,000 cases; he may have two or three canneries. His pack will be assembled in Vancouver, since that is the shipping point, and he may have
10,000	or 20,000 cases inspected. The inspector may find the salmon quite all right; it may be firm, well packed and complying with the law in every respect, but he cannot give a certificate until he has proof that it was landed on the wharf within twenty-four hours after being caught. How can he get that proof? I directed that question to the department, and months after the regulation was in force I was told that the matter was still under consideration. Is the cannery man to give the certificate? Is he to take an oath about something in regard to which he cannot be informed? Is some agent to do it? Who is to take the oath? And if it is not an oath it is a joke. The cannery man can say, "I saw a fisherman come to my wharf with some fish, but I do not know how long they had been caught. He told me they had been caught so many hours but I did not swear him. To the best of my knowledge and belief they were caught within twenty-four hours of being landed." That is what he is likely to say, and he would be a fool if he did not say so. But without the expenditure of an enormous amount of money and having an inspector at every cannery it will be impossible to find out whether the fish had been caught within twenty-four hours or not. This declaration will be a blot on the record of the department, which during the last ten years has been trying to cooperate with the cannery men on the one hand and with the fishermen on the other. Nothing should be passed here unless it has been first discussed at meetings at which all parties interested can be represented. In the past the meetings of the deputy minister were open to everyone, cannery men, fishermen and the public. Everyone was welcome and anything that could not be discussed was regarded with suspicion. This declaration, I repeat, will remain a blot on the record of the department until it is removed. Before I sit down I want to ask this question. Has the department, or have the officers, so far developed or conceived any system by which it can be proved to the inspectors that fish have been caught as required within twenty-four hours of being landed at the wharf.


Alfred Duranleau: Our inspectors obtain from the canners a sworn declaration to the effect; they have to ascertain that the fish have been taken within twenty-four hours of
Supply-Fisheries

being landed at the cannery. We are following a regulation similar to one which is in force in Scotland and is working quite satisfactorily there. I am afraid that my hon. friend did not understand me the other day when I told the house that I would await official confirmation of the resolution adopted by the house in British Columbia. I never questioned my hon. friend's statements, but I think it was fair for the government to await the confirmation of that resolution. I do not think however that even if that resolution were adopted it would alter the decision of the government in this matter. In my opinion my hon. friend, instead of helping the fishermen of the western coast, is injuring their business by his insistence in this regard. Our officials so far are of the opinion that the regulation adopted last year and reinforced by the one adopted this year will have the effect of enhancing the price of fish rather than reducing it.


Alan Webster Neill: Who says that?


Alfred Duranleau: Our officials. As a
matter of fact I can tell my hon. friend that the price of fish has gone up for this season by reason of the very fact that we have strict regulations which will maintain the best quality possible in our export fish. Recently it was advertised that owing to these regulations there had been an increase in the price from 30 cents per fish in 1932 to 40 cents in 1933. My hon. friend states that these regulations have been asked for by a limited number of canners who want to control the market. The information we have is that the companies who desire to have the regulations maintained put up ninety-three per cent of the pack. These companies own forty-two out of forty-four canneries which were operated last year. There are seventeen in number, and thirteen of these companies operate only one cannery each. It is obvious therefore that nearly all the small canners as well as the large canners favour the regulations. It is not a matter of only a few canners, but over ninety per cent of the canners are in favour of it.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Alfred Duranleau: And they contend that the price of fish is going up on account of these very regulations. I have here a statement prepared by an expert of my department and I wish to give it in full:
It is an acknowledged fact that following the development of sharp competition amongst the canneries in British Columbia the quality of the pack went down. This was due to the fish
LMr. Duranleau.]
being too long after being caught before they were canned. A prominent reason for this was the distance that fish was frequently carried. The result of this, together with growing competition from the orient and United States, was that British Columbia fish were losing their position on most important markets.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date of that?


Alfred Duranleau: April 24, 1933. I
asked for it because I think it is well that it should be placed before the committee.
To overcome this situation, inspection of the canned product was started last year.
My hon. friend referred to that regulation. He opposed it bitterly last year and now he admits that it was successful in its operation.


Alan Webster Neill: After being five times
amended.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, but only in
administrative details. It is always found necessary in important regulations of the sort to have minor amendments made. A few months' experience shows that slight amendments are necessary, but this regulation is to-day working in the interests of the fishermen.
Owing to the fact that there are five species of salmon, that the same species differs in quality in different areas and differs in the same area in different years, an adequate classification for inspection of canned salmon has so far been found in any country to be impracticable. Canada has gone further than any other country has yet been able to go, though its inspection is a minimum. It provides merely that fish that are fresh, firm, well packed and in good merchantable condition shall be entitled to a certificate, while all that are fit for human consumption but fall below these requirements shall be definitely marked "second quality." and those below second quality shall be confiscated.
Just when a fish ceases to be fresh and firm is a matter on which there is bound to be difference of opinion amongst experts, but there can be no doubt that fish begin to get soft practically from the time they are dead and that this process goes on slowly or rapidly, depending on conditions. This is recognized in the fish packing world. In Scotland, for instance, where herring is the main factor in the industry and where it is put up in barrels, it is required that fish to be entitled to the brand, must be placed in the barrels within twenty-four hours after being caught.
The board of inspection both before and since its appointment, strongly urged the importance of fish reaching the canneries promptly after being caught.
In no competing country are fish carried a greater distance than the amended regulation allows. As a usual thing the distance is very much less.
It is only when the quality of the pack as a whole is good enough that adequate prices can be obtained, and the fishermen consequently paid the best possible prices.

Supply-Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: It makes very little difference to me whether the minister expresses his own views or reads something from an expert, it all comes from the lost and found department anyway. He quotes the cannery men, and states that they represent ninety per cent, but how is that ninety per cent made up? The statement reads that it was subsequently strongly recommended to the department on behalf of those who put up over ninety per cent of the canned product. Yes, but the three big canning companies claim that they put up over ninety per cent of the product. I have no evidence that they do, but that is their claim.


Alfred Duranleau: There are seventeen
companies.


Alan Webster Neill: The next suggestion made is that they are going to ask for a sworn statement. The life of a cannery man is hard enough; he is losing lots of money and he should not be damned for the next world by being asked to take such an oath. He should not be asked to swear before God that the salmon was landed at such a time when in fact he did not see it landed. It may have been landed at another one of his canneries a hundred miles away. The minister refers to Scotland. Do they can salmon in Scotland to the extent they do in British Columbia? He speaks about herring in barrels, but are salmon packed in barrels? He tells us that the fishermen are going to get better prices for their salmon this year. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. These fishermen are not fools and they are not going to be caught by an argument as specious as that. I have the papers to prove my point, but I cannot lay my hand upon them at the moment. I have half a dozen articles taken from local papers, some of them quoting the chief supervisor of fisheries of British Columbia. He is an expert, and he states that the sockeye was practically sold out and it was inevitable that the price would rise. They are asking us to believe that the passing of this order in council was responsible. This order in council could not possibly take effect for months and months, in fact they do not even know how to enforce it, yet they ask us to believe that it was because of this that the price immediately shot up. My opinion is that this rise in price was because of the low pack in the past two years, coupled with the increasing demand in one or two countries. When the demand goes up, of course the price goes up. It would be much better from a political point of view for the government to
claim that this rise in price was because of their stabilization measure. I have never hesitated to give the government credit for taking that action; I only wish they had gone a little further and included lumber. They did a good thing and perhaps it has stimulated the price so that it begins at 40 cents. After all, 40 cents is not such a spectacular price. We think of some British Columbia cannery men giving the fishermen 40 cents out of the generosity of their hearts, but it must be remembered the last year they were paying United States fishermen 40 and 45 cents. Quantities of salmon were brought in from the States and that price was paid in American currency. It is not such a great potlach to the fishermen to start the price at 30 cents. If the minister was sincere in talking about quality, why does he not give the regulations passed last year the year of trial asked for? The minister says that these regulations were amended in a few details, but I contend that they were amended in many substantial details. They were five and a half times as long as they had been previously. Will they show their sincerity by amending this regulation, and instead of having it read " landed at the cannery twenty-four hours after being caught," make it read " canned thirty-six hours after being caught"? I challenge the minister to consider this matter from that point of view.


Thomas Reid: I have another tfiatter I would like to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with Japanese fishing licences. I understand that in 1923 a reduction of 40 per cent was made in these licences and when the matter was considered by the committee in 1924 it was decided that no reduction would be made that year. It was later recommended by the committee that there would be a further reduction of 15 per cent for the season of 1925 and in the following year it was recommended that beginning with 1927 there would be a yearly reduction of 10 per cent, based on the number in force in 1926. As the matter had got into the courts it was decided that no reduction would be made until the courts had rendered a decision. The situation is becoming very serious. The total licences issued in the province last year were as follows:
Whites	 6,486
Japanese	 2,143
Indians	 2,800
The situation is much more serious, however, on the Fraser river where the proportion of Japanese is much larger. In that district the licences issued to whites number 852 as against 586 issued to Japanese. These were
Supply-Fisheries

the figures for 1932 as given by the department. Because of the application made to the courts, I believe the yearly 10 per cent reduction was held up pending decision. As I understand it, since the passing of the statute of Westminster, Canada can now deal exclusively with such matters as the granting of licences. Some years ago certain associations protested against the cut, but at a meeting which I attended in New Westminster it was stated that these protests had been made under a misapprehension. Last year the association went on record as unanimously favouring the reduction in the number of licences issued' to Japanese. In previous years the department has taken the attitude that these Japanese were working on the sea, and that if they were taken away from fishing it would mean just that many more on the land, but the fact is that they are going on the land in greater numbers than ever The increase in population by birth is very rapid. Last year in the schools there was a 38 per cent increase in population of Japanese as against five per cent of whites. The question was raised in the British Columbia legislature last year and the Hon. Mr. Maitland made this statement:
Hundreds of false birth certificates have been issued in British Columbia, particularly in the case of orientals. Hon. It. L. Maitland, minister without portfolio, said in the legislature Monday, on moving second reading o-f a bill which would "tighten up" restrictions.
Under the statutes at present a citizen may take out a deferred certificate, he explained. "Japanese have been going back as long as twenty-five years ago in claiming birth in the province. As a consequence, many Japanese who were not born in British Columbia at all not only get certain fishing rights but passport privileges as British subjects."
Last year I brought up the matter-it does not touch the minister's department-regarding immigration and I then stated to the Minister of Immigration I believed more than fifty per cent of the Japanese in British Columbia were in that province illegally. I have before me the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year ended September 30, 1932, in which I find a very serious statement and one that practically confirms what I said in the house at that time. This has a bearing on my appeal to the minister regarding the Japanese and fishing licences. On page 50 of this report I find the following statement by Superintendent Wood:
With regard to the Department of Immigration and Colonization, Superintendent Wood says:
"The investigation regarding the infractions of immigration and other acts of Japanese in British Columbia is still being carried on vigorously, and I am of the opinion that the situation is more serious than we previously imagined."
[Mr. Reid.)
This is the superintendent who is saying that it is more serious.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And prosecutions of those guilty of fraud were carried out.


Thomas Reid: That is very true, but I am now coming to the fishery licences. Superintendent Wood says:
Recently the investigation has disclosed that numerous naturalization certificates are held by persons other than their owners in the Skeena river area. The number so held is estimated to be over 150, and one source of information places the number as high as 400.
This is the official report.
These certificates are being used to illegally obtain fishing licences.
That is a very serious statement and it should be taken due cognizance of. I am speaking particularly however of conditions in the Fraser river. I understand a movement was initiated by the British Columbia Protective Association asking the minister to continue the cut of ten per cent in licences until the Japanese were eliminated, as had been proposed a few years previously. The Japanese, I might say, are becoming arrogant on the Fraser river. The information is also given to me that they now dominate certain branches of the fishing industry on the lower mainland of British Columbia. I have before me a letter from a dealer in codfish in Vancouver who states, with regard to codfishing:
At present it is dominated and controlled by the Japanese. In Vancouver all the codfish brought in by any nationality is sold through M. Myamoto, a Japanese.
If, for instance, you went codfishing and brought your catch into Vancouver you would have to dispose of it through M. Myamoto.
He tells me in this letter that if I want any further information regarding the matter, he will be glad to give it. We have among our own nationals men who control certain industries, but the situation is more serious when you have a Japanese controlling a business in our own country because all his dealings are directed with more benefit to his race than to the white people of Canada. As I have stated the Japanese are becoming very arrogant on the Fraser river, and last fall I had drawn to my attention a case where they threatened bodily harm because a white man dared to be around one of the little islands in the mouth of the Fraser river endeavouring to catch some fish with a line. Another case occurred in the same year up north where a Japanese boat ran through a white man's boat and the two white men would have been drowned had they not been picked up by another fishing boat which happened to be near by. The Japanese use

Radio-Purchase of C.N.R. Stations
people of their own race all the time. Their trucks take care of their own stores and practically all their business centres around the Japanese. Last fall, when the market in Japan was low, the Japanese saw to it that only Japanese on the Pacific coast received any consideration in regard to the sale of salted or smoked fish that was destined for Japan.
I am appealing to the minister regarding this; I am asking him on behalf of the Fraser river fishermen, who are unanimously in favour of the cut being continued, that he recommence the reduction of licences in so far as the Japanese are concerned. Our own people should be better looked after and encouraged. The argument formerly used that if you chased the Japanese off the rivers and the ocean, they would go on to the land, no longer holds good, because they are on the land anyway and in greater numbers than before, even though there are just as many Japanese fishermen. In my constituency there is one school of fourteen rooms. Eleven of them are wholly Japanese; one only is white and the others are half Japanese and half white. In a school not far from where I live, last year I saw eleven boys at play, nine of whom were Japanese and two white. That shows the extent of the growth in population of the Japanese on the land in British Columbia. The fishermen are now protesting and on their behalf I am asking the minister to consider recommencing the cut in the licences of the Japanese and favouring our own people.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 25, 1933