1933-04-28

Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker,
I desire to present to the house a copy of an original petition, addressed to the members of the House of Commons, and for the attention of the Minister of Fisheries, signed by Austin A. Ramsay, Isaac B. Lewis, Norman Thompson, James C. Palmer, J. J. Moran and two hundred and fifteen others, asking that no leases of oyster areas be granted in the bays or rivers on the northeast side of Prince county, Prince Edward Island; also, a memorandum in connection with the same, addressed to the members of the House of Commons and the Department of Fisheries, protesting against the leasing of these oyster areas, signed by: G. Ellsworth Gills, of Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island, on behalf of the fishermen's committee, and: Isaac B. Lewis, Richard Murphy, Norman Thompson, Chas. Mc-Fadyen, all of Conway, Prince Edward Island.



THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G.B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma): Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) I beg to move:
That the petition of John Gilbert Mitchell and others, praying for the passing of an act to incorporate the Thousand Islands Bridge Company, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the petition of Lilac Violet Grumbell Reid, praying for a bill of divorce from Clarence Dixon Reid, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) based upon a report of a meeting held in the city of Toronto on Tuesday, April 25. I do not suppose Your Honour will permit me to read this report, but I shall refer to its contents. Mr. Hector Charlesworth, the chairman of the radio commission is reported to have said at this meeting that the commission would not deviate from the policy which it had formulated and that anyone was a liar or a fool who said that radio in Canada was not in a better position to-day than it was a year ago. He then got very dramatic and said, "My head is bloody but unbowed." I ask the minister if he has read this report; if he has not will he read it and after he has read it will he endeavour to discipline the chairman of the radio commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I have not read the article in question nor has my attention been drawn to it. If it comes to my knowledge, I will take the matter under consideration.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister now has knowledge of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



ISSUANCE OF LICENCE FOR LONDON STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a question I asked the minister the other day in connection with the application for a licence for a radio station at London. The minister said that he would reply the next day, but I have not had this reply.


Alfred Duranleau: The information which I re-
Coal Inquiry

ceived this morning is that no licence has been granted. An application was received two or three days ago by the radio commission asking for a hundred watt station to provide local service in London.


William Daum Euler: Could the minister say from whom that application was received:


Alfred Duranleau: I think it is the
London Free Press. I understand the demand is made on behalf of the Western Ontario Broadcasting Company, but I have no official report or advice from the radio commission. All I have received is some verbal information.


William Daum Euler: Are two licences ever issued to the same party? I understand that these people have a licence for operation at Windsor.


Alfred Duranleau: The matter will be
considered when I have the report of the radio commission. The radio commission, according to law, when a wave length and a certain power for a new station are asked for, have to make their recommendation to the minister, so I shall wait for the recommendation before I give an answer.



COAL INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: About three weeks ago, during the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Mines, I asked when the report of the investigation being held with reference to the importation of anthracite from Great Britain, would be brought down. The minister said: Possibly within a week. I asked this question because the price of anthracite had been reduced by $1 a ton, the reason being given that this was due to a reduction in freight rates. I would like to ask the minister whether that report will be in the hands of parliament before the end of the session and whether a copy of the evidence will be laid upon the table for the perusal of members.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Mines):: The inquiry that was made at my instance, under the Combines Act, into the question whether there was a combine within the meaning of the statute in connection with the importation and distribution of British coal, was one made by the registrar, not by a royal commissioner. It has not been the practice in the past nor is it contemplated by the statute that a report of the registrar be tabled in the House of Commons and the evidence made available to the public gener-
ally. The practice followed is, I think, sound, because much of the evidence given and much of the information that the registrar receives on an inquiry of that character has to do with the business of private individuals who are not immediately concerned with the question into which inquiry is being made.
The report of the registrar was delievered to me on Tuesday of this week. It is quite voluminous and I have not yet had an opportunity to examine it in its entirety. I have, however, proceeded with a review of it and I hope to be able to go through it before Monday or Tuesday of next week. Then I shall have some observations to make to the house with respect to the inquiry of the registrar.



MONTREAL TERMINAL POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it true that tenders have been asked for in connection with the construction of the new terminal post office in the city of Montreal?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Tenders have not been invited for that work this year.



CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37,' respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system and for other purposes-Mr. Manion-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 4-Nominations and appointments to board of directors to be vacated and three substituted for original incorporators.
The CHAIRMAN:: The question is on the amendment of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to clause 4.


Mr. MANION:: On clause 4 last evening
a general discussion arose and a statement was made by the leader of the opposition to the effect that Sir Henry Thornton had been forced out of his directorship in the Royal Bank by the action of this government. That, in brief, was the gist of the remarks made by the right hon. gentleman. I denied the statement at the time and he persisted m it, saying that he 'had been so informed by Sir Henry Thornton and believed him. This morning I made some inquiries, the result of which I wish to put on record merely

C.N.R.-CJP.R. Bill
to keep the record reasonably straight. I find that Sir Henry Thornton was appointed a Royal Bank director on December 10, 1929, when the right hon. gentleman still had some considerable time to go before he went out of poiwer. Sir Henry was reelected a director of the Royal Bank on January 9, 1930, again on January 8, 1931, and again on January 14, 1932. He remained a director until the annual meeting of January 12, 1933, at which meeting he was not reelected. However, he had resigned the presidency of the Canadian National Railways on July 19, 1932, so that he was a director of the Royal Bank for six months after he had resigned from the presidency of the Canadian National Railways. May I suggest, without going any further, that these facts constitute a complete answer to the right hon. gentleman's charge that this government in some way influenced the Royal Bank to make Sir Henry Thornton withdraw from the directorate of that institution. That in itself is proof enough without anything further, although I have a little further proof if I need it.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I say to my hon. friend that Sir Henry Thornton was certainly under the impression-and he so informed me-that the reason he was not reappointed on the board of directors of the Royal Bank was due to the action of the Dominion government. I assumed at the time that this was because of his being also president of the road. In that I may have misunderstood the significance of his not being retained as a director. This, however, would only make the situation more aggravating, because it would indicate that the government was interfering with a purely private business in the appointment of a director of a private corporation. But Sir Henry Thornton certainly had the impression that the reason he was not reappointed was that the bank had intimated to him that he must resign and the intimation conveyed with it the impression that the government of the day had considered that advisable.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman's remarks to-day are a good deal milder than his observations of last night. He said then that Sir Henry Thornton had told him that and he believed what Sir Henry Thornton had said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do.


Robert James Manion: I shall give my right hon. friend still further proof that the statement is not true. I have under my hand a telegram
from Mr. M. W. Wilson, general manager, and,
I think, vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada. I telegraphed to him, asking about the matter, and this is his reply:	'
Your telegram received. When Sir Henry Thornton retired from the Canadian National Railways he offered to resign from the board of this bank but it was suggested that he allow the matter to stand until his future plans became more definite. As you are aware he subsequently removed to New York and shortly before our annual meeting in January he intimated that as he was no longer a resident of Canada he did not wish to offer himself for reelection. His wishes were carried out. At no time was the question of his directorship discussed with us by any member of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister whether he can and will say that Sir Henry Thornton's intimation that he was not to be renominated was not due to a message which was sent by Mr. Wilson himself to his manager in New York who convened it to Sir Henry and that when it was conveyed to him, he intimated that under the circumstances he would not expect to be reappointed?


Robert James Manion: I do not know anything about any private messages of Mr. Wilson to Sir Henry Thornton. I have given a public message from Mr. Wilson to the people of Canada. I accept Mr. Wilson's word. Furthermore, last night I made the statement- and I repeat it to-day-that the government had nothing whatever to do with Sir Henry Thornton's retiring from the board of directors of the Royal Bank. Moreover, if the right hon. gentleman were fair, which he is not, he would accept that statement and withdraw his own.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given to my hon. friend the reasons why Sir Henry Thornton believed that he was being asked to retire from that board at the instance of the government.


Robert James Manion: He was making excuses for the fact that he was dropped, probably.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think we had perhaps better come back to the question. The question is on the amendment to clause 4. An amendment has also been moved by Mr. Elliott and withdrawn for the time being. Does the hon. member wish to press his amendment?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I thought the arrangement last night was that it would be considered with the amendment to section 11, as the two relate to practically the same thing.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that there is no doubt that we shall not get through this bill to-day because the acting leader of the government stated last evening that we should not go on with it probably beyond five o'clock, and it is not at all likely that we shall get through with it before then because there are still quite a number of clauses to consider, but I will make this statement now with respect to clauses 11 and 7, both of which are in dispute, that we shall not deal with them to-day. I should like, however, to go on and make progress with some of the other clauses. The passage of the amendment which has been moved by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not interfere with section 11 at all in so far as the hon. gentleman desires to amend section 11.
I made the statement last night that we had been three weeks on this bill, and I was corrected by the leader of the opposition. I have made inquiries to-day and had the reflbrd searched, and I find that we have spent fifteen actual working days on the bill, or exactly three full weeks of five days a week, and it is seven weeks since we introduced the bill. I should like to make some progress to-day and go on with section 4. We are quite agreeable to allowing sections 7 and 11 to stand until next week.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Does the minister contemplate any amendment to section 7?


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister will have to shorten his speeches to make headway.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman might take a little of that himself.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In order to put the question clearly before the committee I might stale that the hon. member for West Middlesex moved an amendment to clause 4 which was withdrawn to allow the committee to discuss the new subclause 2. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has moved an amendment which will be subclause 3 of clause 4 if adopted. Does the hon. member for West Middlesex wish to press his amendment?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid that the minister is not shortening the debate by separating this clause from the proposed amendment to section 11.


Robert James Manion: I do not quite follow. Would the hon. member explain the connection between the two, and why we cannot proceed to pass clause 4?


John Campbell Elliott: This amendment deals with the question whether or not all the trustees shall be full-time men. The amendment proposed to section 11 deals with the question of whether all the trustees shall have equal voting power. I say that the two affect so vitally the effectiveness of the board of trustees, and are so closely connected, that I think it would save time to consider them both together, and that was the understanding given.


Robert James Manion: I just want to get straight what my hon. friend means. I do not quite see what difference it would make to proceed now with section 4. I have met my hon. friend's wishes to a large extent in the amendment which we have moved. We have now moved two amendments, one about the chairman and directorships and so on, and the other in regard to the other two trustees. These other two trustees at the discretion of the governor in council may also be full-time men, so I think I have practically met my hon. friend's wishes so far as full-time trustees go. In regard to the question of a majority vote, that is a separate question altogether, and I suggest with all respect that we can deal with that when we come to it. Here is the government's submission in regard to section 4. I think we might pass that, and I am quite ready to hold sections 7 and 11 over till next week. It seems to me that the two questions are separate and distinct.


John Campbell Elliott: As I explained to my hon. friend last night, the amendment moved by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce will not, I submit, be of any great benefit if the vote of the other two trustees can only be counted when the bhairman votes with either one of them. I do not want to be disrespectful with regard to the amendment that has been proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I realize that it is a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, I submit, providing that the trustees are what I would call real trustees, operative trustees, having a vote of equal weight on the board with the chairman. I do submit that we will save time by considering them together, and that was agreed to last night.


Robert James Manion: I am very anxious to
oblige, although it has not done me very much good so far. At the same time I do not yet see any connection between the two.
I know what the hon. gentleman has in mind, but so far as section 4 is concerned we are taking this attitude irrespective of what we do with section 11. I think my hon. friend might therefore concede that we have gone

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
a long way with him on this. So now let us dispose of it, and then when we come to section 11 we can argue the question whether there should be a majority vote or not.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not going to occupy more of the time of the committee in arguing whether we should consider this amendment now or later. Unless we can fallow the arrangement that was made last night I must submit the amendment which I moved before.


Robert James Manion: That is all right; go ahead and submit the amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Mr. Elliott moves that all the words after the word "that" in the proposed amendment to be known as subsection 3 of clause 4 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. Each trustee shall devote his whole time to the performance of the duties of his office and shall not be an officer of any company other than a company which is comprised in National railways and shall not, during his tenure of office as trustee, become a director of any company other than a company which is comprised in National railways of which he was not a director at the time of his appointment.


John Campbell Elliott: Before the vote is taken may I call the attention of the committee to what that means. I assume that they have it pretty well in their minds. This is a very, very important board. They have to administer a property of the people of this country which has cost and is worth many millions of dollars. It will be perhaps the most important board functioning in the dominion, and I submit that what was formerly done by a board of seventeen on the Canadian National Railways, and by a board of about an equal number on the Canadian Pacific Railway, is of sufficient importance and sufficiently onerous to demand the whole time of three of the very best men that can be obtained. That is the object of the amendment. I do not think that this great national asset should be entrusted to three men any one of whom should be permitted to give only part of his time to that work.


Robert James Manion: I agree with the hon. gentleman. He has explained his amendment quite correctly, but we have made an amendment whereby the governor in council may, at discretion, make all three trustees full-time men. I stated last night, and I repeat now, that as far as I know it is the intention of the government to do that for a time at least, so I am sorry to have to refuse to accept the hon. gentleman's amendment. I shall have to vote against it.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This is a very important question. When the bill was before the house before the Easter recess, I had intended moving an amendment that the board of trustees be enlarged from three to five members. I wish to protest against the board being limited to three members. The maritime provinces claim that under the British North America Act they have certain rights which they look to this and all governments to protect. We feel that if a board of trustees consisting of only three members is chosen from central Canada the claims of the maritime provinces may be overlooked. Under the terms of the legislation the trustees have great powers. They may scrap lines or cut down services. In the report of the Duncan commission there is the following finding regarding the old Intercolonial railway:
That to the extent that commercial considerations were subordinate to national, imperial and strategic considerations, the cost would be borne by the dominion and not by the traffic that might pass over the line.
If the trustees put that line on a strictly paying basis, and curtail services until that object is reached, I claim that they will not be playing fair with the maritime provinces, and will not be adhering to the terms set out at confederation. I do not know whether there are to be three or five members, but if I were in order I should feel very much like moving an amendment to the effect that there should be five trustees, one of whom should come from the maritime provinces.


Mr. SPENCE:: You have a great chance of getting it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on the subamendment.
Subamendment (Mr. Elliott) negatived on division.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That section 4 of part I of the bill be amended by striking out the word "three" in the fifth line thereof and substituting therefor the word "five."


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is
out of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must inform the committee that subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 have been adopted. We are now dealing with a new subsection, No. 3. Therefore it must be by general consent that we continue.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. Surely any amendment to aniy portion of the general section may be moved before that section as a whole has been passed by the committee.

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member
would be quite right, as usual, were it not for the fact that when discussion on the bill began it was decided by the committee that the subsections would be considered one by one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was a matter of convenience. But before any general section is passed any hon. member has the right to move an amendment.


Robert James Manion: On the point of order,
may I say that under ordinary circumstances I believe the hon. member would be right, and he would have made a very good case. But the chief, and practically the only important point in subsection (1) of clause 4 has been carried by the committee; that subsection states that there shall be three trustees. Therefore I submit that if we vote upon the possibility of their being five we will be acting contrary to the rule.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My decision is this,
subject to the view of the committee, that general consent of the house to an agreement in connection with procedure on the bill supersedes the rules and regulations, and binds me as if it were a rule written in the book. Therefore at this stage I must declare the subamendment out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
point of order-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have ruled, and the hon. member has already spoken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But I
can speak twice to a point of order. With all respect to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you do not carry a section of a bill until the section is carried completely. For the purposes of convenience and, as you say, by mutual arrangement, we did agree to deal with it by subsections. But certainly according to the rules, before section 4 in toto has been passed by this committee, any hon. member has the right to move an amendment to any of the subsections.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Apparently I have not made myself clear. The general consent of the committee has the force of a ruling set down in the book. Unless there is general consent of the committee to supersede that ruling, I am bound by it. For those reasons I must deal with subsections as if they were individual sections. I decide that in this instance the amendment is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that before a final decision is given on the section, after we have gone

through the subsections, you ask the committee whether or not it is prepared to adopt the section as amended. That means that the entire section is before the committee either for acceptance or rejection.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not in this case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The right hon, gentleman is mistaken. Under the agreement we have taken each subsection of the bill as an individual section; that is what we have been doing so far.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never have so understood it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Therefore I never put the question, "Is section 4 adopted as amended?", because we have considered each subsection as an individual section. I am in the hands of the committee, of course, but I am ruling that the amendment is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I explain this point.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand perfectly
the position taken by the right hon. member but I cannot allow hon. members to speak twice on the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not
finished speaking; you, Mr. Chairman, interrupted me and I sat down.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I wish to make is this, that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex had been adopted, the trustees would have had to give their entire time to the work. Under those circumstances I submit the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince probably would not have been deemed necessary. But the subamendment of the hon. member for West Middlesex having been voted down, it is only proper that in those circumstances the committee should have a right to say whether there should be five rather than three trustees. That is a perfectly proper subamendment, as it has not been definitely decided that the three trustees are to give all their time to their work. We have taken subsections, one after the other for the sake of convenience, and the avoidance of unnecessary discussion. But there has always been the right so far as I have understood, to move any amendments we wished to the section as a whole.


Robert James Manion: Since we have all spoken
twice, may I say another word?

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why
not? You can speak as often as you like in committee.


Robert James Manion: In regard to section 6 we carried subsections 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The only parts left for discussion are subsections 1, 2 and 4. The same is true in a number of other clauses. The only provision in subsection 1 of section 4, with which we are now dealing, is for the appointment of three trustees, and their replacement of the directors. If we can pass a subclause then deal with another subclause, then go back and discuss again the original clause, I do not know where we will get.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member who moved the subamendment could have moved it on subsection 1, but he did not do so. I am bound by the agreement of the committee, which to me is a ruling of the house, to rule that the amendment is out of order.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The committee is dealing in a very arbitrary manner with my subamendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is
quite in order.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: When I was speaking to
the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex-


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I draw to
your attention the fact that the hon. member, according to your ruling, is out of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must be tolerant.
Some hon. members have spoken twice or three time's to the point of order although I have decided they should not. Under those circumstances I believe I should hear the hon. member.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This is the first time I spoke. I was speaking to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). I stated that I wished to move an amendment to this clause, that there should be five trustees instead of three. The chairman said that if I would wait until the subamendment of the hon. member for West Middlesex was disposed of then I would have the opportunity of presenting my amendment. I waited. Now I am treated in this way, saying that my amendment is out of order and is not going to be presented to the committee. I think under the circumstances I am being treated very unfairly. Therefore I feel like appealing.
53719-277J


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the ruling of the chair is correct. I certainly understood that in dealing with this bill we are not following ordinary rules, passing it section by section, but subsection by subsection. But we are only wasting time on this, we might have had a vote. I submit to the right hon. leader of the opposition that we did distinctly agree that on this bill we would vary the ordinary practice. But I would not like the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) to suffer from a misunderstanding, and if he wishes to move his amendment now I would be disposed to let him do so, but not to treat it as a precedent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with the acting Prime Minister as to our having agreed to vary the ordinary practice, but the ordinary practice is to discuss a -whole section, including all subsections at one and the same time. We are varying the practice in this respect, that for the sake of precision we discuss each subsection by itself; but it was not understood that we would not have the right to amend a section as a whole in the light of any change made in a subsection.


George Halsey Perley: I understood that when we passed a subsection it was passed, not that we could go back and amend it afterward. But we would like to make some progress, and as far as I am concerned we are willing to deal with it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have given my decision that the subamendment is out of order.


Mr. POWER:: We can get around to the same thing later. I propose to move an amendment to subsection (5) that if at any time the trustees are not employed full time there shall be five of them instead of three. I am serving notice.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Stevens. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment agreed to on division.
Subsection as amended agreed to on division.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if we have not already passed some clause which commits the house to three trustees?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I submit that any amendment of that would now be out of order.


Charles Gavan Power: Are we now in order to speak of three or five?
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which clause have we passed?


Robert James Manion: Wre have passed clause 4.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No we are discussing 4.


Charles Gavan Power: I beg to submit the following amendment:
If at any time the trustees appointed are not employed during full time then instead of three trustees the number of trustees shall be five.
I think I am quite in order, because the status of these trustees has been materially changed by the amendment of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It makes these trustees part time or full time trustees at the discretion of the governor in council. That being the case, I believe it is quite competent for us to move now that if they are not engaged for full time we will perhaps require more of them to attend to the business of the railway. Not only would such an amendment be in order but it would be logical and reasonable.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Having heard the proposed amendment, although I have some sympathy with it I must rule it out of order, under standing order 48, commentary 399:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended. In like manner where an amendment of any part of a question has been proposed from the chair an earlier part cannot be amended unless the amendment so proposed be withdrawn.
In this case it has been voted upon by the house-


Charles Gavan Power: Would the chairman be good enough to explain the application of 399 to this matter?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will try to explain.
I do not know if my hon. friend will understand me-through no fault of his. I understand this question has been decided before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, this is an entirely new question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It has been decided
that there shall be three trustees. Now the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) proposes an amendment that there shall be five trustees. If I understand the English of commentary 399-I am not so sure of that part-that point has already been decided by the house. Therefore I have to rule the proposed amendment out of order.


Charles Gavan Power: It is quite true that the
section dealing with three trustees has been passed. But I submit that the status of these

trustees is entirely changed by the amendment of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that trustees may or may not be part time according as the governor in council thinks fit. The original idea of the bill as presented to us that there should be three trustees has been departed from. There were to be three, appointed for seven years; now we have three men who are to be appointed practically during pleasure, who may be removed from time to time, and may be employed for part time or full time or any time at all. I am not quarrelling with the amendment, but I say that if you have entirely changed the duties of the trustees then it is competent for any member to propose that there shall be five instead of three.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must maintain my
position.


John Campbell Elliott: Before you give your
decision may I point out that the argument of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) does not apply to this subsection (1), which defines the manner in which the trustees may be appointed. There might be something in my hon. friend's point if the subsection said that there shall be only three trustees, but it does not say that. Then the next subsection says that two of them may be part time or full time. The third subsection, now proposed to be amended by the hon. member for Quebec South, provides that in case two of the trustees, that is those other than the chairman, shall be part time men then there shall be five trustees. I submit that is not inconsistent with subsection (1) which speaks of three.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that if you had 'given the same ruling with regard to the amendment moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce it could not have been considered, on account of what was done under subsection (2). The house passed subsection (2), which provides that:
One of such trustees shall be their chairman. He shall devote his whole time to performance of the duties of his office . . .
The house decided that one should give his whole time, and therefor by inference that the others should be part time. But you allowed an amendment which said that in some cases they may give full time.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The right hon. member is quite right, but the amendment moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was received the other day by the unanimous consent of the committee. Now I must decide

C.N.R.-CPJI. Bill
that the hon. member for Quebec South is out of order. His grievance is not without redress; on the motion for third reading he can move that the bill be sent back to committee.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
On section 6 (1)-Appointment from panel.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Subsections 1 and 2
remain to be dealt with; the others have been passed.


Mr. DUFF:: There is one matter on which I am not very clear, which I think can be brought up under any section in part I, which refers to the national railways. According to section 3 (d) "National company" means the Canadian National Railway Company. Then in subsection (e) I find the following:
"National railways" means the National company, as owner, operator, manager or otherwise, and its transportation, communication and hotel system, which system shall be deemed to comprise all companies which are elements of the Canadian National Railways as defined in the National act-
I should like to know if this act is sufficiently broad to include the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National Steamship Company. If it is I have nothing more to say, but if it is not I think some clause should be included providing that the three trustees who are to take over the Canadian National Railways shall take over the merchant marine and national steamships as well. If that is not done it will mean, that the minister or the government will have to retain the present directors, or others, to look after the affairs of those two companies. So I think we might as well arrange that the trustees to be appointed under this act should also look after the affairs of these two companies instead of having two separate companies looking after the business of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National Steamship Company.


Robert James Manion: I agree entirely with the
hon. gentleman, but that provision is not in the bill because it is not necessary. The Canadian National steamships and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are entrusted to the same directorate by order in council. I confess that the matter has not been discussed, but I am quite sure it is the intention of the government to have these companies looked after in future as they have been looked after in the past. I quite agree that there would be no reason for having a separate board of directors, but that matter can be dealt with by order in council, so it need not form part of the act.


William Duff: Unless it is in the act I do not see how the governor in council can decide that these two companies do come under this act. This bill is very specific; it deals with certain matters, and according to the definition in subsection (e) of section 3 it would not include the two companies I have mentioned. It seems to me that I have a strong argument, and I think the minister agrees that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National steamships should be handled by the trustees who are to be appointed under this bill. I think before we pass this bill an amendment should be moved, or a new clause added, so that the trustees appointed under this act will manage not only the railway company but the merchant marine and the National steamships as well. I cannot agree with the minister that in some way the governor in council can arrange to place the merchant marine and the National steamships under this act, by order in council, giving the three trustees power to manage those companies. It would be a very simple matter to make that provision; for instance, the definition contained in subsection (e) of section 3 might be enlarged to include the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian National Steamship Company. I think the minister agrees that there should be only one management for the three companies, and I think it would be an easy matter to make that clear now.


Robert James Manion: I very largely agree with the idea that the management of the merchant marine and the steamship company should be as the hon. member suggests, but in the past these companies were not entrusted to the directors of the Canadian National. By order in council the directors of the National railways were simply made directors of these two companies as well; they were not so appointed under any act, and I submit that it is not necessary to put them under this act. However, I hardly think we will finish this bill to-day, and I will agree that before we do so I will give a fuller explanation to my hon. friend than I have given at the moment, if that will be satisfactory.


William Duff: That will be quite satisfactory.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The first question to be dealt with by the committee is the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec South, who moved that the section be amended by striking out all the words after the word "occurring" in the fourteenth line.
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill


Robert James Manion: Would the bon. gentleman just explain what he has in mind?


Charles Gavan Power: The effect would be that in future the appointments would be made by order in council, and we would do away with this panel system. I think the minister agreed to a certain extent that if the original trustees were to be appointed by order in council there was no reason why those succeeding them should not be appointed in the same way. The panel system seems a rather cumbersome method of going about it.


Robert James Manion: I agree that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member, but at the same time after a good deal of discussion the government thought this was the better way to leave it, on the ground that, speaking broadly, the panel system is a more non-political method of dealing with the question than appointment by order in council, whether under this or another government. It is true that at the present time the government is appointing the three trustees but for the future it is recommended that if one trustee disappears, the president of the Exchequer court and the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners and the remaining trustees may submit a panel of eight names. I do not know that there is every protection against political manoeuvring, if whatever government happens to be in power chooses to manoeuvre, but it is considered that it would be better to leave the panel proposal in the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: I submit that the argument just advanced by the minister is not very strong. This government will appoint three trustees and under the panel system those trustees may be self-perpetuating. There is no question but that they can arrange for their own reappointment. The three men will be able to run this railroad for eternity, if it lasts that long. There is another viewpoint which perhaps should be considered when considering the amendment of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Under that amendment, these trustees need not be appointed for a definite term. They can be appointed for part time service and then for full time service if the governor in council deems it advisable. It might very well happen that these appointments would not be made definite or permanent until this government was about to go out of office, at which time the trustees would have had five, six or seven years of service, as the case may be. It seems to me that if the government wished to be fair it would say that the original appointments shall be made from a panel. I think they [The Chairman.]
should either say that or say that all future appointments will be made by the governor in council. I cannot see any force in the minister's argument that we are getting away from politics.


Robert James Manion: I shall touch upon only one point raised by the hon. gentleman. When we reach the clause covering that matter, it is the intention of the government to move an amendment in order to make the appointments definite as to years. We would not be able to put through the rather "slick" game the hon. gentleman suggests. We intend to make the appointment for seven, six and five years or five, four and three as may be decided by the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: I would like to get an interpretation of the new clause number three to section 4, which reads:
The trustees, other than the chairman, first appointed under the provisions of this act shall from time to time during the terms of their appointments devote to performance of the duties of their office their whole or part time as may be determined from time to time by the governor in council, and the salaries to be paid to such trustees for whole and/or part time service shall be fixed at the time of their appointments.
I see nothing in that clause to prevent the government making these part time appointments to date from the date of appointment and then some fine day making them full time appointments, say for a period of five years.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend is
putting a fairly loose interpretation upon that clause. The reason this clause was drawn up by the legal officers of the Department of Justice and my department was in order-


Charles Gavan Power: I know why it was drawn
up.


Robert James Manion: It was not drawn up for
the purpose suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not imputing motives.


Robert James Manion: The first appointments
might be made for seven years for the chairman, six years for one of the trustees and five for the other, but if we decided to put them in for full time, say for the first three years, under clause 7 we could not interfere with them without an address of both houses of parliament. We could not undo the work we had done, that is, we could not change their salaries or anything of that sort without an address of both houses of parliament. I may say quite frankly that when we get to

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill
the next clause and decide upon the term of the appointment, we will not be able to go outside of that provision by making them part time for a portion of their term and full time for another portion.


William Daum Euler: I suppose it is pretty much wasting time to make any suggestions in view of the fact that the minister has stated that the government intends to stand by this clause as it is now worded. Apparently.it is the intention of the government to provide for the panel method of selection in the case of vacancies, and it is stated that this is done to avoid the possibility of political appointments. It does not seem to me that this provision meets the case at all. As I pointed out on the second reading of the bill, if this is an efficient method of guarding against political appointments to fill future vacancies, the same plan should be followed in appointing the original board. We should be consistent. Let us assume that it is the desire of the government to control this board politically. It will appoint three men who are amenable to government influence. I am presupposing and not charging this. Should a vacancy occur, the two trustees remaining will no doubt renominate themselves upon the panel, while the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the railway board will make certain other selections for the same panel.


Robert James Manion: Eight names.


William Daum Euler: There will be eight names
altogether. The point I want to make is that the two men left on that board, being politicians-the committee knows the sense in which I use that word-will no doubt select four other politicians for their portion of the panel. The president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the railway board may select four men whom they think are not tarnished with political feeling, but if the government wants to do so they can ignore entirely those four nominees. If the first appointments are political-they certainly can be although I do not say they will be-this board will be able to perpetuate itself as a political organization. It seems to me that the provision of having the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the railway board submit four names to the panel is absolutely useless because the government could ignore those names entirely. If I am wrong in this assumption, I should like to be placed right. The government is not enjoined or compelled to select any name from those submitted by the president of the court and the chairman of the board; if they wish they
can fill the vacancy from the trustees who are still left on the board. I suppose it would be more than human nature to expect that these two men would not put their own names upon the panel and be again selected. If this method is to be adopted at all, I would like to see it adopted right from the beginning. If the panel principle is going to get rid of politics, then I think it ought to be applied in the first instance. If we start out on a political basis-I am assuming that in order to make my argument-the thing will perpetuate itself.


Robert James Manion: Supposing the government was the same one that appointed the three; then a panel of eight names was submitted, if the government wished to replace two or three of them, irrespective of the other five or six, the government could do so. But supposing in the meantime the government had changed, the trustees could not submit their own names in any way I know of, where the new government would not have the opportunity of replacing them if it so desired.


William Daum Euler: If the government changed, they might take the selections submitted by the two trustees.


Robert James Manion: But they could refuse them altogether; after all, parliament is supreme.


William Daum Euler: The whole thing, it seems to me, is imperfect.


Robert James Manion: I am not arguing its perfection, I will admit. It was suggested by the royal commission that in the case of a vacancy a panel be submitted by the two remaining trustees. That was their reason for the "stagger" system in the appointments, so that one at a time would drop out and the other two would submit a panel. But in order that there might be a broader basis for the selection of a panel, there were added to the selectors, if I may use that word, the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I may say quite frankly that the question was discussed whether the government of the day could not put on a representative, but that would make the matter still more political. The general recommendation of the royal commission being as I have said, the government decided to insert it in the bill.


William Daum Euler: Does the government not think it is a most remarkable principle to ask men who are already on the board to make selections for the panel? It seems to me that they are prejudiced and self-interested, that
C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill

is if they wish to act in that way, and it would be better to have the selections made by others than those who are already on the board. What is the principle that governs that provision?


Robert James Manion: Is that not provided for in the fact that the chairman of the railway commission and the president of the exchequer court can also submit names? It is not possible for the two trustees to submit eight names. They would probably submit four and the others would submit four, so that the government would probably have a voice, and the selection would not really prejudice whichever party happened to be in power.


William Daum Euler: Why should the two surviving trustees be selected to submit the four names? Are they the proper persons to do that sort of work? If they are prejudiced, as they well might be, why not somebody else instead of those two?


Robert James Manion: An argument may be advanced in this regard, but there is this to be said for the two remaining trustees; they would understand the railway business to a certain extent and they would know the type of men who should be selected. We will take it for granted that they are honest and true men, and they will probably submit names of men that will be of a suitable type. They might desire to be selected themselves, but the two men submitting the names are not in the panel to be selected. They remain. The submission of a panel is only in the case of one trustee dropping out, because they drop out according to the "stagger" system. They do not submit their own names, and, having iad some understanding of the railway business, they should be able to select the right type of men for the position.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The minister is on
extremely weak ground in the action he is taking. The government say that the first three trustees are to be appointed by the governor in council and there should be some reason for taking away from it the power to appoint in the case of a vacancy. If the governor in council is good enough to appoint the first board, when the time comes for these men to be replaced, the governor in council should be equally competent to appoint their successors. I do not see why the government should want to get away from this practice which has always been followed in making appointments. In this case I think the government is trying to put over the house this bill which is extreme in many ways, and then to appoint a self-selecting board of

trustees to carry on in defiance of another party that may happen to be in power is most unfair. The minister is on weak ground in presenting such an argument.


Mr. RALSTON:: Is it in the minister's
mind-it may be a question of legal interpretation-that the nominating board, so-called, should be unanimous in selecting a panel, or is a majority sufficient? Possibly the remaining trustees might make certain selections and the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the railway board might act as if they were making individual nominations. I take it that the nominations are by a board and I am wondering whether a majority of the board is sufficient or whether it must be unanimous.


Robert James Manion: I do not think that has
been discussed, but the government takes it for granted that the two trustees remaining, the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the board of railway commissioners would unanimously submit a, panel of eight. The clause says that if any such panel of eight is not submitted within ten days in the case of a vacancy, the governor in council may appoint as he may be advised. I am quite frank in saying that it would be difficult for a panel to be submitted in ten days, so that whatever government might be in power, it would likely find itself forced to make the appointments anyway.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister think the period of ten days might be increased to twenty or thirty?


Robert James Manion: If the hon. member does
not like the way in which the panel is appointed, why not move to wipe out the ten day provision?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend states that this is the recommendation of the royal commission and that for this reason it has been inserted. The royal commission have made several recommendations that have not been .inserted. Its members have given their recommendations from their point of view, but we are here as parliament to legislate from our point of view. I should not like to be a party to a reflection by legislation on the government of the day, no matter what government it might be. I am speaking to my political opponents, and I say that I have much more faith in their judgment in making appointments to this board than in the judgment of the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the board of railway commissioners, however able those gentlemen may be. Ministerial responsibility is the

C.N.B.-C.P.R. Bill
basis of security so far as the public is concerned. Whatever the royal commission may recommend, I do not think it is fitting for parliament impliedly to reflect upon any present or future administration, and this is what is being done by the section as it stands. The intention is good no doubt. There is nothing to prevent the government, if it so wishes, from calling in the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the board of railway commissioners and consulting them; in fact, that is exactly what the government would do if it believed they were in a position to advise, but security in the matter of appointments rests in keeping them under ministerial responsibility, not in getting away from it. Surely if the government can appoint the judges of the country; if it can appoint these very gentlemen, the president of the exchequer court and the chairman of the railway commission, if it can appoint the personnel of all the other commissions, it can make equally fair and good appointments in the case of the trustees? Why, just beqause we have in the case of the Canadian National Railways a commercial enterprise that has been subjected to all kinds of examination and criticism, we should as regards government control go back on the fundamental doctrine of ministerial responsibility, I cannot understand. I believe the public will be infinitely more secure by holding the ministiy responsible for whatever is done and not restricting or freeing the ministry in its responsibility.


Robert James Manion: In view of the very strong feelings of my hon. friends, and in view, I think, of the fairness of the remarks made on all sides, I suggest that we let this subclause stand and, with the consent of the committee, take up subclause 2 of the same clause.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec South will stand.


Charles Gavan Power: Of course I think my amendment was to strike out the whole of clause 6.


Robert James Manion: I misunderstood.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, it must be that,
because subsections 1, 2 and 4 all stand. The others are carried.


Charles Gavan Power: My amendment was to
strike out all the words after the word "occurring," but I am not going to ask for a vote.
Amendment (Mr. Power) stands.
Subsection 1 of section 6 stands.
On section 6, subsection 2.
Mr. MAN'ION: There was an amendment suggested by somebody that the term might be five years instead of seven. I think five years probably ought to be a reasonably satisfactory term. I give the committee my word that the government has made no clear-cut decision on the point and that it is quite open to conviction, but with a feeling rather favourable to five years. I shall be glad to hear the views of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had an amendment to that effect prepared, but I do not believe it was moved. I now move to amend subsection 2 by striking out the word "seven" and substituting therefor the word "five," wherever it appears in the section.


Robert James Manion: I am willing to accept that amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: Will not that amendment necessitate a change also in subsection 4?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The necessary changes can be made by the legal officers in order that the term may be five years.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie) agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.


Robert James Manion: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall subsection 3
carry? Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before you
leave the chair, you put the question, Mr. Chairman, "Shall the section carry"? Is it carried?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Part of it is
standing. The point I was directing attention to was that I understood you to put the question, Shall the whole section carry? Each time you have been saying section, and I understood that you meant what you said.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: When I say clause it
is the whole section, and when I say section it is the subsection.


Robert James Manion: Subsection 1 of section 6 stands.
Progress reported.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 59, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Penitentiary Act
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the nature of the amendment?


Mr. DUPRE:: By virtue of the Government Employees Compensation Act, any officer who is injured receives compensation. By virtue of Bill No. 59 he will also receive a gratuity, so in the case of an officer injured while handling a convict, for instance, he might receive a double gratuity, plus compensation. The object of the amendment is to ensure that an officer who is injured while handling a convict, for instance, will receive, not a double gratuity, but simply a gratuity plus compensation if he is eligible to compensation in virtue of provincial law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister read the amendment if he has it available?


Maurice Dupré: With pleasure. The amendment, which appears at page 412 of the votes and proceedings, reads as follows:
Subsection one of section thirty-two of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following proviso:-
"Provided that the retiring allowance authorized by this subsection shall not be paid to any officer if he is eligible to receive compensation in respect of the infirmity or injury which has compelled his retirement from the service under and in virtue of the provisions of the Government Employees Compensation Act."


John Campbell Elliott: The idea is that he shall not receive two compensations at the one time?


Maurice Dupré: Yes. But for this amendment he would receive double gratuity plus compensation. With this amendment he will receive simply his gratuity, plus compensation.
Mr. LaVERGNE: In this bill we seem to be legislating on a matter which is entirely provincial. The contract covering a man's services is a civil and provincial matter, and I do not know that this parliament has the power to legislate on a civil contract and determine questions of compensation, or how services shall be terminated, and under what conditions. A man may be dismissed for cause or without cause, and in our province the man may be open to receive compensation even if he is dismissed for cause, or even if his services were not definitely limited to a certain term. Under the French law, compensation has been awarded to a man who has lost his position although there was no fault either on his part or on the part of the company because a civil contract which has no term fixed is binding on the two parties and one

party cannot terminate it without paying compensation to the other party. We are here legislating on what I think is a civil matter.


Maurice Dupré: Answering my hon. friend,
I do not think that we are in the least infringing upon provincial rights because by virtue of chapter 30 of the statutes of 1927, the Government Employees Compensation Act, any federal employee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of any provincial act. At the present time there is a compensation act in every province, if I am not mistaken, therefore, the right to receive a pension is not taken away by the present measure. As heretofore the officer in charge will continue to receive compensation by virtue of the provincial legislation. All we enact is that in addition to that he will be entitled to receive a gratuity from the federal government. Any officer compelled to retire from the service on account of some mental or physical infirmity or injury will receive one gratuity. Any officer who has been hurt or injured by handling a convict or trying to prevent disturbances and so on, will receive double gratuity. We do not want a man who has been hurt while handling a convict or quelling a disturbance to be put on an inferior footing. If he is entitled to double gratuity he will not receive that double gratuity if he already receives compensation by virtue of provincial legislation. He will be entitled only to the gratuity, plus the compensation to which he is entitled by virtue of provincial legislation.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	What about the men
who are dismissed?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The house is not in committee. The hon. member may speak only once.


Mr. BURY:: I understand that the only
right which is interfered with is the right created by the federal act. The amendment reads: "Provided the retiring allowance authorized by this subsection shall not be paid.." It does not take away any other right, but simply deprives him of the right under the federal act to a retiring allowance where, under the provincial act, he would be getting compensation.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	What about employees
who are dismissed?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: There is no interference with his provincial rights.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 58, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain, please.


Maurice Dupré: With pleasure. By virtue of this amendment sections 5 and 7 of the bill as carried by this house are deleted. It simply means that the clauses which enacted that the officer or constable would benefit for the time served in South Africa are stricken out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 5 does
not deal with South Africa, does it?
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 53, to amend the criminal code (Offensive weapons).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the
amendments?


Maurice Dupré: The first, and most important amendment is that to section 1 of the bill. The section, as adopted by this house, enacted that everyone carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment "for not less than one year and not more than five." This has been changed to read that everyone guilty of an indictable offence will be liable to imprisonment "for a term not exceeding five years." In other words we delete the words "not less than one year and not more than five" and replace them by the words "for a term not exceeding five years." That is the first point.
However I must call the attention of the house to the drafting of the clause, which is different from the drafting we accepted in this house. In order to be clear probably I should read the clause as adopted here, and then as corrected. As adopted the clause read:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than five years who, not having a permit in Form 76 has upon his person elsewhere than his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house, or premises,
or is carrying concealed upon his person or in any vehicle under hi3 control or of which he is an occupant a pistol, revolver or other fire arm capable of being concealed upon the person.
This was corrected and the new clause as suggested reads as follows:
"118. Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, who, not having a permit in Form 76,-
(a)	has upon his person elsewhere than in his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house, or premises, a pistol, revolver, or other fire arm capable of being concealed upon the person;
or who not having such permit,
(b)	is carrying in any vehicle under his control, or of which he is an occupant, a pistol, revolver, or other fire arm capable of being concealed upon the person."


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What is the idea of adding
"or who not having such permit"? That is included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 119. I believe it is simply repetition.


Maurice Dupré: I do not think it is repetition.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: The second amendment is to section 119, subsection (b) which first read as follows: "Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction to a penalty" and so on who:
(b) being an alien, has in his possession any shot-gun, rifle or other such fire-arm or any ammunition for any such fire-arm without having a permit in Form 76B.
Here is the amendment as it reads:
Provided however that any bona fide sports' man and hunter shall be permitted to enter or pass through Canada having in his possession any shot-gun, rifle or other such fire-arm, or any ammunition therefor, on condition that he pass continuously through and out of Canada or if not that he apply for a permit in Form 76B without undue delay after entering Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Halsey Perley: The other changes are merely verbal.


Maurice Dupré: Section 120, subsection 1 is
amended by adding the following words:
_ or for target practice in a regularly organized shooting club approved by the attorney-general of the province in which such club is organized.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: What is the purpose?


Maurice Dupré: The section gives the right
to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any officer thereof duly authorized, to issue a permit in form 76b to
Canada Grain Act

any person, upon being satisfied that such person requires a pistol or revolver for the protection of life or of property, and also for target practice and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: The other is not of great
importance. In subsection 3 the word "in" is replaced by the word "for," to make it clear. It will read:
3. Any permit issued hereunder shall remain in force only during the calendar year for which it is issued. . . .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Maurice Dupré: Subsection (b) reads as
follows: Whenever the governor in council deems it in the public interest, he may by proclamation:
(b) forbid for such period as he deems fit any person except such persons as may be expressly exempted . . .
And we add "or classes of persons" after the word "persons." Just verbal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 3-New forms enacted.
Maurice Dupré: The last is verbal, an amendment to form 76. By this form permission is given to Mr. Blank to carry a revolver, for instance, for the protection of life or property, and we add the following words:
Or for target practice.
In order to make it consistent with the preceding.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 79 to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I understand that the purpose of this bill is to carry out recommendations of the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Mr. STEVENS:: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I have a good deal of confidence in those gentlemen. Looking over the bill I feel that I can with safety support it. I was wondering who drafted it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was drafted by the chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners in conjunction with Mr. Sweatman. It was then submitted to the law officers of the house and to the Justice department, so they all had a finger in it.


William Richard Motherwell: That is what I understood. I was wondering why it was necessary to engage Mr. Sweatman when we have already a regular lawyer, of six month's standing at least. This is not a difficult bill to draw. I would imagine that the law officers knowing exactly what the board wanted, it would not be necessary to pay special fees to Mr. Sweatman when we had Mr. Taylor available. Maybe the minister has an explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have a very full explanation, but I would prefer that we continue that discussion under our estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Discharge of grain if not owner.
Mr. DONNELLY:: Do I understand that this is to allow terminal elevators at the seaports to discharge or ship grain which is not their own property?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is really to do the opposite. It is to bring that practice under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Separate elevator receipts.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a typographical error on line 20. The word "is" should be "in."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
George Halsey Perley: As some of the miscellaneous items are not contentious I thought we might consider them.
To provide for the arbitration costs-"I'm
Alone" case, $8,500.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the acting Prime Minister tell us where the I'm Alone is now?

Supply-Miscellaneous


George Halsey Perley: The right hon.
gentleman must be a little kind to me to-day, for I'm alone myself. The matter is still pending; recently I saw some further papers with regard to it, whidh I have not had time to read.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the administration of the Royal Canadian Mint, including salaries, contingencies, retiring and other allowances, and general expenses, $180,000.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Under this item I should like to know whether the government is going to conform with section 133 of the British North America Act, which provides that all acts of parliament should be bilingual. The other day I heard the 'hon. member for Regina say that we should not go beyond the British North America Act in respect of the minority in this country, and my own opinion is that we should conform to that act and follow its spirit. I was rather surprised to hear that statement come from the hon. member, but this is another story and probably Saskatchewan should put its house in order first. Section 133 of the British North America Act is very clear; all acts of parliament should be published in English and in French, the two official languages of the country, and I believe that should apply to our money as well.
Mr. MARCIL:: In the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to ask the Solicitor General for his view with regard to the section referred to by the hon. member for Montmagny. Is it a question of right or what is it?


Maurice Dupré: I have no abjection to
answering that question; my views were expressed in this house during the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Belle-chasse, and I would refer my hon. friend to my remarks on that occasion.


Charles Marcil: Could the hon. gentleman
say in a word what were his views?


Maurice Dupré: I think it would be better
to read the whole speech; then my hon. friend will get the right idea.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Would the hon. gentleman
say whether he is in accord with the views expressed by the hon. member for Montmagny?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, $50,000.
John Campbell Elliott: I spoke to the Minister of Finance when his estimates were under consideration, asking whether he had received from the superintendent of bankruptcy any general statement as to what had taken place in regard to bankruptcies during the calendar year 1932. Members of the committee will remember that when the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act were before the committee attention was directed to the very small amount of money that reached the creditors of bankrupt estates. I think of some $58,000,000 in claims in 1931 about $14,000,000 was realized and something less than 84,000,000 went to the creditors. It was thought that by strict supervision over the administration of bankrupt estates by the superintendent, expenses might be reduced and the proportion reaching the creditors increased. I spoke to the Minister of Finance the other evening, and I thought he intended to get in touch with the superintendent of bankruptcy to see if we could have a statement covering the year 1932. That gentleman is in a better position to furnish such a statement than anyone else, and I think it would show whether we are getting any real results from the changes we made, including the appointment of the superintendent.


George Halsey Perley: Would it answer the purpose of the hon. gentleman if I asked the Minister of Finance to prepare a statement as soon as possible?


John Campbell Elliott: The Minister of Finance
stated that he would get in touch with the superintendent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention to be carried on by the Department of Insurance, $9,300.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe some report was made recently by an official of the Finance department with regard to a disastrous fire that took place in Hull. Would the minister state who the official was and what his particular functions are?


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. J. Grove Smith is the fire protection commissioner. The work he performs is almost entirely of an advisory, educational and consulting nature, maintaining records of fire losses, preparing reports upon fire prevention legislation and fire protection methods in Canada and foreign countries and so on, with a view to establishing reasonable standards of fire prevention and fire safety in Canada. I have had no official contact with the fire in question or the investigation which I believe was conducted with respect to it, but my impression is thir,
Supply-Miscellaneous

this investigation was carried on by provincial authorities. At all events I shall institute inquiries and ascertain the facts and give them to my right hon. friend before we rise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it
would be well to let the item stand until we get those particulars. It was somewhat of a surprise to discover that the Department of Finance had an obligation in the matter to the extent reported in the press.
Item stands.
Office of the Prime Minister-salaries, $25,830.


Mr. POULIOT:: I know the Prime Minister is a very hard worker but I should like to relate an instance which came to my notice. One of the officials of the Kiwanis club of the district of Washington wrote to the Secretary of State of the United States to ask if it would be possible to obtain a bottle of water from the House of Commons in Ottawa. There was a celebration to be held in Washington and the club wanted this water in order to drink a toast to Canada. The Secretary of State of the United States very gravely wrote to the Canadian minister in Washington to ask him if he could supply this sparkling fluid. The Canadian minister wrote to the Department of External Affairs, and I was just wondering if the department communicated with the office of the Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: If they did not communicate direct with the office of the Prime Minister, the subsequent actions were taken under the supervision of the Prime Minister himself. He gave instructions that his department should communicate with the Sergeant at Arms. The Sergeant at Arms gave instructions to the chief messenger to fill a clean bottle with water taken from a tap in the House of Commons. The chief messenger filled a bottle with water and returned it to the Sergeant at Arms. It was then turned over to the Department of External Affairs which sent it by special mail or express, I am not sure which-


Charles Gavan Power: Diplomatic courier.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Quebec South suggests that it probably went by diplomatic courier. However, the bottle was sent to the Secretary of State of the United States who forwarded it to the Canadian minister, who in turn had it conveyed to the president of the club.


Mr. MALCOLM:: It did not turn out to be anything else, did it?


Jean-François Pouliot: This was during prohibition and probably the president of the Kiwanis club thought that there was something pleasant to the taste in the water drunk by the members of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister may be very busy with matters of state, but if his time is taken up with such things as sending a bottle of water from Ottawa to Washington, he might better stay here and listen to the speeches delivered by hon. members.


Mr. NEILL:: I am sorry the Prime Minister is not present as there was a matter I wanted to take up with him. However, as no other opportunity will be afforded, I will take up this matter under this item. On June 22, 1831, upon going into supply, I raised the question of the need of reopening the matter of compensation for the pelagic sealers on the Pacific coast. There was considerable debate at that time in which the Prime Minister took part at some length. He concluded with these words:
However, now that the opportunity presents itself I shall make inquiry and ascertain from a study of the documents whatever may be necessary to aid my somewhat fautly memory upon some of these points.
If that means anything, I take it to mean that he would look into the situation to see whether action was justified. It is quite a burning question out there. There are a number of people who feel they have been very hardly used in the matter. This is a complicated question with which I am not going to delay the committee now. There are three or four different classes of applicants who consider they have not received justice, and my suggestion was that the government should take into consideration the question whether they should not reopen the whole investigation. Judge Audette was sent out there a number of years ago. To prove that the matter is still a live one in the city of Victoria, I see by a newspaper paragraph that the city council is proposing to seek compensation under the pelagic sealing treaty for three old sealers who are now at the old men's home and it is proposed to ask the Dominion government to investigate the claims of the men, et cetera. It certainly is a question which, if there is any force in the argument that a thing is never settled until it is settled right, should be revived. As I say, I do not want to delay the committee by going into the merits of the matter, because it is too complicated, but I am strongly convinced and many men who are more conversant with the matter than I am are also convinced that certain classes of men are not getting a fair deal.

Supply-Miscellaneous
In regard to the tentative promise of the Prime Minister, I may say that I have been from time to time making attempts through his private secretary to find out whether anything has been done in the matter. I wrote to the private secretary first on December 27, 1931, again on May 10, 1932, again on August 25, 1932, and again on February 9, 1933. Not having received any reply, my only recourse is to bring the matter up in parliament. We are voting, I think, a substantial addition to some secretary's salary. I do not know whether it is this particular gentleman or not, but when a member writes to the secretary of the Prime Minister on a matter that has taken place in the house, he is entitled to a reply. On two occasions I did meet the gentleman and he told me orally that the matter was going to be dealt with or at any rate I would receive a reply, but that has not been forthcoming. I hope the Prime Minister will take notice of this and see that the matter is attended to. This is not a question as to whether I get an answer or not. I am quite indifferent to that. It is a question in respect to which a very substantial wrong has been done to a number of Canadian citizens. The money was appropriated to compensate them and they were not compensated. The money went into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. I hope whoever is in charge for the moment of the item will bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.


George Halsey Perley: I shall certainly take steps to see that it is brought to his attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs - London - salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $1,800 additional to that authorized for the High Commissioner by chap. 15, R.S.C., $123,660.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Inasmuch as the Prime
Minister is absent, would it be agreeable to take up the items of the Department of External affairs and leave one item standing with the understanding that any matter may be discussed on it? The first would be number 213, the item now called.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is satisfactory so far as the opposition is concerned, on the understanding that on the item left over we may discuss anything.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be
better to allow the item for the office of the High Commissioner in London to stand.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I understand any discussion will take place on item 213.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.
Item stands.
Maritime Freight Rates Act - amount required to provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National Railway Company of the deficit in receipts and revenues, occurring in the year 1933, of the eastern lines, as provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act:
(a)	Amount of the deficit (less that amount thereof as in the next following paragraph specifically provided for) in the receipts and revenues, $6,611,000.
(b)	Amount of the deficit in receipts and revenues occurring on account of the reduction in tolls under the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, $1,404,270.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is it not proposed to leave one of these items in the supplementar-ies, upon which any matter can be discussed?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly, if the hon. gentleman wishes one to stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And we shall be free to discuss any supplementary matter upon it?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.
Item stands.
Public Works-Miscellaneous-Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $63,700.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, clerks, etc., of outside service, $419,000.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $10,000.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys and settlement of land damages, $25,000.
National Gallery of Canada, $35,000.
National monument on Connaught place. $75,000.
Surveys and inspections, $55,000.
Balance of expenditure for works already authorized, provided amount for any one does not exceed $200, $5,000.
Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for. not more than $3,000 to be expended upon any one work, $50,000.


Robert Gardiner: Would it not be possible to allow one of the items in the public works estimates to stand? One of my colleagues wishes to discuss the matter of dredging.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are still two items remaining, if that would suit the purposes of the hon. gentleman. There will be no curtailment of discussion.


George Halsey Perley: Items 270 and 271 still remain.
Supply-Trade-Statistics


Charles Gavan Power: I would like this item to stand because I want to ask for certain information respecting the war pictures that are supposed to be in the cellar of the National Gallery. I want to know if they are still there.
Item stands.
Trade and Commerce-Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and also to provide for the appointment of James Muir as Compiler of "Daily Bulletin," Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Department of Trade and Commerce, at $2,520, per annum, effective April 1, 1933, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $549,300.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us whether the advertisement I have under my hand, dealing with what the minister expects Canada to do, comes from the bureau of statistics or from the bureau in the department?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is under publicity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That comes a little later, does it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Research Council, $404,500.
James Malcolm: I want to make one observation on this vote. I am not criticizing the size of the vote, but I want to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Finance that in all the expressions which they have received from chambers of commerce all over Canada as to what might be done to reduce the expenditure of the administration not one has referred to this item.
I think that in this item lies the greatest opportunity for economy that might be practised by the government of Canada. I am informed that although the Dominion of Canada has built one of the finest research buildings to be found anywhere, with the definite intention of coordinating the research work of the various departments of government, there still remain thirty-four separate laboratories operating outside the research council building. I quite appreciate the difficulty that faces the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or whoever is the minister in charge of the estimates for the research council. I realize the desire of every deputy minister to retain within his department as many services as he can, and yet in these days when economy should be the watchword, and coordination of services should be resorted to in every way possible, it does seem to me a perfect disgrace that we should be main-
TSir George Perley.]
taining laboratories in so many different departments, and should not be coordinating the work of research when we have the facilities to do it.
I know perfectly well the attitude of the Prime Minister. I know that when he was leader of the opposition he felt at the time the research council was started that there would be difficulty in having the various departments release their research work so that it might all be coordinated. But I submit to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there is no more effective way of practising economy at the present time than by compelling the deputy ministers who are retaining research departments of their own to help coordinate the work of research. These deputy ministers are all members of the research council, and there should be no rivalry. Research can be done better through coordination of effort in one building than by separate effort in scattered laboratories. Duplication would be avoided, and money would be saved. The research council building was erected for that purpose and I urge upon the Minister of Finance that he bring this matter to the attention of council, and that this duplication be done away with. The vote itself is not large enough. It is in the votes of other departments that savings could be effected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might in a word or two explain the situation. With much that the hon. member has said I am entirely in accord. The development or growth of these separate research laboratories in different departments is, I think, a matter for regret. We have had the matter under study for some time. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues were discussing the whole situation, and it is intended as soon as parliament prorogues to give the matter very careful study and do the utmost possible to coordinate these services.


James Malcolm: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are a few of them that are necessary in other parts of the country; I Shall not go into detail, but coordination can be carried on under the direction and general aegis of the research council and its main central laboratories. .


James Malcolm: I rise only to assure the minister that what he does in that regard will have the full cooperation of those who sit to the left of the Speaker; that was the very purpose for which these laboratories were built by the former government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-T rade-Printing
Printing of parliamentary and departmental publications, including the "Canada Year Book," $139,325.
Mr. HEAPS:: I do not know what is included in this item, but there are certain publications coming to members of the house which I think a great many of us would be glad not to receive. I have in mind two publications which are distributed to members each year, but for which no payment is made. I refer to the Canadian Annual Review and the Parliamentary Guide. I wonder which department pays for these publications?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Parliamentary Guide is prepared privately by officers of the house. There may be a grant, although I am not certain that there is. However it does not come under this vote. I do not think the Canadian Annual Review is published by a department.


Mr. YOUNG:: There is a special item dealing with it.


Mr. REID:: That is a. private book. Are there no grants made to either of these publications?


Eugène Fiset: No; a number of copies are bought by the House of Commons and the Senate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the same thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Parliamentary Guide is entirely a private enterprise.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is any grant made by the government for the printing of it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: So far as I know there is not. I make that statement subject to verification.
Mr. N'Eil'LL: There is an item in the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For .the Guide?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there is.


Edward James Young: There is an item in the estimates for the Canadian Annual Review at $8 a copy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are talking about the Parliamentary Guide.


Eugène Fiset: I believe a certain number of copies are bought and distributed free to the members.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably that is right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to have this matter settled. Personally I am in favour of cutting both out.


George Halsey Perley: I am quite sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated the true facts. So far as I know, no money is voted for purchase of the Parliamentary Guide. Usually however the Senate and House of Commons buy a number of copies for distribution among the members.


Alan Webster Neill: That is the same thing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, that is the same thing. If five hundred books are purchased by the government it is the same thing as giving a grant. I would be in favour of cutting out those purchases. If the members want them, let them buy them from the publishers. I should like to know if the minister or any other member of the government can inform the committee as to the number of books purchased, and the price paid?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can state definitely that it does not come under this item. However I shall make inquiries and ascertain what is done. I am under the impression that at the present time no public money is granted to the Parliamentary Guide. However I make that statement with the reservation that I shall look into the matter.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it possible, as has been stated by the acting Prime Minister, that a large number of these books are purchased, and that they are distributed free to the members?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not speaking with any degree of certainty, but my impression is that that used to be the case, but that the practice was discontinued two or three years ago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the minister in a position to tell the committee whether the Canadian Annual Review is purchased by the government and then distributed to the members?


Charles Gavan Power: May I tell the hon. member that at page 18 of the estimates under the heading "Contingencies" the following item appears:
To purchase, for the use of senators and members of parliament, 360 copies of the Canadian Annual Review, edition of 1932-33, $2,340.


Alan Webster Neill: I think we will find a similar item for the Parliamentary Guide.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Probably this discussion is
not relevant to item 285, but my personal opinion is that it would not be a bad idea for the government to discontinue the purchase of these publications for the members

Supply-Trade-Publicity

of both houses of parliament. I should be happy to have the government take that matter under advisement, and consider discontinuation of purchases of the Canadian Annual Review. If the same practice is followed in connection with the Parliamentary Guide they might-


Mr. QUINN:: Include Hansard as well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would not object.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Cut off some of the speeches.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, including the sum of $100,000 for publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe to be administered by the High Commissioner for Canada, $173,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have some
observations to make concerning the item for publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, including the United Kingdom and Europe. This afternoon we passed rapidly a good many items. I should like to state that in passing those items we would not wish the committee to assume that we do not think there is room for a good deal more in the way of economy in regard to some expenditures of the departments. We realize, however, that at this stage of the session it is probably desirable to hasten matters along, and for that reason we have been content to refer only to one or two items which serve as illustrations of how further economies and avoidance of waste might be effected.
I have in my hand a full page advertisement which appeared in a great many Canadian newspapers. I shall ask the minister to tell the committee how many papers carried the advertisement, their names, and the amounts paid to each. The paper I hold in my hand is the Hamilton Spectator of Thursday, January 5, 1933. Before reading the advertisement I just wish to remind the house of what the Prime Minister himself said, namely, that in the last analysis, exports can be paid for only by imports. In that connection I should like the committee to keep in mind the effect of the government's restrictive tariff policies upon the possibility of extensive importations into Canada.
I believe this advertisement represents a waste of public money; money is simply being thrown away on this type of advertising. It cannot possibly bring in a return to any extent worthy of mention. The advertisement reads:
Canada expects that every producer, every business man, this year will do his duty. And under present conditions his supreme duty is

to export, as much as possible, whenever, wherever possible.
Canada never needed more export trade as urgently as she needs it to-day.
She needs it because of the employment it would provide for thousands of those who are now out of work.
She needs it because of the added production . it would give her with little or no increase in her overhead, thus improving her competitive position both at home and abroad.
She needs it because of the important part it would play in the solution of the international exchange problem.
Help to bring about a substantial increase in Canada's export trade, and better times will automatically follow.
New Opportunities Beckon
The new trade agreements now in effect with other parts of the British Empire create wonderful opportunities for increasing Canada's trade abroad. But to take full advantage of these new opportunities you must supply commodities which meet the requirements of overseas purchasers.
Price, quality, continuity of supply, these are the prime requisites in securing and maintaining overseas markets. Competition is keen. Purchasers are discriminating in their tastes and preferences. Study their needs and give them what they want, when they want it, and how they want it.
Help Canada by accepting Canada's offer to help you!
H. H. Stevens,
Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, that sort of lecture or exhortation to the commercial interests of Canada, paid for as advertising matter, is as good an example as could possibly be given of sheer waste of public money. What is needed for a furtherance of export trade is a change of policy on the part of hon. members opposite. Instead of telling Canadian exporters to do the impossible under conditions for which the government itself is largely responsible, let the government by its policies make it possible for the producers of this country to export. Will the minister explain the last sentence in the advertisement-"Give them what they want, when they want it, and how they want it"? What does that mean under present opportunities?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It means precisely what
it says. That is one of the things which is necessary more than anything else in Canada. The Canadian exporter must study the requirements of foreign markets, and must give them the articles they want in line as nearly as possible with their demands. He must study the markets abroad and time his exportations to suit the requirements of those markets. The right hon. gentleman has on several occasions, in fact ever since I took charge of this office, criticized me very bitterly

Supply-Trade-Weights and Measures
for anything that I have done at any time in connection with publicity. This particular publicity was the subject of so many favourable comments that I was satisfied it was a timely and proper note to sound in regard to our export business. I quite admit that the right hon. gentleman will differ from me in this respect, but this advertising is done with an earnest desire to stimulate the interest of Canadians in our export business. I am not desirous of entering into a lengthy discussion of the matter, but may I say briefly, that our exports, as far as quantity is concerned, leaving aside price, have been kept up remarkably well. I have been proud of what Canada has achieved in this respect, particularly in the last year of serious depression. We are simply doing our utmost to extend that.
The right hon. gentleman referred also to the amount allocated for advertising in Great Britain. That includes the regular campaign in respect to Canadian apples, instituted before I came into office, which has been perhaps one of the most successful pieces of advertising that the people of Canada have ever undertaken. It was carried on under the officials who were in charge of it before we came into power. The cost is some $10,000 to $20,000 a year; I think last year we expended $20,000 on that account.
We are also carrying on advertising in Great Britain in connection with maple products, canned goods and other Canadian products. The amount allocated there has been materially cut down. But I feel quite satisfied with the efforts we have made in that respect. I recognize that the right hon. gentleman disagrees with me; he has sought on many occasions to refer humourously to these things and if that gives him any satisfaction it does not hurt me. But I want to assure him that these things are done with the definite object and desire to assist in the expansion of Canadian business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has not told me in how many papers he has inserted these advertisements and what was the expenditure involved.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid I have not
under my hand the detailed information in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is important that the committee should have that information before the item carries. Perhaps the minister would make a note of it and give the committee a list of the Canadian papers that have received this advertising.
53719-278J


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the right hon. gentleman will let me have the advertisement I will attend to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to know how much has been spent in connection with this advertisement. The minister might also inform the committee whether he has given similar advertisements to other papers, and how much has been spent on government advertisements of the kind mentioned in Canadian publications.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall be glad to get that information.
Item stands.
_ Weights and measures inspection service, including international bureau of weights and measures, $311,620.


Thomas Reid: What item of revenue does this come under?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under weights and measures. My hon. friend wants the revenue for last year, I presume. The revenue for 1930-31 was $420,000; for 1931-32, $406,000. At the time this statement was made the end of the year had not arrived, so I have not the precise figures for 1932-33.


James Malcolm: That branch of the service is more than self-sustaining, and has been.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It shows a balance every year.


Thomas Reid: I should like to make a suggestion. I understand that a charge is made of $2.50 for inspecting gas pumps. I had a complaint from Vancouver the other day. It is well known that some gasoline stations now have eight or ten different pumps, and the inspector comes along and charges the owner of the station $2.50 for every gasoline pump he has. I suggest that the minister take that under advisement, because it does not take long when the inspector is there to go over all the pumps. Many stations are complaining that it is too much to charge $2.50 for every pump they own.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already gone into the matter with care, and I cannot find that there are any hardships. The inspection is once a year. It is a protection to the seller of the gasoline as well as the public; particularly of course is it a protection to the public. It is a good service, well organized and carried on in an excellent manner, and while we have had a few complaints regarding
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

fees-very few-I have gone into that phase carefully and I see no reason to lower the fees. I can assure my hon. friend that the question has not been treated lightly.


Robert Gardiner: May I call the minister's attention to the dissatisfaction that is prevalent concerning the manner in which coal is weighed. I think it has been brought to the minister's attention on several occasions within the last twelve months. The complaint is that the weighing of coal in the railway cars by the railway companies is not accurately done; very often the cars are short two, three or four tons. We think a more accurate method should be devised. Has the minister given the matter any consideration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There may be isolated cases that I have not heard of. If the hon. gentleman has any information and would let me have it confidentially we will follow it up at once. But it must be apparent that there is a double check on this. The railways will weigh these cars to the maximum weight they hold for the purpose of getting the maximum revenue; for the charge is according to weight. There may be occasional inaccuracies, but they are rare. I think the business is now on a very excellent basis. But I shall be glad to have any information of that character, and to look into it at once.


Robert Gardiner: I think information was sent to the minister some twelve months ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not charge my mind with it at the moment.


Robert Gardiner: I will make inquiries, and if the situation is as it was twelve months ago I will give it to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Atlantic ocean-Pacific ocean-local services, $2,172,930.
James Malcolm: There is a very large
increase in the Canada-United Kingdom and Canada-South Africa services, also in the Pacific service, Canada-China and Japan, over what was granted a few years ago. I wish the minister would explain those increases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The increases arise out of this situation; the steamship lines of competing countries are subsidized very heavily, to the extent of at least three times what we are paying. Our steamship service in these waters is of vital interest to the maintenance of our trade routes. The matter was very carefully considered, and we decided that in order to keep these splendid mail, passenger

and freight services going it was absolutely essential that very substantial subsidies should be granted, and as my hon. friend knows these subsidies were adopted two or three years ago.
Then with regard to the item for South Africa, there is a splendid opportunity at the present time for an expansion of our trade from the Pacific coast with South Africa, touching also the easterly coast of that country. While that service has not been allocated or tenders called for, later on it is intended to have that done. The object is to establish a continuity of service on the Pacific between Canada and South Africa. At present our goods are carried there by lines operating directly from San Francisco and Seattle. Briefly this is the explanation for these two items.


James Malcolm: I have no objection to
the old-established subsidy with regard to the service on the Atlantic between Canada and South Africa, nor have I any objection to the new service which the minister proposes to establish between Canada and South Africa on the Pacific. This subsidy for service between Canada, 'China and Japan, however, is a very large item, and I should like to know to whom it is paid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian Pacific.


James Malcolm: I submit to the minister that this is another case of an abnormally large subsidy being paid to encourage trade, While the purpose is defeated by one of his own colleagues. Some time ago I pointed out to the Minister of National Revenue that raw silk could be imported into New York without the application of any dumping duty at all, whereas in Canada the Customs department applied a currency valuation which allows a dumping duty on this article. A man buying a hundred thousand yen worth of silk, which would be about $25,000 worth, could save $1,400 by buying that silk in New York instead of buying it in Tokyo and importing it by Canadian steamships through a Canadian port. Here we have the Minister of National Revenue making it easier for the silk to be taken via the Panama canal to New York than to be brought directly to Vancouver, and yet in the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce we have this very substantial sum of $659,000 being voted which is paid the Canadian Pacific in order to encourage trade with Japan. I submit to the minister that this is a very large subsidy. Some years ago the British government wanted to secure the flagship of the Atlantic, and subsidized the Cunard line to

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
construct the Lusitania and the Mauritania. The subsidy granted amounted to S364,000 per year per ship. The British government got two fast transatlantic transports, which they could and did use for troop ships in time of war; they had the flagship of the Atlantic, and all this for a sum not much greater than the amount we here ask for one service. In my opinion $659,000 is a very substantial amount, and is quite out of line with the volume of tonnage being carried on the route. I believe this first item of $535,000 to subsidize the line between Canada and the United Kingdom on the Atlantic is justifiable to some extent because it includes the farmer subsidies for mail service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Pacific subsidy includes mail service also.


James Malcolm: But these two items, totalling practically $1,200,000 a year, at 5 per cent would represent a capital investment of $24,000,000. In consideration of the volume of trade that is moving at present I consider them very generous subsidies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has not been quite fair in his analysis. Previously we paid the cost of carrying the mails, but that is included in this service.


William Daum Euler: How much was that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was looking for that information, but I do not seem to have it here. It is a very substantial amount. On the Canada-Australia service the cost of carrying the mail is greater than the subsidy we give, and we may have to bring that back to where it was formerly in the supplementary estimates. Then there is another point: On the Pacific coast the United States pay a subsidy of $5,000,000 for the China-Japan service.


James Malcolm: But they have a large volume of business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have a very substantial business also with both China and Japan, and our trade with those countries is increasing. On the Atlantic these subsidies ensure a service which could not be maintained otherwise, at least in these days. We thus provide for the carrying of the mails and we have a fast, all-Canadian route. My conviction, after going into the matter with great care, is that we are justified in paying these subsidies.


James Malcolm: Has the minister any figures that would indicate the percentage of the total trade passing over this route which would be represented by this subsidy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not think so; the figures never have been segregated in. that way. There is no question as to the remarkably fine service given by this company with regard to high class freight going from Canada to the orient. Our high class package freight moves with very great dispatch.


James Malcolm: But the volume is small.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is very considerable.


Alan Webster Neill: Was not the China vote cut by a third last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Previously it was $988,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The business under the
heading of private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will now revert to committee of supply.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions-Atlantic ocean Pacific ocean-local services, $2,172,930.
Thomas Reid: The committee will remember that last year I discussed the matter of the employment of orientals on subsidized Canadian ships. At that time I pointed out that while it was true that we had no control over the employment of seamen on ships operated by private owners, we as a country should give a lead in seeing that something is done to have more Canadians employed at least on our subsidized ships. At the present time there are 2,573 orientals engaged on ships running out of the Pacific coast while over 2,000 white seamen are without employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where do those ships ply
to?


Thomas Reid: The Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited operates a line between Vancouver and the orient. The steamship Empress of Asia employs 500 orientals; the Empress of Canada employs 500; the Empress of Japan, 495, and the Empress of Russia, 500, while each ship has a personnel, including the captain and engineer, of only 60 to
Supply-Trade-Siibsidies

65 white Canadian seamen. In the coastwise service, 107 orientals are employed by the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited while the Union Steamships Limited employs 90. Large subsidies are paid to these companies. I believe I am correct in stating that a subsidy of $4,950 per outward trip per ship is paid to the British Canadian Steamships Limited which employs approximately 300 orientals.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does Japan pay any subsidies to these companies?


Thomas Reid: My information is that they
do not. I understand, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, that this company sometimes charter other ships, and that they receive the same subsidy for each outward journey, and this is money which they obtain for very little outlay. After investigating this matter, I have come to the conclusion that these subsidies do not help the lumbering industry of British Columbia. I think it was last year that the minister pointed out that they were given in order to encourage this industry, but I do not think they help at all.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon.
gentleman please explain himself a little further?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You might object to the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) who started these.


Thomas Reid: If they were given to companies employing orientals I would have taken exactly the stand I am taking right now. I understand that a Mr. MacMillan is in charge of lumber sales for British Columbia. When he receives an order the rates are quoted to various parts of the world, to China, to Australia, to New Zealand or some other country. I maintain that the lumber would be shipped just as cheaply to these particular countries even though no subsidies were paid. At the present moment ships come to the Fraser river to load lumber for Great Britain and other parts of the world. Although they are not subsidized by their respective governments, they carry the lumber at as reasonable rates as this subsidized company.
I think it is about time that we in Canada began to look after our own people a little bit. Every other country is giving encouragement to the employment of its own nationals as seamen.' When a Norwegian ship comes to Vancouver or New Westminster it is manned by Norwegian seamen; British ships are manned by British seamen, the Australian 
ships by Australian seamen, but when it comes to our own ships, no encouragement whatever is given to the employment of Canadian seamen. When subsidies are paid by the people of Canada, Canadian seamen should be employed. There is another- matter to which I would like to refer but it is one for Which perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no responsibility. Ships of British registry entering the ports of British Columbia will not engage Canadian seamen. I should like to read a sworn statement by one Paul Bailey. It reads:
He says regarding his application for a position on the steamship Janeta, which I believe is a British vessel:
That I produced my discharge certificate numbered 10094 as aforesaid, and opened the same showing the entries covering my periods of employment from the year 1925 to date.
That after perusing the same, the said master informed me that I could not obtain employment unless I had a British Board of Trade discharge book, and was domiciled in England.
That I was born in Canada and have always lived in Canada, and I explained this to the master, but he still refused to give me employment for the reasons aforesaid.
That the assistant shipping master who was present did not inform the master of the vessel that Canadian born seamen who have resided in Canada are unable to obtain British board certificates in Canada, and that my certificate of discharge book is the proper certificate for me to have, and is the certificate that is generally accepted, at the port of Vancouver by British masters seeking to employ firemen or trimmers.
That I am informed and verily believe that the said ss. Janeta-
That is the ship the master of which refused to hire this Canadian seaman because he was not domiciled in England and did not have a British board of trade certificate.
-is subsidized by the Canadian government, and that the said vessel is trading between Canada and the orient and that I am advised and verily believe that the refusal of the said master to employ me. by reason of my failure to possess a British Board of Trade certificate was improper.
That suitable regulations covering cases of this kind should be forthwith made to prevent repetition of these occurrences affecting myself and other seamen.
And I solemnly make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and knowing it to be of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
He signed this before a justice of the peace. It was sent to me by the Canadian Seamen's Institute of Vancouver, along with one or two other affidavits to the effect that Canadian seamen could not obtain employment on British ships coming to the ports of New Westminster and Vancouver.

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
It is high time that we in this country take serious note of the fact that no encouragement whatever is given to our seamen and young men to follow the calling of the sea. It is annoying to think we would have that number of orientals employed on ships on the Pacific trading between foreign ports or carrying on coastwise trade, when there are in the ports of New Westminster and Vancouver more than 3,000 Canadian seamen who are willing to work and who are just as competent as, if not more competent than, the orientals, but who cannot obtain positions or employment on those ships on account of the fact that orientals are given the preference.
It has been stated before that if we commenced to curtail the employment of orientals, Japan or some other foreign country might take note of the fact. It might be interesting to the committee to know that Australia, which has gone very far in that sort of legislation and which does not allow ships with oriental crews to unload in her ports, a move which one might consider very drastic, has been doing far more trade during the past three or four years with Japan and China than Canada has. But I come back to the point that every country is giving encouragement to its own nationals while we in Canada ignore this entirely, although we have on the entrance to the parliament buildings the words:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: North should have
been added to that.


Thomas Reid: I am willing to add that, only I hope when the north is added, the unwholesome conditions that we have on the Pacific coast will not be found there also.
The situation in the east is different from that on the Pacific, because ships from eastern Canadian ports are employing Canadians.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No.


Thomas Reid: Two days ago the question was asked in the railway committee and I was informed that boats belonging to the Canadian National and plying between Atlantic ports and the West Indies were employing Canadian citizens. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: They are not.


Thomas Reid: That was my information. I am sorry to hear they are not. That makes the situation all the worse.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Whom are they employing?
Mr. LaVERGNE: Englishmen, Scotchmen or Welshmen, but not Canadians.


Thomas Reid: It has been stated that many of these orientals are British subjects, and I believe if they come from some Chinese ports, they claim to be British subjects, but no one can be sure *yvhether they are or not. Personally I doubt their statements. But what I want is that we employ our own people, because the Asiatic, whether he calls himself or actually is a British subject, is of a nonassimilable race. I could point out the danger that might arise, if war broke out in the Pacific, with all these orientals on board these ships. Take, for example, ships with a crew of 600 orientals and only a few whites. It may be said that orientals are necessary in carrying oriental passengers. We are not objecting to a few orientals being carried on these ships, but we are objecting to the employment of hundreds of orientals as against a very few whites. I urge upon the minister and the committee that we show the way to the others by inserting in the contracts for our subsidized lines some provision that on a mail subsidized ship or one subsidized for the carrying of cargo, greater consideration be given to our own Canadian citizens.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just'a brief reply to my hon. friend. In the first place it must be borne in mind that these ships are running from a Canadian port to two oriental countries, China and Japan, and in the question of international trade one must respect the rights of one country just as much as those of another.
In regard to the Canadian Pacific ships which make Hongkong their terminal port in China and Vancouver their terminal port on this side, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out many of the crews are British subjects taken on at Hongkong. I tei him very candidly now as I told the house last year, that we certainly cannot suggest a discrimination agaist British subjects from any part of the British Empire, whatever their race, colour or creed may be.
My hon. friend says that the British-Can-adian steamship service is of no use to British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: I said to the lumber industry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was going to say that he had better address that observation to the lumber interests of British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: I certainly shall.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, it has been of very great assistance to the lumber trade of British Columbia, particularly in the
Supply-T rade-Subsidies

last year or so. This service was started several years ago. The first contract was with Mr. H. R. MacMillan, who, if not a shipowner, was a ship charterer and carried on his business in that way. He had a three year contract entered into with my predecessor in office. At that time he ran to Australia, but the last two years or thereabouts he ran to China. I have before me the figure as to the lumber carried and it runs into a very considerable amount. The main reason for the granting of that subsidy was to assist in the moving of lumber freely from British Columbia. It was considered to have been a good service and profitable to that province in its results. Last June or thereabouts this contract ran out and we called for tenders for another one. While under the previous contract we paid $7,700 a trip, the British Canadian Steamship Company made a tender at $4,950 a trip, a very greatly reduced amount, and they were given the business. They have two ships not only wholly Canadian owned but built in the city of Vancouver during the latter part of the war by the Coughlan shipyard, and those ships have been operated by them ever since. In addition to those two ships, on one or two occasions they have had additional lumber offering to what they were able to carry and they asked for the privilege of an extra voyage; they chartered a ship and they got that privilege. I would not stand in their way and they moved the lumber and moved it quickly. These chartered ships in practically every instance were British bottoms. Obviously it would be unwise for this government to dictate to the shipping interests of Canada or Great Britain just what type of crew they should carry.
I can tell the committee frankly that we have gone into this matter with considerable care, and there is no way, apart from abandoning the contract altogether, in which we could dictate to them what crews they should carry. It is true we could put in a clause that they must carry only Canadian crews. That could be done, but the service would cost a tremendous amount more. I am not desirous of entering into any argument or discussion over this matter; I am merely stating the facts as they exist. Take, for instance, the Canadian Pacific boats. A very large proportion of their passengers carried in the second class and in the steerage are orientals, and it is quite obvious, without desiring to make any invidious comparisons, that white crews would not serve oriental passengers of the steerage and second class on board those ships. That is the experience of these fMr. Stevens.]
shipping concerns in oriental waters. Besides, there is an element of fairness in this, because we are seeking to develop trade between Canada and China and Japan, and I think it would ill become Canada through its parliament to discriminate against the citizens of the countries with which we are seeking to develop trade. There is an element of fairness and common sense in this case which must be recognized.
The hon. gentleman also stated that the trade was no good for Canada. I happen to have under my hand a letter dated March 6 last which I shall quote in part to indicate the value of this British-Canadian Steamship Service in carrying lumber freight from the province of British Columbia to the orient. It is addressed to myself by Mr. Day of the Federal Lumber Company, and reads in part:
When you appointed the Ocean Shipping Company Limited of Vancouver, B.C., to receive the subsidy to China, we were greatly encouraged, as this is solely a shipping company. Our company immediately took steps to form a connection in China, as we were thus assured that we would get equal freight rates with all competitors. The result has been very gratifying In February we shipped 400.000 feet of lumber to Shanghai, and will ship 700,000 feet of cottonwood logs in March. We are ncgotiat-ing to-day on a yearly contract for 8,000,000 feet if our present shipments on arrival are satisfactory, as we are sure they will be. Further, one of our principal customers in Shanghai has never bad a British Columbia source of supply, so that his shipments are a straight gain for Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which Mr. Day is that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. E. S. Day, president of the Federal Lumber Company. We have abundance of evidence that this service is highly appreciated by the lumber interests of British Columbia. I may tell the committee very frankly that I am not prepared at this time to say that we should attempt to dictate to the steamship companies the ratings that they should carry on their ships. This is a matter that has been well worked out among the shipping interests of the world. We do endeavour to limit the vessels to British ships when British ships are available. It is true that in previous years Swedish or Norwegian ships have occasionally been chartered, but not many. The ships were largely British bottoms chartered by MacMillan, who held the previous three-year contract, and by the present contractors. There are two British Columbia built boats, and one or two other ships which were British bottoms have been chartered; That is virtually all there is to say on the matter, Mr. Chairman. Personally I

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
am very well pleased with the results of these subsidies so far as the Pacific coast is concerned.
One observation I should like to add, and that is that the freight services from Seattle and San Francisco competing with the services from British Columbia are all heavily subsidized by the United States government, and I say frankly that Canada cannot compete unless a subvention is paid that will enable us to do so by a reduction of the freight on lumber-I am speaking of lumber now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where
does the item for the British-Ganadian Steamship Company appear in the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It appears on page 37 of the estimates, the first item under the heading "Pacific Ocean," and the amount is $66,000.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not that the subsidized service of the British-Canadian Steamship Company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought the minister gave a different name when quoting from the letter a moment ago. I thought he quoted the name of the company which bad the contract as the Ooean Shipping Company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister be good enough to go through the list of services appearing under the heading "Pacific ocean", and indicate the company that receives the subsidy in each case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: With regard to the first one, the British Columbia-Australian service, the word "Australia" might as well not be there, but that was the original contract made about five or six years ago when the service included Australia. My predecessor came to parliament in 1929, if I recall aright, and asked that it be changed to "Australia and/or China," but since then the service has been run exclusively to China. That is the British-Canadian Steamship Company, known to those familiar with shipping in Vancouver as the Coughlan Company.
With regard to the next item, $100,000 for the British Columbia and South Africa service, there is no subsidy contract outstanding, but there is a very excellent prospect for vastly increasing our business with South Africa. We have been tremendously encouraged with the outlook in South Africa and in west and east Africa.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No contract has yet been awarded for that service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. We will call for tenders later. The next is the Canada, China and Japan service, $659,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How much of that subsidy is for mail service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not segregated but last year from April 1 to December 31 this line carried 62,000 bags of mail. A very substantial portion of the subsidy would be for the carriage of mail.


Alfred Speakman: Does the company receive any other subsidy for the carrying of mail besides this sum granted by Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not from Canada.


Alfred Speakman: This covers the entire cost to the Canadian government of carrying the mail?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. It includes our mail service and the maintenance of this very important communication with the orient. I have under my hand a list of the steamship lines subsidized by the United States government, and the subsidies amount in all to $5,000,000 a year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
Pacific coast?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, for services running from San Francisco and Seattle to Japan and China.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many subsidized vessels are there on the United States side?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is difficult to say. I imagine it takes about six or seven weeks for a round trip, depending upon what the trip is. There are nine different lines subsidized; I have not the ships.
The next item is for the Canada New Zealand service. That is the regular Canadian-Australian-New Zealand service run by the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand as distinct from the Union Steamship Company of British Columbia. In regard to this subsidy may 1 say that the value of carrying mail exceeds the $75,000. We cut this to $75,000 last year, but I intend later to bring in a supplementary estimate to meet the actual cost of carrying the mail. Then we have the Prince Rupert and Queen Charlotte Islands service; that is Canadian National. Then the Vancouver and British West Indies service is handled by the Canadian Transport Company. That is a freight service which has done excellent service. It carries, chiefly, lumber, oats, hay and other produce, and some fish. Then we have the Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia service at a cost of
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

SIS,600, credited to the Union Steamship Company, That is a local coastwise service. Then there is the Victoria. Vancouver, way ports and Skagway sendee, $12,500, a Canadian Pacific service- to the north, including the carriage of mail. Then we have the Victoria and West coast Vancouver Island service, operated by the Canadian Pacific from Victoria around the west coast of Vancouver Island.


James Malcolm: At six o'clock, the minister promised to bring in some figures showing the amount of freight carried on the Canadian Pacific steamship lines, which receive a subsidy of $669,000 per annum. In 1928, 1929 and 1930, when we were doing business with Japan amounting to $44,000,000 a year, no subsidy was paid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1932 the total was
18,000 tons measurement and 69,000 tons weight to a value of $6,3S3,O0O. In 1931 it was $7,495,000 for a period of nine months only, from April 1 to December 31. That is on the whole service.


James Malcolm: Has the minister any
knowledge of what was formerly paid the Canadian Pacific for the carriage of mail before he put both services under one subsidy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not the total
amount, but I know one dollar a cubic foot was paid.


James Malcolm: It would be interesting
to have that information.


Thomas Reid: I should like to say one or two words more before the item passes. I cannot agree with the minister when he states that we in Canada cannot dictate who shall be employed on subsidized ships. It seems strange that Canada should take the stand that she cannot do it when other countries of no greater importance do it. Yet we seem to be afraid; the minister says that it would interfere with trade and that any interference would be dangerous to Canada. We know that no ships carrying oriental crews can unload in Australia ; yet Australia has prospered as much as Canada. Before the depreciation of the yen and the general depreciation in exchange currencies, in the years 1928,1929,1930 and 1931, she did more business than Canada did with Japan and China, yet Australia excludes the Oriental entirely. They have a law under which they allow no Chinamen or Japanese into their country. Despite those facts their trade has not been harmed. From the Canadian Association of Seamen I have a letter, part of which is as follows:
Our investigation committee discovered that Italian ships, Norwegian, Swedish or Danish, German, French, Chinese and Japanese all

carried their own nationals aboard their ships, but when it came to the examination of vessels flying the British flag and sailing under Canadian registry, to our amazement they reported that there were 2,573 orientals on Canadian registered vessels, and on rechecking these figures wo discovered that number if anything was a conservative estimate.
I cannot agree with -the minister when he states that we cannot dictate, and I believe it is about time we did dictate, on behalf of our own people, and especially when we -are paying over a million dollars in subsidies to ships and plying on the Pacific out of New Westminster or Vancouver. The item before us is for $995,540, and I think that figure is further augmented by a subsidy of $4,950 per month. Before I sit down I should like to ask if the Empress liners are being overhauled at Esquimalt dock. Last year some arrangements were made I believe for overhauling in Esquimalt and I believe the Canadian Pacific did consider overhauling at that point. Are they having their ships overhauled at Esquimalt?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Generally speaking they
have been overhauling at Hongkong; I believe -that has been the practice for about thirty years. One ship was overhauled at Esquimalt last year.


Alan Webster Neill: Yo-u gave way on some of
th-e docking charges.


Thomas Reid: The largest dock in Canada
is situated at Esquimalt; it could take care of -the largest liner. Yet this company, receiving so much money from the people of Canada and flying a Canadian or British flag, according to -the point of registration-because some of the ships are registered in London, England, and some in Canada-and carrying oriental crews, are not willing to spend any money in Canada; when they want any overhauling done they go to Hongkong and leave our own yards idle. That condition should n-o-t obtain. I had hopes when the minister made arrangements last year that all repairing would be done at Esquimalt dock, and that all Canadian Pacific ships would be overhauled at that point. Apparently, however, they continue to have that work done in China or Japan. I object very much to the Canadian Pacific or any other company using oriental crews and having their work done at other points, especially when that company is subsidized and assisted by Canadian funds.


James Malcolm: I should like to consolidate as briefly as I can my criticism of two items in the estimates. The people of Canada are asked to vote $659,000 for service between Canada and China and Japan, a

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
vote which did not exist in the year 1930 when this government came into power. They are also being asked to vote subsidies between Canada and the United Kingdom on the Atlantic for $535,000, another vote which did not exist in 1930 when this government took office.
The minister points out that part of this service is the carriage of mail. In the estimates for the Post Office Department for the year 1930, at page 73, we find that the total amount of money paid by the Post Office Department of the Dominion of Canada for the carriage of mail by steamship, on all services, Atlantic, Pacific and internal, amounted to only $530,000. Therefore, if we allowed all the money which the Post Office Department paid for these two services we find that we still have an increase on these two services alone of well on to $700,000. I submit to the minister that the trade of Canada at the present time does not justify any such increase in the amounts paid to steamship companies. In 1928 our trade with Japan was $32,000,000 export and $12,000,000 import, and no subsidy of $659,000 was paid to carry that trade. True the American government do give subsidies, but they give a less rate per capita or per ton of freight than Canada. This trade would move without any such substantial subsidy.
As to the other items in the estimates, I have very little complaint. I believe they are the ordinary subsidies which have been granted for many years. The subsidies to New Zealand and Australia are quite in line with the volume of business carried; they amount to only $60,000 or $70,000. But these other amounts are very substantial. One of these subsidies is as large as the British government paid for the building of the Mauretania and the Lusitania, the two ships of the Cunard line which gave Great Britain the blue ribbon of the Atlantic, and two of the finest troopships for use in time of emergency. I submit that the minister should reduce these estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How long has this $659,000 item been in the estimates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the third year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
in a word support what has been said by the hon. member for North Bruce and the hon. member for New Westminster. The minister rather suggested, although he was not very definite, that the company which is getting this tremendous subsidy could not compete if it employed none but white seamen. He also suggested, I gather, that international
complications might result from excluding from employment on ships in this trade the subjects of other nations across the Pacific.
I suggest that that argument does not apply. Especially in a service subsidized by the Canadian government we should insist that at least a substantial majority, say seventy-five per cent, of all ranks on the ships should be Canadian seamen. The minister knows as well as I do that the feeling on the Pacific coast, especially in Vancouver and New Westminster, in regard to this matter is becoming very acute. I suggest that in a time of unemployment and emergency over 3,000 of our Canadian unemployed in these ports, men well qualified for all grades of service, could be given work on these ships. When we are giving such a tremendous subsidy to one company it should be on the condition that at least a substantial majority of those employed should be our own Canadian seamen.
I agree with the hon. member for North Bruce in regard to the major portion of the 84 subsidies; I think they serve a good purpose and help to develop the trade of the Pacific coast, but I am sure the minister himself would like to see our Canadian seamen employed. The day will soon come when we must insist on this or cease paying the subsidy. It would be of tremendous help in solving our unemployment problem; it would remove two or three thousand unemployed from the coast cities of British Columbia, and the same thing might apply on the Atlantic. Now that Canada has assumed all the obligations of nationhood, I do not see why we should not restrict this employment to our own sailors, to the exclusion of others, including those of other countries of the empire. I think our own men are as well qualified as any, possibly not as engineers, but in most grades of service. I think an administration elected on the cry of "Canada first" should carry that policy to its logical conclusion and restrict employment on lines subsidized or controlled by Canada to Canadian seamen.


William Duff: I was very interested in what
the hon. member for North Bruce said in reference to the difference between the amount of trade done from Pacific coast ports to China and Japan this year and last compared with the trade done three or four years ago. He argued that because of the reduction in trade there should not be such a large subsidy paid. I think the reason this large subsidy has to be paid is that there has been such a large decrease in trade.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no doubt about that.
Supply-Trade-Subsidies


William Duff: It is due entirely to the policies of this government. The foreign trade of this country has decreased more than fifty per cent. In 1929-30 the trade was $2,600,000,000, but due to the policies of this government it has decreased until now it is only something like $800,000,000.


Mr. HACKETT:: All the fault of the government!


William Duff: And the hon. member for
Stanstead (Mr. Hackett)! The reason the government is compelled to pay these larger subsidies is that if the subsidies were not increased these steamers could not continue to operate on the small amount of cargo which is now being carried.
I notice that the minister has been rather generous to 'his own province. Of course he represents a constituency in British Columbia, yet he is Minister of Trade and Commerce for the whole of Canada. I am not going to object at the moment to the fact that a very large part of the several subsidies under the heading of the Pacific coast is paid in order to encourage the export of lumber from British Columbia ports. If the minister in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce thinks it is in the interest of Canada that subsidies should be granted for the carriage of lumber from Pacific coast ports, then I say that as Minister of Trade and Commerce for the whole of Canada he should also have provided that the same treatment be given to the ports on the Atlantic ocean. We on the Atlantic coast are just as much entitled to have ships subsidized and encouragement given as they are in the province of British Columbia. Perhaps after I sit down the minister will give the committee reasons why he has picked out one province and ignored the Atlantic ports, because as far as the lumber industry is concerned that is what he has done; there is no money voted in these estimates to encourage the lumber trade from Atlantic ports.
There is another matter to which I want to refer. I notice that while the minister has been giving these large subsidies to British Columbia, and has voted a new item of $100,000 for one service alone, in respect to the small local services in the maritime provinces, he has not only reduced the amounts previously paid but has cut several of them out altogether. There is a very important service between the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, and the town of Digby, Nova Scotia. It is not only a convenient service to local travellers between those ports, but also to passengers travelling between Mont-
real and Nova Scotia using the bay of Fundy route. Yet I notice that the minister proposes, in order to provide this $100,000 for the shipping interests in British Columbia, to cut out entirely the subsidy given for the steamship service between Saint John and Digby. On that route there is one of the best steamers running on a coastal route in Canada. I am sure the Minister of Pensions and National Health will agree with me that it is necessary that that important service be kept up, not only for the ports of Saint John and Digby, but in the interests of the maritime provinces generally. I notice there is another service cut out. This is not in my own constituency but in the province of Nova Scotia, so it shows I am not selfish about it at all. The taxpayers and citizens of that province have helped to pay their share of large amounts for the Canadian National railways, for the Canadian National steamships services and other matters. The people of the districts to which I refer have no railway connections; their only connections are by means of the small steamers plying from the city of Halifax to different ports along the Nova Scotia coast. But I notice that this government, which in this case is penny wise and pound foolish, in order to save a little money has discontinued a subsidy for the service between the city of Halifax and the port of LaHave, in the constituency represented by my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg. The port of LaHave is some fifteen or tweny miles from a railway station. This steamship called at three or four ports which had no railway connections, and it seems to me that it is not fair to these people, who have paid their share of our railway costs, to cut out this subsidy and cut off their communication with the rest of the province except by sailing schooners. It would cost only a small sum of money to maintain this service, and I believe these people are entitled to some consideration from this government.
Now I am going to get a little more selfish. I notice that there are two services in my constituency, one of which is from the town of Mulgrave, which is a railway centre, to the town of Guysborough, the shire town of the county. I notice that for this service the sum of $10,500 is allotted.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is not enough.


William Duff: No, it is not; that is what I am coming to. This amount was formerly $14,000. If this service was discontinued these people would have to drive sixty miles to a railway station, but with this reduction the company

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
which has the contract must use a boat less suitable for the service than otherwise would be the case. So far as I am concerned, if they are necessary in order to help business on the Pacific coast or anywhere else I do not object to these large subsidies, but I say it is just as important that the small services, which perform a very good work in looking after the people who have no railway communication, should be continued. I say it is not fair for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to reduce or eliminate these items, in order to save a few thousand dollars.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the sum of 333,750 is to be voted for the service between Mulgrave, Arichat and Canso. The minister will tell me, no doubt, that the late government also paid a very substantial sum for this service. That is quite true, but then the service was direct from Mulgrave to Canso, which is not the case now. The boat leaves Mulgrave and goes to Arichat, which is in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance; then, after unloading its freight and passengers, it has to go across to Canso, usually arriving there some time after dark. The towns of Canso and Hazel Hill are sufficiently important to have a direct service from Mulgrave to Canso, and the passengers and freight should not have to wait while the boat calls at Arichat. I suggest to the minister-and I think I wrote him in this connection-that the department should arrange to continue the practice followed in the past and have two services, one from Mulgrave to Arichat, and the other direct from Mulgrave to Canso. The boat used on that service is fairly good, but I think it would be much better if the minister would arrange to split this subsidy and have those two services carried on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. -member has covered a good deal of ground, and with much that he has said of course I am more or less familiar. Certainly 1 will take into consideration some of his very reasonable and moderately worded requests. I am not prepared to tell my hon. friend now that I will do all that he asks, but certainly I will look into -the matter very carefully. As a matter of fact we are making a very close study of these matters and it may be that some adjustments will have to be made. On the other hand, however, with regard to my hon. friend's comparison of the subsidies on the Atlantic with those on the Pacific, we must bear in mind that there are some services being given at government expense. For instance there is a service between the eastern ports, Montreal in
the summer, and Halifax and Saint John in the winter, and New Zealand and Australia, both carried on by the Canadian National steamships. While they do not receive a subsidy from this department they receive -more or less of a subsidy by way of payment of their losses, under another department. If we check off one against the other we will find that there are only -the China and Australian services from the Pacific, while on the Atlantic we have the South African service, the Australian service and the New Zealand service, not given under direct subsidies but carried on by the Canadian National steamships. There are also a number of coastwise services in British Columbia which correspond to the long list of coastwise services on the Atlantic. I merely mention this in passing, because I think there is a fairly good division.
I was rather surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for North Bruce. It is true that the value of the trade has fallen, but I should like to give the figures of the ton weights carried by these ships on the Pacific, for instance. From April 1 to December 31, 1931, this service carried 52,900 tons weight and 1,330 tons measurement. During 1932 it carried 69,364 tons weight and 18,373 tons measurement. From these figures it will be observed that the volume of cargo is being well kept up, but of course the value is down. Commodity values are exceedingly low, but the service for which these ships are subsidized is being carried on in a manner most helpful to Canadian trade. I submit to the hon. gentleman-and I am certain that if he had been in my place during the last two or three years he would take the same view- that without subsidies we cannot expect to maintain these mail, passenger and fast freight services, with these splendid liners on the Pacific and on -the Atlantic, in competition with the highly subsidized lines of the United States. It cannot be done. I know that last year there was a heavy loss on this service; I know the company was very seriously embarrassed in maintaining the service even with this subsidy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which
service?


Henry Herbert Stevens: On both the Atlantic and the Pacific. It would be a calamity to Canada, and I should not like to take the responsibility for bringing it about, if the magnificent service which has been maintained for so long should be dropped at this time. As times improve and -travel once more develops, in all probability there will be

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
no need for the payment of this subvention but at present I believe parliament and the country is justified in assisting to maintain these services.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for An-tigonish-Gusyborough sought to draw a comparison between the Atlantic and the Pacific in regard to subsidies granted. I do not think the subject is one in connection with which a comparison should be drawn, but while the hon. member was talking I added up the subsidies on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The subsidies paid on the Atlantic amount to about $200,000 more than those paid on the Pacific. As I say, that comparison should not be made. The hon. member gave the impression, unwittingly no doubt, that the greater part of the money paid on the Pacific was concentrated towards helping the lumbering industry. I would point out that out of a total vote of $999,450, only $66,000 goes to subsidize a line devoted to the carrying of lumber. The comparison is made still more unfair when it is remembered that boats running from British Columbia carry not only the products of that province but the manufactured goods from the east and even from the maritime provinces. They carry on a nationwide trade. I would be very sorry to see this first item, which covers service between British Columbia and Australia and/or China, interfered with. This service has been of very substantial value to the lumber interests in the district I represent. I had something to do with the service which was inaugurated under the late government.
I accompanied a delegation of lumbermen from British Columbia who interviewed the Minister of Finance. That service was a success under the former government [DOT] and although changed to include the China trade it has been a success and I beheve will be more of a success in the future? I hope no attempt will be made to interfere with this item. Does the minister happen to know the names of the ships operated by the British Canadian Steamships Limited?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The steamships City of Victoria and City of Vancouver. There are one or two other ships under charter, the steamship Bosworth and the steamship Janeta.


Alan Webster Neill: A complaint has been made by the hon. member for New Westminster against Canadian seamen being refused employment upon ships receiving subsides.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are looking into that matter.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member cited a case referring particularly to the steamship Janeta, but in connection with the steamship Bosworth, I should like to read part of a letter received from the Canadian Association of Seamen. I have no way of checking up the statements made in this letter, but I direct it to the attention of the minister. It reads:
I have further evidence, secured only a few hours ago, on the ss. Bosworth, a vessel chartered by the British Canadian steamship company and subsidized also by the government, that this ship has been trading on the China service for some considerable time but has not once purchased any fuel in Canada. The last time she fueled on her way to British Columbia was at the Japanese port of Mauran, when she took 2,500 tons of bunker coal aboard.
The minister was thoughtful enough to put a clause in the contract, a copy of which I have before me, that this company should use Canadian coal. If this vessel has not been using Canadian coal, it is a breach of the contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that that vessel was chartered only for one voyage. I assume she came in with her bunkers full and did not require any coal. The request for permission to charter this vessel was made because there was a pressure of lumber for export.


Alan Webster Neill: Did she make only one trip?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is she was chartered only for the one trip.


Alan Webster Neill: This letter states that she has been trading in the China service for some considerable time but has not once purchased any fuel in Canada. I quote this letter for what it is worth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is that it was chartered for only one trip.


Alan Webster Neill: It is stated also that the steamships City of Victoria and City of Vancouver are using oil for fuel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My information is that they are using coal.


Alan Webster Neill: If that is the information of the department, there is nothing further to say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot dogmatically contradict my hon. friend, but that is my information.


Alan Webster Neill: You cannot switch from coal to oil in twenty-four hours; if the boats have oil burning machinery, they are using oil. Will the minister look into this?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
Mr. LaVERGNE: I wish to couple certain representations of my own with those made by the hon. members for Vancouver Centre and New Westminster. It is absolutely impossible for a Canadian seaman to obtain employment on the Canadian National ships operating on the St. Lawrence river and the Atlantic ocean. Their crews are foreign or at least English, Scotch, Welsh or Irish, and it is absolutely impossible for a Canadian to get employment.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order; I object to a Scotchman or Englishman being termed a foreigner.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I mean foreign to Canada, not Canadian bom. I will try to satisfy the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, but I must say that I am in favour of employing Canadian bom.


Humphrey Mitchell: What category would the hon. member put me in as a member of this house-a. foreigner?
Mr. LaVERGNE : I hope the hon. member will not ask me to give him a character because that would be beyond my capacity.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that is a slur on many hon. members of this House of Commons.
Mr. LaVERGNE : The hon. member is entirely mistaken; I was referring to Canadians living in Canada, whether they are of Scotch, Irish, French, Gaelic or Welsh descent. I claim a preference should be given to Canadians who live in Canada and who were bom in Canada. If that does not satisfy the hon. gentleman, I am very sorry but that is my policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all very well, but the attitude is taken by the deputy speaker of this house that British citizens should be denied the right to earn a living. That is an impossible situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do not worry; we are doing pretty well.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I might say to the hon. member that he is still at sea. I am talking of Canadians living in Canada, citizens of Canada. I claim that preference should be given to Canadians in making up the creiws of the ships of the Canadian National steamship company. In order to qualify as a pilot a man has to put in so many thousands of miles upon the sea. There are many young men who are trying to qualify for these positions who cannot obtain employment on
Canadian National steamships. That company goes to Newfoundland, to England, to Scotland and to Ireland to obtain their crews. That is not a Canada first policy, and as far as I am concerned I protest against it.


William Duff: I am sorry the hon. member for Comox-Albemi misunderstood my previous remarks. I made no comparison between the subsidies paid to steamers plying from Pacific ports and those plying from Atlantic ports.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the hon. gentleman's apology.


William Duff: The hon. member also left the impression that I objected to the payment of these subsidies. I do not object to the payment of subsidies to steamers plying from British Columbia ports. What I said was that this government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are asking parliament to vote large sums of money to help the shippers of lumber from British Columbia ports, and I asked the same consideration for the shippers of lumber from Atlantic ports. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give the same treatment to the lumbermen on the Atlantic coast that he gives to those in British Columbia. I am sure the Minister of Fiaanoe and also the Minister of National Health will agree with what I am saying.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that I had covered a great deal of ground. That may be true. The trouble I find with the Minister of Trade and Commerce is that he did not cover as much ground as I did; he stuck to British Columbia and I am trying to treat all parts of the country alike. He replies that he	considers	he	is justified inasking parliament to vote these large subsidies for carrying lumber from British Columbia ports, because certain steamers belonging to the Canadian National steamships leave Montreal with cargo for New Zealand and Australia; that those steamers are operating at a deficit to the country and we are paying that deficit. He considered that the one would offset the other. If he will inquire into the matter of the ships operating between Montreal and New Zealand and Australia, he wall find that very little lumber is	carried; that	they are	cargoboats, carrying	all kinds	of	freight.	Consequently it is	not fair	to	compare	those
boats with the tramp steamers which are carrying lumber out of British Columbia ports.
As regards the service between Mulgrave and Canso, the minister said that he would look into the matter. I might say that I took
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

this matter up with him six months or more ago, and it is time now that he change the present service and put on two boats, one to the constituency of the Minister of Finance and one to mine, instead of having one boat cover the two services. I want to say to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is not fair to the people in Arichat and Petite de Grat, Canso, Hazel Hill, that one steamer should be subsidized to perform this service. In the old days there were two boats which left Mulgrave, one going to Arichat in the county of Richmond and the other to Canso, with the result that mails and passengers were carried much more quickly. The minister should decide now to make this change. I understand that the present contract either expired a few days ago or is expiring in a few days, and consequently, in the interest of the Minister of Finance and myself, I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to arrange for two boats instead of one to cover those services.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We amalgamated those
services last year and it has worked very satisfactorily. We have had no complaints whatever, except one letter received from my hon. friend. I will promise to review the situation with care, but I could not say now, in the light of our present information, that it would be wise to change the existing arrangement, which we think is an improvement on the two services. My hon. friend knows the situation so intimately and speaks with such earnestness that I shall certainly look into the matter as he has suggested. I cannot, however, at the moment give him any assurance.


William Duff: Then, when I object so
strongly to this service the minister should not say that it is satisfactory. This service is most unsatisfactory. There was never any reason why the two services should have been combined. There was a good service with two boats, one going directly from Mulgrave to Arichat and Petite de Grat in the con stituency of the Minister of Finance and the other going directly from Mulgrave to Canso. Those services were quite satisfactorjq and when the minister now says that there has been no complaint, he does not know as much about the matter as I do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree that my hon.
friend knows more about the service than I do.


William Duff: Then why does he say that
it is satisfactory?

Mr. STEVENS1:	My hon. friend is mistaken; I said that we had received no complaints whatever except the one letter I got from my hon. friend.


William Duff: Who would make the complaints except myself? I am the member for the constituency of Antigoniish-Guysborough. The board of trade of Canso and the people in that section have written me perhaps hundreds of letters in regard to that service and of course, as is my duty, I pass the information on to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the minister says that the service is satisfactory, I say that it is not, and in the interest of that important part of the country he should immediately cancel that contract and call for new tenders for the service. I do not care what the minister does so far as the constituency of the Minister of Finance is concerned; if the latter is satisfied, all right, but the boat leaving Mulgrave should go directly to Canso instead of to Petite de Grat.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I do not know why the hon. member is complaining so much. He at least has received an answer; I have been ignored altogether. I should like to know whether it is the policy of the government not to employ Canadians on Canadian National steamships.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I might make the suggestion to my hon. friend, that is out of order.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will, I am
sure, appreciate this point. The question he is discussing comes under the estimates of my colleague and deskmate, the Minister of Railways.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If I am out of order, I will accept a ruling of the chair to that effect; but the hon. member for New Westminster has been discussing the employment on these ships of Chinese, Japanese and other orientals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And under these estimates.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	So that I am in order
to discuss the matter in connection with a ship subsidized by the Canadian government to go to the West Indies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not in this vote
at all.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Well, I shall seek a better opportunity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member had
better rule himself out of order.

Supply-Marine-Coast Service
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I shall rule myself out
of order, accept the ruling not of the chair, but of the committee, and give the committee an opportunity to reflect upon what I have said. What about companies which trade on the north shore of the St. Lawrence and for which items appear in this estimate? Have tenders been asked for from those companies?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Most of those contracts
are long-term ones entered into some six, seven or eight years ago. I think they expire in 1935-ten year contracts.
Mr. LaVERGNE: None has been renewed this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE: None with the Clarke Steamship Company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Duff: They can be cancelled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They can be cancelled
onfy for cause.


William Duff: Quite right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or by parliament refusing
to vote supply.


William Duff: But the government have cancelled some.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not these that were current for ten years. Most of them are one-year contracts and they expire from year to year. The ones about which the hon. member asks are ten year contracts.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If they are ten year contracts, I suppose they cannot be cancelled except for cause, but there is plenty of cause because there has been no greater exploitation of the settlers on the north shore than by the Clarke Steamship Company. That is a well known fact. No one can accuse this government of not granting favours to Liberals, because when they are entering into contracts with that company, they are helping no friends of theirs, and they know that or should know it.


Edward James Young: I have before me the estimates for 1930 and I notice under this item of Pacific ocean services, the subsidies that year totalled $226,000. Now they are over $900,000. In' the four years they have been multiplied by four. What is the reason for this increase? Has the trade increased in proportion?	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have spent about two hours and a half largely on that point. I am sorry my hon. friend has not been in his seat.


Edward James Young: If it has been explained, never mind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has, I think, been fully exhausted.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a few words in regard to the position taken by the hon. members for Vancouver Centre and New Westminster with regard to subsidies on ships on the Pacific coast. I am not so much concerned whether Canadians or foreigners are employed, but I am concerned as to the conditions under which they have to work. I believe, if the government would do in this respect as they do in others where they give assistance or where government grants are made, that is, lay down certain rules and regulations as regards conditions of work and wages paid, the problem of the nationality of the sailors or others engaged on *those ships would be solved. I am quite sure that when the Canadian Pacific or any other company employ orientals instead of Canadian or British seamen they do so because they find it is cheaper. The number of orientals engaged on these boats is exceedinyly large, aggregating on the four Empress boats some two thousand orientals I believe, as against some 260 white men. This is quite a large subsidy, and I believe the government should carry out in this matter what has been its policy in respect to other grants in aid, namely lay down rules and regulations as to the conditions of employment and the wages paid. If they did so I am convinced that the wishes of the hon. member for Montmagny and others concerned as to the nationality of these seamen would be met. I would ask the minister if he will take this into consideration. Otherwise I think the committee should seriously consider before passing an item of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will .examine into the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine-Lighthouse and Coast Service- construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $1,860,000.
Thomas Reid: On this item I would like to say a few words regarding lighting conditions on the Fraser river. Last year when I brought this matter up the minister was kind enough to say that consideration would be taken oi my observations, and later on instructions were issued by his department for the conducting of an investigation into the lighting on the Fraser river. I must thank the minister for having caused that investigation to be made last year. I think he will agree with me that

4420	COMMONS
Supply-Marine-Coast Service
the remarks which I made last year as to what was wrong with the lighting on the Fraser river have been proved to be substantially correct by the report which has been made to the minister. I shall deal later with that report. What I rise to complain of now is that the letter which I received from the Acting Minister of Marine would indicate that no action is to be taken on that report, although the report stated that the lighting on the Fraser river was inadequate and very much out of date. The letter which was sent to me by the Acting Minister of Marine in answer to mine is dated September 8, 1932, and reads as follows:
I beg to refer to letter addressed to you on the 19th May last by Mr. Duranleau, in reply to your letter of the 17th, in the matter of aids to navigation on the Fraser river.
As no doubt you are aware, the matter has been the subject of conferences between the New Westminster harbour commissioners, the Fraser river pilots, representatives of this department and _ the Department of Public Works, and certain other individuals interested in shipping there.
Recommendations have been submitted involving an expenditure of over $60,000 for certain changes and additional aids to navigation which would involve an annual expenditure of over $5,000 to maintain them. It seems that any part of the whole scheme would be of little or no value, and, according to the pilots, even if the recommendations put forward should be carried into effect deep draught vessels could not be navigated by night owing to the restricted width and acute turns in the channel from buoy No. 26 to No. 16. The pilots do say that additional aids to navigation would be of assistance to vessels of light draught navigating at night.
While present financial conditions will not permit of taking any action in this matter the report will be useful when further consideration is being given to it.
I would point out to the minister and the committee that from the point at which a vessel leaves the gulf to come up the Fraser river there are fourteen different courses or changes in course covering a distance of some fifteen miles. I claim that the report which was made by the representative of the department in charge in Victoria, Colonel Wilby, should be noted seriously by the minister. I wish to complain particularly of some of the paragraphs in that report.
But first I would point out to the minister that the port of New Westminster is one of the few ports in Canada where shipping has increased during the present economic distress. I 'believe that in the amount of ship-ing it is the second highest port in British Columbia. In the month of October last at least 37 ships called there, and the wharfage accommodation was taxed. During September, 32 deep sea ships called at that port. It was

expected that October last would prove a record month both in the number of vessels and in tonnage, and that by the end of the year the tonnage for the twelve months period would run to approximately 500,000 tons.
The diversity of export shipments may be seen in the cargoes that are being loaded in the harbour to-day. I am quoting from the shipping record appearing in one of our papers:
M.S. Hikawa Maru is taking on 1,000 tons of lead for Japan; ss. Golden Court 1,200,000 feet of lumber for Australia; ss. Bencloueh 1,000 tons of wheat and 1,000,000 feet of lumber for the United Kingdom, and ss. City of Victoria is loading 1,500,000 feet of lumber for Shanghai. Two ships, ss. Turaneentes and Viking Star are loading large consignments of apples for the United Kingdom.
Four Hundred Steady Jobs
During September and this month approximately 400 longshoremen have been given fairly steady employment and on several occasions crews had to be called from Vancouver.
I have quoted that to indicate to the minister that the port has reached remarkable proportions. On February 16 of this year fifteen deep sea ships arrived at New Westminster, and the report of the harbour commissioners shows:
For three months since January 1 this year (1933) 86 ships of 500,000 gross tonnage came into port compared with 82 ships of 455.000 gross tonnage for the same period in 1932. Cargo exported amounted to 110,000 tons, a slight increase over last year.
It is also reported that a feature of shipping for the month of April will be a heavy export of fertilizer from the big plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Limited, at Trail. The S.S. Mala of the Matson Line was booked to take 3,100 tons of fertilizer on April 3, and S.S. Mana of the same line, 2,500 tons on April 17. So the minister will see that the business of the port is greatly increasing in volume, and as I said before it is one of the few ports in Canada where in the last few years there has been an increase in tonnage and shipping, during which most of our ports have experienced a falling off in trade.
A comprehensive report was made by Colonel Wilby, of Victoria, upon the lighting requirements on the Fraser river. That report fully substantiated the representations I made to the minister in the house last year. I think that certain statements that are made in Colonel Wilby's report had a bearing on the letter which was sent to me in September last by the Acting Minister of Marine, in which he stated that the department could not see its way clear to improving the light-

Supply-Marine-Coast Service
ing at the present time. I claim that the situation is a very serious one. This report is in the hands of the department, and it might be used as a reason why navigation lights will not be installed on the Fraser river. Colonel Wilby states in the report that either the present pilots are not qualified to say what is required by way of aids for safe navigation on the Fraser river during hours of darkness, or if they are qualified it would be only a waste of money to grant the present request in any modified form whatsoever. If for any reason this or that aid asked for were not installed the pilots will still be able to say that they are unable safely to navigate vessels on the river at night.
At a meeting which was held at New Westminster, which Colonel Wilby, the board of trade, the harbour commissioners, the council and myself attended, it was pointed out by Colonel Wilby that until such time as 9,000 feet of dredging had been done the ships could not come up during the night. May I point out to the minister the fact that the tides vary. In the winter the high tides are during the day, and in the summer they are at night. Ships must therefore navigate during the night time if they are to take advantage of the high tide period. So the statement that ships have to come up in the day time is not correct by any manner of means. Last year I pointed out to the house that quite a number of ships were turned away on account of inadequate lighting.
In another report Colonel Wilby repeats that statement, because I find he states:
In conclusion I would ask for your attention to the statement on page 7 of my report of June 10. 1932, namely, that it will be a waste of money to grant the present request in any modified form whatsoever, as if for any reason this or that aid asked for is not installed the pilots will still be able to say they are unable to safely navigate vessels in the Fraser river at night for want of adequate aids to navigation and also to the points raised in the first two paragraphs on page 4 of the same report.
In all seriousness I take exception to Colonel Wilby making such damning statements and reiterating them in further communications, because they are not correct. He states that the pilots are bucking the idea of having lights installed because if lights are installed-so Colonel Wilby states-they will find some excuse for not bringing up their ships at night.
The minister has no doubt received communications from the council and board of trade stating that if lights were installed 80 per cent of the shipping could use the river twenty-four hours of the day. But, 20 per cent of the shipping could not use the river until a certain portion of the river had been 53719-279J
dredged. Only a few moments ago I said that that percentage of shipping could only use the river when the tides are right. In the summer time the tides are at night, and for that reason all shipping would have to go up the river at night. I believe the following letter from the city council and board of trade fully explains the situation:
An application has been submitted to your department for improving existing range lights and for additional lights on the Fraser river. It was brought out at the meeting of the New Westminster board of trade that 80 per cent of Fraser river shipping would be benefitted and enabled to navigate at night by the installation of lights applied. This opinion is approved by the Fraser river pilots, and when the channel is straightened from King Edward cut buoy to. a point opposite Scottish Canadian cannery as recommended 'by district engineer of the Department of Public Works 100 per cent benefit would result. It was represented by shippers that considerable loss of business, some of which has been diverted to United States ports, and delay to ships has resulted through lack of these aids to navigation. The New Westminster board of trade strongly and respectfully endorse applications and improvements and additions to Fraser River lights also the recommendation of the district engineer, Department of Public Works, in connection with channel improvements.
I am appealing to the minister. There is no reason why this program of navigation lights should not be proceeded with. Even if the government is cutting down expenditures, and cannot see its way clear to spend the whole of $60,000 in one year, certainly something considerable should be spent each year, and the expenditures should not be spread over too long a period. The port of New Westminster is growing, and anything in the way of insufficient aids to navigation will certainly have a serious effect, on its future growth. The board of trade also take exception to the present conditions. Then, the secretary of the New Westminster harbour commissioners write as follows on October 14, 1932:
Replying, I would state that you are correct in assuming that when it is stated that 80 per cent of shipping would be benefitted at the present, time if these aids were installed, the remaining 20 per cent would be deep draught vessels, which could not, with safety, be navigated after dark, owing to the acute turn and narrowness of that stretch of the channel from the King Edward cut buoy to a point opposite the Scottish Canadian cannery-some 9.000 feet-which it is proposed to have straightened by dredging. This does not mean however that these deep draught vessels would not also derive some benefit at once, as with the exception of this one stretch of channel, the rest of the channel would be navigable by them at night. For instance, a vessel entering the river in the late afternoon might conceivably be able to pass through this stretch

Supply-Marine-Coast Service
before dark, and be able to proceed the rest of the way after dark. Going out she could leave before daylight so as to reach this stretch of channel by daylight. A saving of about two hours time could thus be made.
I should be happy if the minister would take this matter into consideration. Is it his intention to do anything this year in regard to those lights, and if so what? The lights need the repairs Colonel Wilby said they needed, because his report deals with the matter [DOT]exhaustively; every light was considered. It is just as important that the port of New 'Westminster have these navigation aids asked for in the report as it is for any other port on the Pacific or Atlantic. Shipping is growing from that port, especially deep sea shipping. As I have said, ships can go up only at night during the summer months, because the tides come at night time during that period. I am asking the minister what he will do this year, and what we may expect by way of help so as to facilitate shipping.
Hon. ALFRED iDURANLEAU (Minister of Marine): I have been deeply interested in the observations of the hon. member concerning the harbour of New Westminster. My department is well posted on the progress which has been made at that port. As a matter of fact we consider today that the pout of New Westminster is a very important fresh water harbour, and we are prepared to do all we can in order to help it. As a matter of fact in the amount for which we are asking this year the sum of $10,000 is set aside for that very purpose, namely, to improve the lights on the Fraser river. I cannot say more at the moment. We have planned to send this year two or three of the best experts from my department on the west coast to meet the shipping interests of New Westminster harbour and see what can be done to improve the aids to navigation in that river. The works to be done this year under the $10,000 vote are only preliminary works, and they will be continued next year if the finances of the country permit.


Thomas Reid: I appreciate very much what
the minister 'has said, and I am sure it will be appreciated by all interested parties. I hope however the minister will see his way to increase the amount, because if only $10,000 is spent, although that may seem quite an amount at present, it would take six years to carry out the recommendations made regarding the lights. I hope the minister will keep the port of New Westminster in mind, because I believe it is as important a port os there is in Canada. fMr. Reid.]


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I would like
to call the attention of the minister to a matter which has been brought to his attention by boards of trade and shipping interests in regard to the harbour of Prince Rupert. It was surveyed a few years ago by representatives of Lloyds, and it was found that in order that it should enjoy equal insurance and freight rates it was necessary to have two lights, one at Bonilla island, and a smai light at a place called Butterworth Rocks. It was taken up with the department and I think looked into, but nothing has been done so far. I wonder if, now that- the minister is sending experts to look into the situation at New Westminster and other places, he would have them at the same time see what could be done in regard to those two lights. I know the minister has full particulars before him and I would be glad if he could give me some information.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to give a definite statement at the present time, but I will give this matter immediate consideration.


James J. Donnelly: I notice this vote has to do with the construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation. In view of the fact that last year a boat loaded with wheat went down in Hudson strait I would like to ask the minister what the government has done during the past year in the way of building lighthouses and aids to navigation for boats going into and out of Hudson bay.


Alfred Duranleau: During the 1932 season of navigation the department installed six lights in Hudson strait, and we intend this year to build a direction-finding station at Chesterfield inlet, and probably instal more lights, according to the need.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Fraser, Cariboo), on your promotion to your present office? As a British Columbian I know you are well qualified to adorn it even if the appointment were made permanent.
I would like to suggest to the minister, when I see $10,000 being thrown around here
and there-


Thomas Reid: It is not being thrown around.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, in the past year or two I have been very modest, os I always am, in my demands for lights on the west coast, knowing the financial condition of the country. But I would remind the minister that there is a hymn that says "Let us also come." If this vote is going to be continued at its

Supply-Fisheries
present size we shall want to see some of the necessary improvements on the west coast supplied. I may also mention for the benefit of my hon. friend from New Westminster that the port of Port Albemi is running New Westminster, very close for seoond place in lumber exports from British Columbia. Them I would ask-not by way of criticism, because I know the department has it in hand, but only for information-whether they carried out the details of lighting Courtenay river, which they had in hand at one time? The cost would be very slight.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand the department is trying to arrange for the installation of an electric range light, the maintenance of which would cost about $180 a year. I think this will be sufficient for the time being.


Alan Webster Neill: It has not been settled yet?


Alfred Duranleau: No, but we are arranging for that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,022,090.
Thomas Reid: When this item was called the other day I was speaking to it when six o'clock was called. I was referring to the oriental problem. I would point out that it is really getting very serious, especially with the fishermen on the Fraser river. The Japanese are practically getting control there. Last spring, although the cannery men had certain boats of their own operating on the Fraser river, the Japanese told the cannery men just how many fish they would get each morning and also dictated the terms to them. I have that on the best authority, that of two cannery men on the Fraser river. My own observation is that the issuing of licences to Japanese is practically allowing the Japanese to build up a part of Japan on the Canadian Pacific coast. It is a well known fact that many of the Japanese who obtained fishing licences were naval officers and were here acquiring knowledge of the British Columbia coast before going back to their country with the knowledge thus acquired. That is generally recognized and well known. They were spying, really, and I am not afraid to say so. Another point, Mr. Chairman, is that when licences are issued to white fishermen they cannot swap them around, so to speak, as the Japanese do, because the Japanese are not so easily recognized as are the white men. Last year I complained to the department in Vancouver that the Japanese boats fished during the whole twenty-four hours; there are two and sometimes three different crews on each boat. If that were attempted by the white fishermen they would be jacked up and a charge laid against them or the licence cancelled, but the Japanese can carry on that practice. They have one licence to a boat, but they simply pass the licence from one to another and once the boats get out they stay out, while other boats come around and collect the fish. I went into this matter rather exhaustively the other day, but since I had no reply from the minister I rose on this occasion to ask if he would take this matter into very serious consideration. The New Westminster Fishermen's Protective Association went on record unanimously in this regard; I attended a meeting where about one hundred fishermen took a standing vote asking that the licences to Japanese be reduced. They realize how serious this question is becoming, especially on the Fraser river where so many Japanese are operating, and where in large measure they are obtaining control of the industry. Last year when orders were received from Japan for salted and smoked fish, which were plentiful at the time, no orders were given the white fishermen; they were all spread around among their own nationals. I should like to ask the minister if he will give this matter serious consideration with a view of curtailing the number of these licences by at least ten per cent each year. This was proposed a few years ago, but it was discontinued because the courts at that time declared that we had no power to do so. Since then, however, the statute of Westminster has been passed and I believe we have now all the power necessary to prohibit anyone we may desire from securing a licence.


Alfred Duranleau: We shall be very glad to look into the matter, Mr. Chairman. I know the reduction of licences to Japanese was suspended for two or three years because the matter was before the courts, but if we have a free hand now we will see that the number of licences is reduced. As to the use of forged naturalization papers, my hon. friend is well aware that my department has done everything possible to stop that practice by having inspectors follow the operations of these fishermen and prosecute everyone caught using false papers. As a matter of fact I am told that this practice has ceased.


Thomas Reid: Not entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Practically.
Su-p-ply-Fisheries


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be glad to
have my officials on the western coast have an eye on what is going on there, and we will prosecute everyone who is found to be breaking the law.


Thomas Reid: There is another serious matter with regard to fish; I refer to the embargo on sockeye salmon, which prohibits fishermen from exporting the raw fish. This embargo was put on at the instigation of the eanners, who complained that if the British Columbia fishermen were allowed to sell their fish in the best market it might curtail the activities of the eanners. That was the argument advanced by the canneries association to the minister and his deputy in favour of this embargo. I do not know of any other branch of industry that is prohibited from selling its products in the best market available. Up to last year the United States fishermen were receiving from 15 cents to 35 cents more for each salmon than was being paid in British Columbia. Last year, however, the prices across the line dropped for some reason, and what did the eanners do? They immediately forsook the white fishermen and went across the line to purchase salmon; at one time they brought in 27,000 sockeye salmon from Puget sound. It was all very well for the eanners to say, "We will not allow you fishermen to sell across the line," but when it suited them they practically told the fishermen to do whatever they liked with their fish because they could buy salmon across the line for less. The British Columbia Packers, Limited, the Canadian Fishing Company, Limited, the Colonial Packers, Limited and two other firms, I understand, went across the line to purchase large quantities of salmon because they could get them for a little less. In view of this I appeal to the minister to have the embargo lifted entirely in order to allow the fishermen to sell their fish wherever they like. Can you imagine the situation that would be created if a farmer who had wheat or potatoes to sell should be told that he could not sell those products in the best market? A fisherman buys a boat and a net, but when he brings in the fish he is told that he cannot take sockeye salmon out of the country. He cannot ship it fresh, although as I say in past years the fishermen across the line received from 15 cents to 35 cents per fish more than the Canadian fishermen received. In view of the fact that the eanners broke their own bargain, so to speak, and last year purchased- large quantities of salmon in the United States, I ask the minister to lift this embargo.


Alfred Duranleau: Now that my hon.
friend has brought this matter to my attention it will be seriously considered.


Alan Webster Neill: For a few moments I should
like to bring up a matter that was discussed at some length previously; I refer to order in council 206, but to-night I will approach this question from another angle. With all due respect to the legal ability of the minister and his associates I submit that this order in council is ultra vires; there is no question about it. It is rotten with regard to the question of fairness and equity, and apparently it is equally rotten in law. Section 92 of the British North America Act sets out the jurisdiction of the dominion and provincial governments respectively, and subsection 13 states that all matters pertaining to property and civil rights shall come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Of course there is a way in which that can be evaded in a sense; I think it was done by the former Minister of Agriculture, under somewhat similar circumstances, with regard to the grading of eggs. He got the provincial governments to pass what is called concurrent legislation. The minister got the government of British Columbia to do something similar in connection with these regulations, and on April 13 of last year they passed chapter IV of the statutes of British Columbia, 1932, which was a bill containing three sections. Section 1 made valid any act or regulations made thereunder passed by the Dominion government before that date. The original inspection regulations were passed on April 4 of last year, I think, so they just came within 'the scope of that section. Section 2, however, sets out what is to happen in future, that is, as from April 13, 1932; it states very plainly and simply-I need not read the section-that any other regulations passed by the Dominion government will not be valid in British Columbia unless proclaimed by the lieutenant-governor in council. This order in council 206, bad cess to it, has not been so proclaimed, and the dhances are a thousand to one against its being proclaimed, because the British Columbia legislature unanimously passed a resolution emphatically objecting to it, so I very much doiibt if the government would have the courage-or perhaps the gall-to proclaim it now. That being the case, where does this government get authority to come into British Columbia and interfere with the property and civil rights of the people of that province? If I catch fish, I must do it under dominion

Supply-Fisheries
jurisdiction because they have control over the fisheries, but under the decision of the privy council made several years ago, once the fish were caught they come under the jurisdiction of the province. We amended the fisheries act last year in order to have it accord with those views. Once the fish are caught, they come under the jurisdiction of the province and the dominion can exercise no control. But they now come along and say that they are going to have control. I know the argument that will be used; it will be said that the dominion has control as far as exports are concerned. There is no doubt the dominion can make regulations to deal with the packaging, the marketing or branding of anything to be exported, but I do not think the dominion should attempt to go beyond that and wrest jurisdiction away from a province. Subsection 26a of the original inspection regulation states that "all salmon shall be inspected." It is not salmon that is to be exported, or this or that, but all salmon. That is amplified in subsequent subsections which state where it shall be inspected. When a shipment of canned salmon is destined outside of Canada, it must be inspected at a certain place, and if it is destined inside of Canada, it must be inspected at another place. I ask the committee to note the words "inside of Canada." The argument of interprovincial trade cannot be used, because that clause would cover salmon to be shipped from one part of the province to another. That is provincial trade and I claim that any dominion legislation which attempts to interfere with such trade is ultra vires.
It may be said: We will exercise our jurisdiction as far as we can on export stuff and leave out the provincial trade. Ordinary regulations to cover branding, packing and so forth would be reasonable enough, but this order in council 206 begins to operate before the fish are caught, or at least immediately after. It states that the fish must be landed at the cannery wharf within twenty-four hours after being caught. Let me give a definite illustration. Suppose I catch some salmon according to the laws of British Columbia. I go ahead and can them and ignore order in council 206. I claim I am operating in British Columbia and I have nothing to do with that order in council. Having got my salmon canned, a situation arises where I find it desirable to export them. What can I do with them? I cannot do anything with them; I cannot sell them in British Columbia and I cannot export them. I would have to go back and take them out of the cans and deliver them at the wharf twenty-four hours after being caught. That
is not a condition subsequent to inspection or subsequent to the determination to export, it is a condition antecedent. Whether or not I am going to export my salmon, even though I intend to sell them within the province, I will be compelled to can the salmon in accordance with this order in council. That would be depriving me of my right to carry on my business according to the laws of British Columbia, and it would be depriving the province of its jurisdiction. It might be said: You could sell your salmon to a broker. But no broker would have anything to do with them because he would not be able to export them if needed. I am advised by able lawyers that this is ultra vires. If the government attempts to enforce it it will be laying itself open to litigation.
There is another point I intend to bring up, but before I do so I should like the minister to make a reply. I have no doubt this matter has been engaging the attention of his officials.


Alfred Duranleau: I have listened with
much interest to the argument of my hon. friend as to the legality of order in council 206. Let me say to him, however, that no action was taken without first submitting the whole thing to the Department of Justice. As a matter of fact, the order in council was drafted by the officials of that department. I would not think of having such an order in council prepared without the advice of the Department of Justice. My hon. friend may be quite correct in his statement of the law, but my duty is to rely upon the advice of the Department of Justice.
As far as the question of the proclamation of the regulation by the provincial authorities is concerned, I may say that a request was sent some time ago to the provincial government asking that this be done. I cannot say that it has been done up to date. My hon. friend says that it will not be done because the legislature has unanimously repudiated the regulation. As yet we have had no report from the Premier of British Columbia but I hope that if the department insists upon this regulation being put into force, the provincial authorities will issue the necessary proclamation. If they do not do so, it will apply to goods to be exported.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says that the
order in council was drawn by the Department of Justice. I have no doubt that they were cognizant of the British Columbia legislation and that they naturally assumed that a proclamation would be issued in the ordinary course of events. However, the fact is that
Supply-Fisheries

there is now every possibility of its not being proclaimed. The question then arises whether this government has the right under this excuse-it is nothing more than an excuse-* of helping the export trade to compel that the same method be adopted with fish to be sold within the province. The minister says that he hopes the provincial government will proclaim the regulation, but I most sincerely hope that they will not. I doubt very much if it would be legal to do it. Surely the whole legislature is superior to the cabinet, and that legislature passed the resolution which I read the other night stating that they emphatically protested against the resolution. I cannot conceive of any government with a sense of its responsibility acting in defiance of the unanimous wish of the legislature. However, some weird things have been done by the present government of British Columbia and it is just possible that they will take that action.
If they do not proclaim the regulation, I think the government would be well advised to drop the whole matter. I am sure it will prove utterly unworkable and will offer every opportunity for litigation. The government has no right to insist that all canned salmon must be inpected without having concurrent provincial legislation. If they had said, "all canned salmon destined for export," it would have been a different thing, but we are dealing with the regulation as it now stands. It is so easy to start litigation and so difficult to snd it, with all the cost that is involved. Why not ask for a reference to the supreme jourt and get a ruling on the matter before die government upsets the whole industry and jets into serious trouble through litigation?
There is another objection I should like to point out. The minister says that the Department of Justice drew up this order in council. Well, perhaps a lawyer did so, but I do not think it was somebody familiar with the fishing industry of British Columbia. It will be noticed that the order in council was passed on February 3. There are two objections to it. The first is that the government passed it on February 3, and although this is almost the end of April, the government has not yet put into effect the method by which it may be ascertained whether those fish were caught within twenty-four hours before being canned. The minister says that somebody is to take an oath. But that is not specified by the order in council and it is not in effect until this is done. This half-baked order in council had been put into force and it will

be necessary to pass another order in council to make it effective. This order in council was passed on February 3 and I suppose anyone will agree that it took effect when it was passed. Consequently on February 3, the law was that all canned salmon thereafter examined that are found by the board of inspection to be so-and-so shall get a certificate, but provided that no such certificate shall be issued for canned salmon that had not been landed fresh at a cannery for canning twenty-four hours after being caught. That is in force now; that is the law. If to-morrow I take 10,000 cases to be inspected, I have to prove that last June or July the salmon were landed on a wharf twenty-four hours after being caught. This order in council came into effect on February 3, 1933. Canning begins some time in June and lasts until about the end of October, and I think I am safe in saying that not half of the canners can get their fish inspected by February 3. The matter of course depends upon t'he season. A year or two ago-and the deputy minister can corroborate me-in the month of June, right at the beginning of the next season there were 450,000 cases of one variety of salmon on hand. We have evidence of that. That might have been an exceptional pack, but that was only one variety. I have, however, no hesitation in saying that on February 3 the larger portion of the salman pack of 1932 was on hand and had not been inspected. Therefore it was subject to P.C. 206. The minister shakes his head. He will prove to me that I am a case and a half out. Well, I will say that a great portion of the pack was not inspected, P.C. 206 is now in effect and it will be illegal to inspect that salmon unless somebody has taken an oath that they were landed at the wharf last August or September within twenty-four hours after being caught. See how absurd this is! Talk of being advised by the Justice depai'tment! That may have been so, but the advice was not according to common sense, beoause it is not common sense to say in February: you must, not on fish canned hereafter, but on fish inspected hereafter, produce a certificate in regard to something that happened six months previously. That cannot be done. What are you going to do-to break the law or ignore it? Admit the whole thing is a joke and drop it? Are you going to refuse perhaps 10,000, 50,000 or 100.000 cases a certificate altogether because this is the law? The law says that an inspector shall not give a certificate unless the fish have been landed within twenty-four hours

Supply-Fisheries
after 'having |been caught. This provision was not even dreamed of in January and the fish were packed long before that. I should like the minister to explain how he gets around that situation?


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend is not very well posted on the inspection which was practically completed before the regulation came into force. The catch last year totalled 1,081,031 cases and the inspection has been completed of 1,072,984 cases. That means that almost everything has been inspected up to date.


Alan Webster Neill: Up to what date?


Alfred Duranleau: That was on April 24.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but what happened between February 3 and April 24?


Alfred Duranleau: They were inspected according to law.


Alan Webster Neill: They were inspected not according to law.


Alfred Duranleau: The pack was all in the warehouse.


Alan Webster Neill: If they were inspected after February 3, the packers would have to produce this certificate and they could not do so. The law has been flagrantly broken, and quite properly so, because it is no good and should not be in existence.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member
knows quite well that the regulation has no retroactive effect.


Alan Webster Neill: The order in council was passed on February 3 and on that date the pack was not inspected in full. What was done about that?


Alfred Duranleau: The regulation was not intended to apply to the catch of last year.


Alan Webster Neill: Why did it not say so, then? This regulation, involving the whole genius of the Justice department and the Fisheries department, was rushed through in a week and there was not time to consider it properly. It is a blot on the record of the Fisheries department.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: This item affords an opportunity for a few general observations on this question of fisheries. We have so far heard a great deal from British Columbia and it might be in order if we gave our attention for a short time to the Atlantic coast fisheries. No other natural resource is capable of greater development than the Atlantic coast fisheries, and it is
about time the government took active measures to develop it. We now find, in going over the Atlantic coast, scenes of pitiful destitution among the fishermen. During the last forty or fifty years the fishing population of Nova Scotia has declined almost one-half, and the one-half that is left is living in the direst poverty. The causes of this condition are many. Many people wish to make the steam trawler responsible for the situation and to asoribe to its use all the ills that now affect the fishing population there. On that question I have a perfectly open mind. I am not interested one way or the other, but I doubt whether under the circumstances the present condition of those shore fishermen can be fairly attributed to the activities of the trawler. I do not think they can. As a matter of fact a great many trawlers from other countries fish in our waters outside the three mile limit, while I understand that our regulations call for our trawlers to fish outside the twelve mile -limit. So that from any point of view I do not think that the present condition of the fishermen can at any rate be wholly attributed to the operations of the trawler.
Those fishermen of ours are in a pitiable position. Their very desperate conditions have forced them to take some cooperative measures to try to make a living for themselves. They are forming little cooperative societies, but so far -they have not been able to do very much along that line, because, to start with they are very poor; they have no capital, and the storms that frequently ravage that coast clean up all their little plant, their boats and their nets.
There is now over four million dollars in the treasury of this country to the credit of the fishermen of the maritime provinces and Quebec. That money has been there for over fifty years. It was put there as a result of the Washington award. The money was paid as compensation for the privileges obtained by the American fishermen in our waters. The government of that day did not know what to do with the money. They got $4,500,000, and they kept half a million dollars for their costs and put $4,000,000 into the consolidated fund. It had no business ever to go there. That was a trust fund for the fishermen of the maritime provinces and Quebec. The government did not know what to do with it, and no government from that day to this has had wit enough to grapple with that question and deal justly with those fishermen. For fifty years now we have seen the spectacle of one government following another, and the
Supply-Fisheries

Department of Fisheries never in charge of a man who had wit enough to do justice to the fishermen of the maritime provinces and Quebec. The time has arrived when justice should be done. The fishermen need help and they must have it.
Some four or five years ago the late government appointed a commission beaded by the present president of the exchequer court, and that commission made a study of conditions in the maritime provinces and made a report and certain recommendations. In one recommendation they deal with this money that is to the credit of those fishermen in the dominion treasury, and which has been parcelled out by means of measly little fishing bounties, which was the only method which ever suggested itself to the government of that day, some fifty years ago. From that day to this we have never had in charge of the Fisheries department a man who could grapple with this question and settle it. I may say that we did have a serious hope when the present Minister of Finance took charge of that department, and during the short time he was there I am bound to say that a considerable improvement was made. So far the department has been under the administration of an acting minister who certainly has not been able to give it the attention which its importance deserves.
I have said that this $4,000,000 was placed in the consolidated fund, and the interest on it at four per cent, amounting to $160,000 a year, was parcelled out in the form of small bounty cheques to the fishermen according to the size of their boat-little cheques of five or six or seven dollars. The money was simply frittered away. The time has arrived now, after fifty years, when there must be some change made in that respect. As I have said, the fishermen down there are making valiant efforts for themselves to improve their conditions. Why cannot this money he devoted to helping them in their cooperative efforts, to enabling them to secure plant and bait and storage facilities for their fish? Surely the time has come to carry out the recommendation made by this commission some four or five years ago. Speaking of that $4,000,000, the commission said:
We recommend, however, that it is not applied to any of the purposes mentioned in the Deep Sea Fisheries Act, that is for bounties to boats, vessels and fishermen, but that it be specially devoted to such productive uses as assistance in the construction of brine freezing plants, fish meal plants, driers, bait and cold storage plants for organized groups of fishermen. or others engaged in any phase of the industry, upon proper terms and conditions,

and to such other substantial purposes as may appear desirable; the amount apportioned to Quebec and the maritime provinces should be in the proportions in which the Fishing Bounties were distributed in 1928.
There is a clear-cut recommendation from the commission appointed by the late government, but that recommendation has remained in abeyance from that day to this. In the meantime the fishermen have gone down from one strata of poverty to another, and neither this nor any other government has seen fit to adopt proper measures for dealing with this question. We need storage facilities. There was a cold storage plant at North Sydney, but it was destroyed by fire a few years ago. It now stands in need of repairs. It affords storage facilities for perhaps two or three hundred fishermen all along the coast of Victoria county and the county of Cape Breton, but it remains there in a state of dis-pair, having been destroyed by fire. Why? Simply because we cannot get $6,000 from this government to help repair it. It requires $18,000 to repair it and put it in shape, and fit it for storage. The town will give $6,000, the provincial government will give $6,000, and we are after this government to give the other $6,000. But so far we have not succeeded. The fishermen also require some assistance in the transporting of fresh lobsters to Boston. That transportation has been afforded to certain districts, but it has not been afforded to the districts in the county that I represent.
The fishermen down there also want certain changes made in the regulations governing lobster fishing. They are told by the department that they do not know what they are talking about, that the officials here know more about lobster fishing than the fishermen themselves do.
I submit to the government with all the earnestness of which I am capable that this year should see an earnest effort made by the department to put into effect the recommendation made by the royal commission on fisheries to which I have referred. I know that the fishermen of the maritime provinces would be inspired with a great hope if the minister to-night would give us any reason to believe that the matter to which I have referred will receive consideration in the coming summer, and that active steps will be taken to carry out the report of the commission headed by the president of the exchequer court.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I have only
one more matter to bring before the committee, and then the minister may requiescat

Supply-Fisheries
in pace. I wish to repeat the protest I made about eleven months ago to-day concerning the Vancouver offices of 'the minister's department. I shall not repeat what I said on the former occasion; it appears in Hansard of May 21, 1932. In these days of excessive economy, when taxation is so severe, it is doubly necessary to be very careful to avoid unnecessary expenditures. A new psychology is growing up. People used to think: "Oh well, Bill has a job with the government; it is all right. It does not matter very much whether he does anything or not." But now they are thinking differently. Men stop me on the street and say: "Why is so and so paid for doing so and so? The expenditure is not justified; it is only a half time job" -and so on. For those reasons we must review these matters.
On the Pacific coast in the last two or three years there has been a tremendous falling off in the salmon industry. There has been a big drop in the number of plants, in the boats employed and in the catch. I have records before me which show that last year only thirty-five canneries were operating, but that two years before, seventy-five were operating, or more than double the number. Last year there were 2,180 fewer fishing licences issued than were issued in 1930. A bulletin issued by the minister's department in the month of March contains the information that for the month of February forty tons of fish were caught in British Columbia waters while in the February two years earlier one hundred and thirty-three tons were caught. Forty tons is not a very large quantity-only about one and a half tons a day. But to take out that forty tons of fish the services of eleven clerical officials were required in the head office. I am not referring to the numerous minor officials, but to the clerical staff at head office. Eleven officials were required to superintend the catching o.f a ton and a half of fish each day.
No doubt the chief supervisor out there got his instructions, as everyone did two years ago, to cut down expenses. He did cut them down, but he cut them at the wrong end. Expenses divide themselves into two heads, one overhead and the other the work actually done on the ground. One would naturally expect, with so many fewer canneries, boats, and fishermen, that the clerical staff would be greatly decreased. However, it was not. The work actually done on the ground is done by the air force, which was cut thirty per cent, the patrol boats, which were cut twenty-seven per cent-and I am
not talking about the protective service, which consists of two big steamers, but am directing my remarks to the small patrol boats on the ground-and the guardians, which were cut down forty-three per cent. Those are the services for which we spend $400,000.
As I have said, the air force, the patrol boats and the guardians were cut down in the manner I have indicated. But what was done with the overhead? A few days ago I obtained a return from the government. While it is somewhat obscure it indicates that there are thirteen officials in the office, and that there were thirteen in 1930. The report shows fifteen, but two held temporary positions. We see therefore that the staff is the same size. I look at the Ottawa office of the Department of Fisheries and I find that they have been cut down from eighty-nine to sixty-five or about twenty-four per cent. But the Vancouver office numbers were not cut down. In fact, some of the salaries were raised; the chief supervisor gets S180 more than he did before. He now gets $720 a year more than the same officer in the mari-times, despite the fact that the maritimes officer has three provinces to take care of. I see other increases in salaries also-not decreases, but increases. I see that there are seven officials and six stenographers, or practically a stenographer for each official. I know of no office in Canada where that principle prevails. I glanced over the figures for a number of departments which have been before us in the last few weeks, and I find that the number of officials for each stenographer runs from four to twenty. I cannot find any instance where there were less than four officials to one stenographer, but in British Columbia we have a stenographer for each official. I suppose she puts her lily-white hand on his fevered brow and gets him a glass of water occasionally.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is disgraceful.


Alan Webster Neill: I see that the district supervisor and chief supervisor are in the same office. There is another supervisor thirteen miles away. There are five supervisors in British Columbia, two of whom are in the head office and one thirteen miles away. Then we come to the principal statistical clerk. What do we want a statistical clerk out there for? I do not believe there is one in the Department of Fisheries here in Ottawa, at least he is not so recorded in the report of the Auditor General. There are sixty-five
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the discussion which took place in connection with the Atlantic and Pacific coast fisheries, I think it pertinent to-now refer to those of central Canada. Two years ago the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) practically promised that the inquiry begun in 1930, would be continued in 1931 and 1932. I am alluding to the fisheries of Hudson bay and James bay. We are satisfied that it is possible to develop the fisheries of that part of the country. Both the inquiry and survey or patrolling carried on in 1930 and 1931 did not prove satisfactory and I have already complained of the fact. The Department of Fisheries is no doubt aware that companies were formed last year and started fishing operations. These will further develop this year. I would therefore request that the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau)-

Supply-Fisheries
assure me that the inquiry begun two or three years ago will be continued, and if possible, completed this year. We are far from being satisfied with the report of the inquiry stating that no sea fish inhabit the waters of Hudson bay or James bay. The Ontario provincial government has extended its railway from Cochrane to Moose Factory or Moosonee. As recently as last year the provincial government inaugurated this new service. This proves that the provincial government intends to give a good railway service to central Canada.
As I intimated two years ago to the hon. Minister of Finance, there are people in our section of the country, under the impression that some prejudice exists against developing the fisheries of central Canada, because it is feared that an unfair competition will result against the fisheries existing in eastern and western Canada. I do not believe in such fears. However, if the government persists in its attitude and does not hold a more thorough inquiry so as to bring out the facts as regards the fisheries of central Canada, I shall be led to believe that there is some truth in such an assertion. I have faith in the progressive spirit which animates the Minister of Fisheries; I hope he realizes what the development of these fisheries means to New Ontario, and to that section of the country, and that he will continue the inquiry so auspiciously started three years ago.
As it was stated by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt), who so well represent their constituents in the house, we are convinced, having personal knowledge of the facts, that sea fish actually thrive in that vast interior sea. Nature certainly did not create such a large body of water without providing for potential fisheries, capable of being exploited with profit by those who might wish to invest their capital in such an enterprise. I may inform the minister that a large number of people are willing to invest considerable amounts to develop such fisheries. Previous to closing my remarks, may I state that, knowing the spirit of initiative of the minister of fisheries, I trust he will fully acquiesce in the wish of the people of that section of the country and that the study of this question will be carried out more efficiently than in the past. I regret to state that within the last two years, nothing was done in this connection. However, I hope that next summer the government will find it
possible to continue this inquiry which, I have no doubt, will amply prove, as we contend in our section of the country, that our fisheries can compete, both as to quantity and quality, with those of other parts of Canada.


Alfred Duranleau: I
listened to my hon. friend with much interest and I wish to congratulate him on the optimism he displays as regards the fisheries of his section of the country. As to the inquiry held in 1931, I understand that it was completed. I do not wish to state that we shall not make further inquiry in this matter in order to meet the wishes of my hon. friend; however I cannot make any promise for this year. All are aware that the department must practise economy; should we decide that further inquiry must be carried out, we shall have the necessary appropriation placed in the estimates next year; however, for the present, I cannot pledge the department to any definite action in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: As we have a few
moments left before it is time to wind up the clock and put out the cat I would ask the minister if he has ready for me the information regarding the sinking of the Bright Fan. If he has it he can give it in a few minutes. If he has not it will be all right to table it on Monday.


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the information. with me now, but I shall be pleased to table it on Monday or Tuesday.


William Richard Motherwell: In order to be
quite clear, may I say that what I am referring to is the answer to the first question in the little folder issued by my hon. friend's department:
When and for what sum was the ss. Bright Fan purchased by her owners; what was her value at the time of her loss? What insurances were effected upon and in connection with the ship?
The answer given in the report is as follows:
As to the first question we have not the material under the evidence upon which an answer can be given.


Alfred Duranleau: I received the information from the insurance company, from Lloyds themselves. I will table what we have received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Railways
[Stage Direction]
Department of Railways and Canals-canals, staff and repairs, $2,738,720.
Thomas Reid: Is this the only item left in -the Department of Railways and Canals?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, item 300 in the supple-mentaries is standing.


Mr. COOTE:: There is a question I should like to ask the minister, and I do not know whether or not there will be another item under which I can do so.


George Halsey Perley: If the hon. gentleman will put his question in a letter I am sure the information will be given him.


George Gibson Coote: It is a question of great interest to very many people, and I think it should appear in Hansard. It is with regard to the amount of traffic which has been diverted from the Canadian National railways, and possibly also from the Canadian Pacific, by the construction of the new Welland canal. I have tried to get the information from the government; I wrote the Department of Railways and Canals, but they referred me to the bureau of statistics. I think this is a very important matter, and I should like an opportunity of getting the question and the reply of the minister on Hansard.


George Halsey Perley: It will be understood that under item 300 anything can be discussed in regard to railways and canals, and I will direct the minister's attention to what my hon. friend has said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Perley the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May 1, 1933