1933-02-21

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Spencer that the following motion having been called twice, and not being proceeded with, be restored to the order paper.
That, in the opinion of this house, the Peace River country should be connected by a direct railway outlet to the Pacific coast.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

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



RELIEF ACT, 1932, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the thirty-first of March, 1934.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Superintendent of Bankruptcy

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received a complaint from the Montreal Bar Association against Mr. W. J. Reilly, superintendent of bankruptcy, and if so what answer he has given to that association? An article from a Montreal newspaper dated February 17, 1933, reads as follows:
Complaints against Mr. Reilly, Superintendent of Bankruptcy.
Some horn. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Will the hon. member proceed with his question?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: He has asked his question. At the moment I have no recollection of having received any representations concerning the superintendent of bankruptcy from the Montreal Bar Association. However if I did receive such representations I forwarded them to the Department of Finance, because the superintendent of bankruptcy is now under that department.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he has received the resolution of the Montreal Bar Association mentioned by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean) and what he has done with regard to it?
Hon.E.N.RHODES (Minister of Finance): Mt. Speaker, as far as my memory serves me I have received no resolution from the Montreal Bar Association. I did, however, receive a resolution from the council of the Montreal Bar Association and some inquiries were made by myself in respect to the matter in question, but no official acknowledgment has been made, solely for the reason that as my hon. friend knows I have been indisposed of late. But an answer will be forthcoming in a few days.



FISHING BOUNTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day are called I should like to refer to a question which appeared in the votes and proceedings of Friday last, February 17, 1933. The question I have in mind has reference to the bounties paid fishing vessels and to fishermen during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932. Yesterday, only four days after my

question appeared in the votes and proceedings, the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duran-leau) was good enough to file sessional paper No. 115a. This paper gives particulars regarding the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, but the answers concerning the year 1932 which, for my purposes, are the most important, are in every case "not paid yet." I wish to state that this return is incomplete. I am not blaming the acting minister, because I appreciate fully his position, but I want to say that the official who prepared this return should be disciplined. I want the information, and I am willing to wait for it.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I shall
look into the matter, and if the return can be supplemented with further details, it will be.



CANADIAN GOLD MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if he has given any thought to taking over the gold mines in Canada, increasing their output and enlarging the survey for more gold, in order that we may be able to carry on.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) would not expect an answer right out of hand to a question so all-embracing as the one he has submitted.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):: On the front page of Hansard of
Monday, the 20th of February, I see that it is supposed to be an unrevised edition- official report. It is rather the first issue of expurgated Hansard.



BANKRUPTCIES-1932

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Might I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if he has received from the superintendent of bankruptcy any report along the lines discussed when the matter was before the committee last year as to the bankruptcies during the calendar year 1932 and the amount that has been received by creditors?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, no such report is to hand as yet.

Indian Act



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Murphy- Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Inquiry as to fitness for enfranchisement.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Might I ask the minister to explain.


Mr. MURPHY:: Section 110 as it exists in the act at the present time, the hon. member will find printed on the right hand page of the proposed bill. The proposed amendment reads:
The Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belong, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians too be enfranchised.
You will observe that the act as at present in force reads that the Indian may be enfranchised upon the application of himself or of a band on a vote of a majority of the male members of such band of the full age of twenty-one years at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose. Under the amended section the Superintendent General would be given the power to appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belong, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister inform me how many have been enfranchised under the old section 110?


Charles Murphy: During the ten year
period from 31st December, 1922, to the 31st December, 1932, under section 122a of the old act and section 114 of the new, 793 Indians were enfranchised.
Under section 107 of the old act and 110 of the new-that is the act which is at present in force-61 Indians were enfranchised during the same period.
I may say that the majority of the Indians enfranchised during the past few years have been enfranchised under section 114 of the present act rather than section 110. Under section 114 Indians are enfranchised who live and make their living away from the reserve. Section 110 refers more to the enfranchisement of Indians living on the reserve.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister give the total number of Indians enfranchised in the dominion?


Charles Murphy: The figures I have given
for the ten year period comprise all those enfranchised during those years. When an Indian is enfranchised his wife and minor children are enfranchised automatically. If he has children over the age of twenty-one it is necessary for them to be enfranchised of themselves.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I understand under the electoral act, at least as far as northern Ontario is concerned, only Indians who are war veterans have the right to vote. I believe the law should be uniform throughout Canada for all Indians. I have in mind that during the last general election a party organizer for one of the great parties in Canada sent a letter to one of the candidates to the effect that a certain number of Indians should vote because they were good Conservatives. He was certain of that. We want to do away with that. I do not believe that any man in Canada should say who has a right to vote and who has not. That right is vested in this parliament, and we should have a uniform law that applies to the whole of Canada. I know this anomaly has existed in my section of the country and also in other sections. I protest as strenuously as I can against such a measure. I believe that under the electoral act only Indians who enlisted during the great war have a right to vote. Under this act it is going to be left to one or two men to decide what Indians shall have that right. I protest against that. Either it should be general, that an Indian has the right to vote no matter where he lives, or else no Indian should be allowed to vote. I speak feelingly in this matter, because I know the electoral act is not properly applied, in my section of the country at least, and this would only create another gap which will allow some men, perhaps competent men, in most cases honest men, but in some cases subject to political influence, to pick out certain people to whom the right to vote would be given, and keep it from others. I say this law should be uniform for all Indians. No body of men in Canada, no matter how able they may be, should be given the power to say whether or not an Indian is entitled to vote. We know what happened at the last general election, and so far as I am concerned I do not want the same thing to happen again.


Charles Murphy: As I understood my hon. friend, he was making some complaint with regard to the voting system. This section merely provides for the enfranchisement of the Indians, and not for the actual voting.
Indian Act

It would appear to me that the amendment suggested by my hon. friend, which I could not hear distinctly, has reference to the electoral act rather than to the Indian Act, which only provides for enfranchisement.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe the two questions of enfranchisement and voting cannot be separated. What I had in mind was this: Under the present electoral act and the Indian Act, even at the last general election certain men were allowed to say whether or not certain Indians should vote. That is why I am protesting now. Once the Indians become enfranchised under this act they have the right to vote; if they have not the franchise they have not the right to vote. I maintain that the law should be uniform with regard to the Indians, as it is for the white men. Under this statute there will be no uniformity for the simple reason that you leave it to two or three men to decide what Indians shall vote. They may be quite competent men, but certainly they should not have the right to give the franchise to certain people only. That right is vested in this parliament, and I am afraid that the same things that took place during previous elections will happen again under this amendment. I think there should be a uniform law applying to all the Indians throughout Canada, and I do not believe any body of men should be given power to pick out certain Indians who may become enfranchised and have the right to vote.
I make this protest very sincerely for the sake of the good name of our elections. People should know exactly wrhere they stand. If the minister would like me to do so I could give him some correspondence that came into my hands accidentally. In the town of Mattice, near Hearst, which the Minister of Labour knows quite well, a certain number of Indians spend the summer months. During the last general election I came into possession of a certain letter giving information to my opponent. I do not know who wrote the letter, whether or not it was the agent of the department, but this letter singled out a certain number of Indians who should be allowed to vote because they were good Conservatives and a certain number of Indians who should not be allowed to vote because they were good Grits. I want to see these uncertainties done away with, but I believe we will only continue that system by this amendment. I believe each Indian should know exactly where he stands when an election comes along, and I repeat that you cannot separate the franchise and the right to vote. I appeal

to the sense of justice of the minister and the government; I ask them to bring in a uniform law in this connection. This is the time and place to do it; it is only justice and British fair play to all concerned.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: What qualifications fare necessary before an Indian can become enfranchised?


Charles Murphy: The general qualification would be the judgment of those who examine the Indian as to his fitness to be enfranchised. Frequently an Indian who does not live on a reserve applies of his own volition to be enfranchised. Upon receipt of the application reports are asked from the agent and other responsible people in the district as to the fitness of this particular Indian to be enfranchised, and after the reports are received and passed upon by the department a recommendation is made to the governor general in council. A number of Indians have been enfranchised in recent years; I gave the figures a moment ago. Practically fall these Indians came under section 114, which provides for the enfranchisement of those living off a reserve. Seotion 110, which we propose to amend, refers more particularly to those now residing or who may hereafter reside upon a reserve. I do not think I can make it any plainer than that.	.


John Campbell Elliott: For what purpose is the enfranchisement referred to in section 110? At what elections does it entitle the Indian to vote? Surely it does not refer to the right to vote at a dominion election, for instance?


Charles Murphy: It has nothing to do with the right to vote; it enfranchises the Indian and makes him a citizen of this country, with all the rights and privileges that go with citizenship.


John Campbell Elliott: Under the electoral act certain Indians only are entitled to vote at dominion elections. Do I understand the minister to mean that if the Indian is enfranchised, either under section 110 or section 114, he thereby becomes entitled to be added to the list that is already provided for under the Dominion Elections Act?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask the minister where the demand came from for this amendment? Did it come from the Indians on the reserves? Was it suggested by the department, or where did the suggestion come from?


Charles Murphy: Whatever merit there may be in the measure is not for me to say, but

Indian Act
the amendment originated with myself. The amendment before us was drafted within the department, by and with the advice of the officials.


John Vallance: Was there any demand from the Indians living on reserves to have this tribunal set up in this manner?


Charles Murphy: No.


John Vallance: Were the Indians consulted at all? _


Charles Murphy: A similar amendment was passed in 1920, when a committee of the house sat upon the matter and the Indians and all interested parties were represented.


John Vallance: Here in Ottawa?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Vallance: Were the Indians represented here at that time?


Charles Murphy: They appeared before the committee, yes.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I compliment the minister on this provision because for many years there has been a considerable demand from the Indians for enfranchisement, As I said the other day, there is no reason at all for fixing the colour line with respect to the right to vote. Must the Indian apply separately and specifically, or will the minister hold an investigation into his capability of exercising the franchise?


Charles Murphy: The proposed amendment
reads:
The Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band, to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.
I would take it that a separate board would not be appointed for every indivdual Indian, although if an Indian made application, or it was decided to investigate his fitness, a board might be appointed for that purpose. But that same board could pass upon the fitness of more than one Indian at the time the sittings were held.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think the minister caught my question. Would this board be competent to go into the band and examine all the Indians there, or will the individual have to make separate application to be enfranchised?


Charles Murphy: It would depend upon the instructions given the board. If the Superintendent General instructed the board to make a general investigation of the Indians of the band, it would be within the competence of the board to do so.


John Campbell Elliott: How does this affect the liability of the Indian for debt under the Indian Act? Suppose execution is recovered against the Indian; it does not become effective, so long as he remains a member of the band, as against any property on the reserve. Does this affect him when he becomes enfranchised? Does he then take all the rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen and lose the privilege that he formerly had of exemption from having his goods seized under execution?


Charles Murphy: After he became enfranchised he would certainly be in the same position as any other citizen of Canada.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Even if he lived on the
reserve?


Charles Murphy: Whether on or off the reserve, he has become enfranchised and is then subject to the laws of the country the same as an3' white man.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the franchise, the power to vote, is conferred in the first instance on Indians who served overseas in the Great war and, in the second place, there is enfranchisement through the procedure established in this act which is now being modified. As I understand the amendment at present before us, it is only to eliminate the initiative from the council of the band and to leave that initiative with the minister himself in relation to the board. Am I correct in my interpretation of the section?


Charles Murphy: Yes; it gives the Superintendent General the power to initiate the proceedings.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Without
consulting the band or the council?


Charles Murphy: The council must be consulted because they have the power to appoint one member of the board.


Hugh Guthrie: As regards an Indian who continues to live on the reserve after enfranchisement, the land which he occupies is taken out of the reserve and becomes his private property, subject to taxation. He has all the civil rights of any other British subject and is similarly liable to be sued. Enfranchisement as understood in this act has no reference to the right to vote; it means
Indian Act

enfranchising the Indian in his right as a citizen. If any question as to the right to vote is raised, it will be more proper to raise it as an amendment to the election act than by way of amendment to the Indian Act.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I notice in the bill we are considering that the board of investigation is largely a departmental board. There are two representatives from the department to inquire into the fitness of any Indian to vote, and these representatives in many cases are thousands of miles away from the Indian reserve. If we are going to make this a real board competent to investigate the fitness of the Indian to vote, I submit that the head of the band should be on the board together with one man from the department and one representative selected from the community in which the reserve is situated. If that were done you would have a representative body of opinion on a question of great importance to the Indians.


Charles Murphy: The amendment provides that the Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department. It does not necessarily follow that these two officers will be located in Ottawa. We have agents and inspectors throughout Canada and it would be quite competent for the Superintendent General to appoint an inspector and an agent, or two agents, as representatives of the department on the board.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is a little better,
but it is more than likely that one of the men whom the department might appoint would reside, in the case of Saskatchewan, in Regina, and that is about as bad as if he were living in Ottawa. My point is this. If you appointed an Indian agent as a member of the board you would still be under a disadvantage in getting the considered community opinion regarding the fitness of the Indian to vote.


Charles Murphy: The members to be appointed could be the agent and inspector in that province, and the inspector is continually making his tours of the reserves in the province and is therefore quite familiar with the conditions as they exist. Furthermore, the boundaries of many of the reserves especially in the west are fairly close together, and two agents living side by side might constitute the board. When I say side by side I mean in contiguous territory. It would therefore be perfectly competent for them to pass upon the fitness of the Indian for enfranchisement, considering the case in conjunction with the Indian who is nominated by the council of the particular band.


John Vallance: This provision which
we are now considering proposes, as the minister has pointed out, that the Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian belongs, to make inquiry and report as to his fitness to be enfranchised. What section of the act permits the Indian to make application for this body to investigate, or is that right vested in these officials, together with the Indian chosen from the band? Have they the right to pick out the Indian who is to be investigated?


Charles Murphy: An Indian on the reserve might himself desire enfranchisement and there is nothing to preclude his making application if he sees fit-


John Vallance: Suppose he did not
want to?


Charles Murphy: -in which case the board would act exactly in the same manner as it would if the Superintendent General were to direct an investigation to be made.


John Vallance: Is there any particular
section of the act that instructs the Indian to take such action?


Charles Murphy: The present section 110
which we are amending makes provision in that regard. We are only substituting this amendment for one subsection of section 110, which comprises thirteen subsections.


John Vallance: I would ask another
question prompted by the reply given by the Minister of Justice a few moments ago. I think I understood the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to state that an Indian living on a reserve who applies for and obtains his enfranchisement would have his land taken out of the reserve and become a regular citizen of Canada.


Charles Murphy: Provided he has a
location upon the reserve.


John Vallance: And if he has not?


Charles Murphy: Subsection 8 of section
110 reads:
Upon the issue of an order of enfranchisement the Superintendent General shall, if any Indian enfranchised holds any land on a reserve, cause letters patent to be issued to such Indian for such land; and such Indian shall pay to the funds of the band such amount per acre for the land he holds as the Superintendent General considers to be the value of the common interest of the band in such land, and such payments shall be a charge against the share of such Indian in the funds of the band.

Indian Acl


John Vallance: Does that apply to
both treaty and non-treaty Indians, and would the Indian then be entitled to vote?


Charles Murphy: I would say that no distinction is made in the act between treaty and non-treaty Indians; it simply says "Indian."


John Vallance: The aot defines the
responsibilities of treaty and non-treaty Indians. I do not want to appear to be telling the minister something whioh he perhaps ought to know regarding his own department. I think there is a vast difference in what is expected by the state from a treaty and a non-treaty Indian. They are not in the same category; the one is a ward of the state while the other is not.


William Irvine: I cannot see any difference between section 110 as amended by this bill and the latter part of the original section. I should like to know why the first part of the section which provides for an Indian making application has been dropped?


Charles Murphy: Under the present act
there must be voluntary action by the Indian in making application while under the proposed amendment the initial proceedings might be started by the Superintendent General.


John Vallance: Is the minister in a
position to answer the questions I asked? I do not ask these in order to embarrass him.


Charles Murphy: Both the treaty and nontreaty Indian is mentioned in the act, but my opinion is that the term is used in this section in the generic sense and means all Indians. I do not think it is circumscribed in any way by the definition of a non-treaty Indian.


John Vallance: According to the interpretation given by the Minister of Justice, all we are dealing with is the treaty Indian living upon the reserve. When that Indian applies for enfranchisement and receives it he is no longer a treaty Indian entitled to the privileges of a ward. He cannot have both.


Charles Murphy: Quite so.


John Vallance: Under this bill you are permitting the treaty Indian to come out from under the treaty and assume all the responsibilities of citizenship?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


John Vallance: The note in connection with section 7 reads:
This subsection is designed to give the necessary impetus to carry out the ultimate aims and objects of the policy which has governed the administration of Indian affairs.
What impetus is being referred to?


Charles Murphy: Through the years the
Canadian people have recognized their responsibilities for the welfare of the Indians of this country. In furtherance of that recognition they have spent vast sums of money in order to raise the status of the Indian. In cooperation with the churches they have established a very comprehensive educational system comprising both residential and day schools. They have also provided medical and hospitalization services for the Indian and have spent large sums of money, notably in the west, in order to make the Indian self supporting upon our agricultural lands. This constant endeavour throughout the years to raise the status of the Indian has been for what purpose? What has been the ultimate object in view in the expenditure of these moneys and the providing of these services for the Indian? It has been to raise the Indian to full status where he can take his place as a citizen of Canada. I believe this policy is the correct one but so far we have failed to take that final step which, in my opinion, should be taken, namely, to make the Indian a full citizen of this country when he has obtained that degree of advancement which entitles him to the full responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.


Mr. BROWN:: Let us grant that what the minister has said is correct, but I want to point again to the proposed amendment as it compares with the original subsection. If I understand the minister aright he says that the real difference is that in the one case the action depended upon the volition of the Indian whereas under the proposed amendment this action may be taken by the department without consultation with the Indian. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I think it very essential that this distinction be drawn to the attention of the committee. Does the minister think that an Indian who has not had sufficient initiative to ask for enfranchisement is worthy of being enfranchised? Does he think that an Indian would be capable of exercising the rights of citizenship when he has not been willing to take the steps to attain that end? If this change is made the power will be given to departmental officials to enfranchise Indians at a
Indian Act

wholesale rate irrespective of the qualifications of the Indians and perhaps irrespective of their desire. At any rate, it would be apart altogether from their own volition.


Mr. DONNELLY:: It is urged that this
amendment is being made because the time has come when the Indian should be made a citizen. Is it not rather fathered by the thought of the $400, S500 or $600 band money for each Indian and is he not anxious to become enfranchised because at the expiration of two years 'he receives his franchise and gets this money; he is anxious to get it into his hands. Am I not correct in saying this is the reason for his wanting to become enfranchised?


Charles Murphy: I would say that the opposite is the case, because the Indians who are living on the reserves a*t this time have not over the years made application to become enfranchised although they would be entitled to their share in the funds of the band to which they belong. Applications that have been made for enfranchisement have generally been from those who are not living on the reserves, but who have gone out into the cities, towns and other localities and are there making their living in competition with the white man.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon), when he says that we should give the Indians universal suffrage. I believe the Minister of Justice was answering the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario when he said that we were dealing with the electoral act. This measure is in conflict with the electoral act. We are going to take a certain portion of the population and decide, apart from the provisions of that act, whether they shall have the vote. In extending this franchise, we can extend it only to federal elections; we cannot give it for provincial or municipal elections, so that there again there will be a conflict with the municipalities and provinces. In my opinion, we should therefore leave aside this part of the act, the present section 110, because the Minister of Justice has said that in dealing with the matter we are dealing with the electoral act and it is not fair for any parliament to pass legislation picking out a certain section of the population and deciding whether they shall have the right to vote.
I agreed with the Minister of Justice when he said in answer -to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario that so far as this parliament was concerned we could not give the

Indian universal suffrage except through the electoral act. I believe this section should be withdrawn now. Although I have no treaty Indians in my section, there are conflicts so far as the Indian vote is concerned. Some of -them do not know whether they have the right to vote or not. Whether the law is not well enough defined or not or universal enough is up to parliament to judge, but I believe if you create a body from the Indian department that will have power to extend the right to vote, you are going to cause still more conflict. We should let parliament decide the matter through the electoral act. From personal experience I belive it would be better either to enfranchise all Indians or to have all disenfranchised. The situation is confusing and even the chief electoral officer does not know in certain cases how to apply the act because it comes into conflict with the electoral act. I make this appeal very sincerely to the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that what I have said has been misapprehended. This section we now propose to amend has been on the statute book for at least ten years and the amendment now proposed does not affect the right to use the electoral franchise one way or the other; we are not going to change the law in that respect. The only change that is proposed is as regards the manner in which an Indian shall apply for enfranchisement. Under the old section 110, subsection one, the Indian made the application. Now it is proposed by the amendment that the superintendent may make the application.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: I thought that had been very well explained.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No.


Hugh Guthrie: If it has not been, it will be. The other point that seems to have caused some trouble is whether it applied to all Indians. The section does apply to all Indians, treaty and non-treaty. My hon. friend will see that the section refers to an Indian and in the interpretation clause an Indian is defined:
1.	Any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band.
2.	Any child of such person.
3.	Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person.
A non-treaty Indian is also defined:	-
*'Non-treaty Indian" means any person of Indian blood who is reputed to belong to an irregular band, or who follows the Indian mode of life, even if such person is only a temporary resident in Canada.

Indian Act
Then an irregular band is described and defined:
*'Irregular band" means any tribe, band or body of persons of Indian blood who own no interest in any reserve or lands of which the legal title is vested in the crown, who possess no common fund managed by the government of Canada, and who have not had any treaty relations with the crown.
Section 110, as it has been upon the statute book for at least ten years, provides that any of these persons may under certain conditions become enfranchised. Enfranchisement confers upon them all the rights of a British subject; they may even buy and sell liquor. The right to the electoral franchise is only one of those rights. What I intended to convey in what I said before was that if this is meant to limit the right given, any amendment in that respect should be made to the Dominion Elections Aot and not to the Indian Act. I do not know that any amendment to the Dominion Elections Act is necessary, but such an amendment should certainly not be made to the Indian Act. This enfranchisement covers all the rights of a British subject.


Albert Joseph Brown: Why is this change being made? It seems that its only effect is to take the responsibility away from the Indian and throw it into the hands of the officer.


Charles Murphy: A few moments ago I endeavoured to make plain the reason for the proposed amendment. There are in Canada to-day I would say a considerable number of Indians who have so far progressed that they should accept all the duties of citizenship.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then let them ask for it.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend says:
"Then let them ask for it." Let me point out, as has been done already, that under the Indian Act these people who are classed as Indians have certain rights and privileges, foT instance, in regard to their debts, as the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) indicated the other day. Recently in an indirect manner there came to my attention an instance where an Indian was carrying on a considerable manufacturing business in this country. He was assessed by the Department of Inland Revenue for the sum of 84,000 sales tax, which he paid. Later he secured the services of a legal firm who endeavoured to recover that amount of money from the department, on the ground that he was an Indian and carrying on his business on an Indian reserve. I leave it to the good sense of the committee to decide whether or not a man capable of carrying on business to the extent I have indicated,
namely to the point where he becomes liable for a 84,000 sales tax, should accept his responsibility as a Canadian citizen.


Paul Mercier: Was a judgment rendered?


Charles Murphy: I cannot say that, because I did not follow the case that far; in fact I am not certain as to whether or not a decision has been given. Further, may I point out that many Indians, so-called, have a greater proportion of white blood than Indian blood in their veins; yet they are still classed as Indians. Further, in some cases white children have been adopted by Indians and have become members of the band, thereby enjoying all the rights and privileges, if we wish to term them so, enjoyed by Indians. There might not be-and I believe, sometimes is not-one drop of Indian blood in their veins. Still they have all the privileges accorded to them under the Indian Aot.
Again, there are Indians of mixed blood who have left the reserves and gone to Montreal, Toronto or other Canadian cities and taken their places in the community in every respect, with the one exception that they do not exercise the right of voting. Possibly they cannot buy liquor legally. But for all other purposes they meet their white brothers on common ground, and compete with them. Then, there are many Indians to-day in Canada who belong to professions, and are as clever and brainy men as can be found anywhere. Is it reasonable that these people should not accept their full responsibility as citizens, rather than claim the privileges which are accorded to them because they have not seen fit to make application to become enfranchised.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I believe the minister
has succeeded in making clear the desire of the department. I take it from what he has said, and hope I am correct in my interpretation, that the department's desire to make the change by which it could enfranchise an Indian without receiving first a request to be enfranchised, as was provided under the old section, is because the department has found that certain Indians are evading their responsibilities as citizens, so far as their legal obligations are concerned. I should like to know whether it would be the intention of the department to go to a band which is not asking for enfranchisement, and enfranchise the Indians belonging to that band. Could the department take that action forcibly, and without first receiving a request from the Indians, in cases where there have been no violations of their rights as citizens?
Indian Act


Charles Murphy: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that any minister charged with the admin-tration of the department would have to make that decision, after considering all the circumstances.


James Malcolm: To my mind that seems to be the important point.


Charles Murphy: But I would say that
before taking such action the minister responsible would have to consider all factors. For the information of the hon. member who has just spoken may I refer to subsection 3 of clause 110 which reads as follows:
In the course of such inquiry it shall be the duty of the board to take into consideration and report upon the attitude of any such Indian towards his enfranchisement which attitude shall be a factor in determining the question of fitness.
I do not anticipate it would be the desire of the department, or any responsible minister, to enforce enfranchisement against any great objection by a band of Indians.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But you could do it under the section?


Charles Murphy: Yes, it could be done.


James Malcolm: I should like to sayand I believe the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario will agree with me-that the Indians themselves have a very strong desire for the franchise. On many occasions they have expressed their desire to candidates of both political parties. They urge that they are the first native Canadian citizens, and that the rest of us have descended from people who came to this country as foreigners. The Indians are the native Canadians. Regardless of the fact that the federal government has made a treaty with them to give them certain treaty moneys, and in that treaty have agreed that the Indians may fish and hunt so long as grass grows and water flows, and has agreed to give them ownership of certain lands- regardless of all that they believe they have the right to vote, and still receive the privileges under the treaty.
I believe the minister's point is well taken when he refers to Indians who leave reserves, who engage in business and try to avoid payment of taxes which might arise in the course of that business. I think the point is reasonably well taken that the department might say to him, "We maintain the right to state that you are a Canadian citizen and subject to the laws of Canada with regard to taxation." That ground may be well taken; but under the old act, as the minister so afely said, the Indians have always had the privilege of applying for citizenship. If their applications

are accepted they have to accept the obligations to which an ordinary citizen is subjected with regard to debts. The minister has pointed out that when they receive citizenship the land on the reserves which they have been holding is transferred to them in fee simple, they in turn incurring certain obligations to the band for the value of the land. The minute that becomes possible, the decision must be made whether the Indian can then sell the land to some white person who is not now on a reserve, or who may be objectionable to the other Indians at that point.
While the minister's point may be well taken, I do not think the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs or any other departmental official should have a right to go to a reserve and enforce enfranchisement of Indians who have not requested it, take away from them privileges they have enjoyed under the Indian Act, and place greater responsibilities upon them. I believe the position the Indians take-and I am referring to those bands in Ontario who are cultured, have good education and are farming intelligently, as obtains on some reserves with which I am familiar-that they have a right to vote at elections and still retain their Indian privileges, is a well founded claim. I submit suggestions made by the hon. member for North Timiskaming are well founded, and we would be wise to consider under the election act whether or not we might let the privilege of voting accrue to the Indians, without any reservation as to their civil rights.
I point out to the minister that, as every hon. member knows some of our Ontario bands sent practically every able bodied man to France. Of course those men were rewarded with the franchise, without incurring the responsibilities to which the minister has referred. How can we differentiate between the sons of those men who went overseas, and the fathers? They are the same type of Canadian citizens. Their fathers were enfranchised, and the boys who have now reached voting age cannot see why they should be deprived of that privilege. I place myself on record, with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, and the hon. member for North Timiskaming, in saying that we would be well advised to consider favourably giving to all the native Canadians who are called Indians the franchise for general elections.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am afraid I will have to disagree with my good friend who has just spoken. Having had some experience in administering Indian affairs I see great difficulties that the minister would encounter if he tried to enfranchise the

Indian Act
Indians holus-bolus and leave them with the rights they possess under the Indian Act, because under that act they are wards of the government of Canada and possess a great many rights. Enfranchisement would give the Indian every right of a Canadian citizen, but then he could be no longer a ward of the government.


Charles Murphy: And at the same time
every responsibility.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh,
absolutely. He becomes a Canadian citizen in the fullest sense of the word. But as a ward of the government he can call upon the government for a great many privileges. For example the education of the Indians is pretty much the responsibility of the government. The Indian does not pay taxes, except such as he imposes on himself for the purposes of the reserve or the band. All these things have to be taken into consideration. Up to date enfranchisement has only taken place at the express desire of the Indian and with the consent of the band. All my hon. friend is attempting to do is to say he does not require that the Indian shall make application, but if he finds, after representation has been made, that any certain Indian would be better enfranchised for various reasons, which he has enumerated, then he does not have to go through the process provided under section 110. All he has to do is to appoint a board consisting of two officers of the department and a member of the band. I am not just clear if the minister stated that this member of the band would be the appointee of the council. If that is true then the council would have some say, but his amendment does not so state. That selection is made by himself, and those three decide whether or not a particular Indian is to be enfranchised. If they recommend his enfranchisement, undoubtedly it will take place. Where I see difficulty is in the adjustment that will have to take place between the individual Indian who is enfranchised and the band and band council, with respect to his property held in common with the rest of the band. Under section 110 as it existed that was all taken care of.


Charles Murphy: It is yet.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I do
not see it. I would be glad to have that explained.


Charles Murphy: We are not altering that
in the slightest. The same conditions will apply if he becomes enfranchised under this amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: Suppose the band refuse to act, what is going to happen? Suppose the band or the council of the band have not been consulted: a recommendation is made by the board that a particular Indian be enfranchised. If my hon. friend is correct and this third member of the board, the Indian member, is the nominee of the council, then it would be assumed that the council were consenting parties?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: But I do
not see that that is provided for in the section as drafted.


Charles Murphy: Yes, under subsection 2
of section 110, which reads as follows:
The Indian member of the board shall be nominated by the council of the band, within thirty days after the date of notice having been given to the council, and in default of such nomination, the appointment shall he made by the Superintendent General.


John Vallance: Are we then to come to this conclusion, that if a band of Indians do not want to avaiil themselves of subsection 7 of section 110 they are now going to be or may be forced by the department, to nominate this representative on the board, and if they do not nominate, then the department itself nominates an Indian whether he wants to sit or not?


Charles Murphy: That is the aot as at present in force, and as it has been for some ten years.


John Vallance: Yes, but the minister forgets that he is now giving power to this board to nominate someone who must come before themselves. That is what we object to. Coming as I do from the ancient seat of Battleford where there are many Indians, naturally I am interested in them, and I cannot conceive of an Indian suggesting to the minister, and I cannot see where the minister in his travels ever got the suggestion, that the Indians wanted to be forced into the position that he is trying to put them in. I have learned to-day that the Indian, when he becomes enfranchised, as a treaty Indian loses his treaty rights. What is to hinder the department from enfranchising all Indians and taking away their treaty and all the privileges they have, whether they like it or not?


Charles Murphy: I think any responsible minister charged with the administration of the Indian Aot, if he is a fit and proper person to administer the affairs of that department would never have such an idea in his mind as to force enfranchisement upon a body of Indians who were not fit for enfranchisement.

Indian Act


John Vallance: That is the thing we
are trying to prevent. Why should the minister be given that power?


Charles Murphy: For the reasons I endeavoured to give to the committee a few minutes ago, when I pointed out why this amendment is being asked for; simply because there are many Indians in Canada to-day who should accept full responsibility of citizenship, and are not doing so because of the privileges they enjoy by being classed as Indians.


John Vallance: Then may I suggest,
in order to take care of that individual, why can we not state in the act that when an Indian reaches a certain position he then must automatically become enfranchised?


Charles Murphy: That is exactly what this board is provided to determine.


John Vallance: This board may go into the Poundmaker reserve and take twenty or thirty or fifty Indians or take none at all. They can pick whom they like. You have a board consisting of two men who are officials of the department with the possibility, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) says, of three appointed by the department, to force this on the Indian.


Charles Murphy: Not three members from
the department.


John Vallance: No, but you are going to have two, and another nominated by the department if the band does not choose one. I have had so much to do with the Indians and the problems facing the Indians in the disposition of the moneys that the Indian rightly thinks belong to him that I cannot conceive of the Indians as I know them even suggesting to the minister that this amendment be placed in the act.


Peter McGibbon: I think probably some of us have a different viewpoint.


John Vallance: You have different
Indians, that is the trouble.


Peter McGibbon: That is just what I was going to say. The Indians in my riding I think are probably ninety-nine per cent capable of conducting their business or exercising the franchise or anything else that the ordinary citizen of the community is capable of doing. I have some reason to believe, from conversation with others, that there are certain bands in the west and on the Pacific coast who have not that high intelligence and activity.


John Vallance: No, it is not lack of
intelligence, they are just as intelligent as your eastern Indians.


Peter McGibbon: I say that that is what I have been informed. But some reference has been made by the ex-Minister of the Interior to the fact that they are wards of the government and have certain privileges. I think you have to go behind that a little. They exercise certain privileges because the government of the day is under certain obligations to them. We took the country from them, and the government pays them moneys in compensation, which moneys are doled out to the Indian at about $5 a month, and in times like these they think it is not sufficient, and it is not. A family of five gets $5 a month from the government, and we must remember that in times like these they are not given relief. They are wards of the Dominion government, and they are not given relief by the municipalities. As I endeavoured to point out the other day they are handicapped even when they go into the labour market. A year ago, when we were furnishing relief in the form of labour, the Indians could not get work because they are wards of the nation, and the other people in the community thought the Dominion government should look after them.


John Vallance: Will this amendment to the act make it any easier for the Indians?


Peter McGibbon: I think so. I can only speak for my own district, but I think you will find that all the Indians in the constituency I represent will apply for enfranchisement right away.


Mr. NEILL:: Why have they not done so before now?


Peter McGibbon: Perhaps it is a matter of education; perhaps they did not know they were entitled to do so. Really I cannot see any objection to the amendment. I think there should be an intelligence test, and I believe it should apply to others than Indians


Mr. POWER:: To members of parliament.


Peter McGibbon: Perhaps. The colour line should not be the line of distinction; that is my point. There should be an intelligence test, and if an Indian is sufficiently capable and intelligent why should he not be given the right to vote and why should he not be liable for any debts he may contract? Why not give him the full power of citizenship, as the Minister of Justice said; why not allow him to sell and buy things, even liquor if he wants it? I think this legislation is along the right line, and I believe it should pass.


John Vallance: Is this another case of the iron heel?

Indian Act


Alan Webster Neill: I think compulsory naturalization is a very dangerous thing, if that is what this amendment means. The minister admitted with some diffidence that this act will give him the power to enfranchise any Indian, and he explained the need for this power by pointing out cases of men who were in business. As the hon. member for North Bruce said, there would be no objection if the minister took that power only in regard to such people, but in answer to the hon. member the minister also said that he could apply it to entire bands if he so desired. When he was asked if he would apply it to Indians who did not want it he said their vigorous opposition would be taken into consideration. If the minister makes that statement in this house in view of the criticism which has been offered, it is quite evident that he realizes what is the fact, that he has absolute power to go out on a roving commission and enfranchise whom he likes. To quote scripture:
Whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive.
Let us look at it from another point of view, a parallel case. There are a great many people in this country who are qualified for citizenship but who, for various reasons, do not avail themselves of that privilege. It would be a parallel case if we compelled these foreigners to become naturalized. If we can compel an Indian to become naturalized if that is the correct word, why should we not compel a Ukrainian or any other foreigner to accept the same responsibilities?


Peter McGibbon: They are responsible
for their debts now.


Alan Webster Neill: I am speaking of exercising
the rights and privileges of citizens.


Peter McGibbon: They have most of the rights and privileges also.


Alan Webster Neill: We talk largely of the advantages of being a Canadian citizen. Will we be proud to be associated with people who have been forced to become citizens? What will we think of the mental calibre and value of a citizen upon whom that privilege has been forced? This is a serious step to cake, but if we do it in the one case we may be asked to do it in the other as well. Why not simply take this power in cases which can be enumerated in another subsection, covering those men who are in business and who are exercising all the privileges of a white man, and leaving out the members of the bands who are neither willing nor able to become naturalized?


Hugh Guthrie: I was going to suggest
that we might frame a section permitting the Indian himself to apply for the franchise and another section to carry out the intent of this proposed amendment, giving the Superintendent General power in certain cases. That would allow the Indian to make application, and in cases where such application is not made the Superintendent General could make application on behalf of the Indian. If a double barrelled section of that kind would meet the situation I think one might be drafted.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out that a
great deal of the objection from this side of the house has been to the compulsory enfranchisement of the Indians. An Indian has certain rights and privileges to which he is entitled. We took his country, and we owe him something. We came here and took away everything he had, and the least we can do is give him and his descendants some compensation in return. We have a treaty with him now, and I do not believe this parliament has the right, in justice and in common decency, to confer on the minister any power whatever to alter the terms of that treaty unless the Indian wants that step to be taken. The Indian has inherited certain privileges; he has become a ward of the government. He is not allowed to vote, presumably on the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. We say to him, however, "So long as you do not vote and do not become an ordinary citizen we will allow you to carry on as a ward of the government." Are we going to force him to vote? Are we going to take away from him the privileges which he has acquired traditionally and historically? I do not think we should do so, and I do not think the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice should be introduced.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Before touching on the question involved in the amendment I should like to be clear on one point mentioned by the Minister of Justice, in regard to who actually is an Indian. I think the minister stated that an Indian was one who belonged to a band or an irregular band or who followed the Indian mode of life.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a non-treaty
Indian.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is what I want
to have clear. My interpretation of the act- and I have been associated with Indians for the last fifty years and know a great deal about them-has been that an Indian who
Indian Act

was a non-treaty Indian and did not follow the Indian mode of life was a citizen of Canada. I should like to be clear on that point.
In the country that has been referred to by my hon. friend from North Timiskaming there are two distinct tribes of Indians who have intermingled. As far as one can leam, originally the Ojibway band, a section of the Algonquin tribe, occupied the height of land and the country south of the height of land and north of the great lakes. The Cree Indians occupied the watershed of Hudson bay and James bay. The Oree Indians in the Hudson bay area were one of the last bands to become treaty Indians; I think some of them did so quite recently. Before they became treaty Indians, however, and before they were recognized by the department in any sense, hundreds of them migrated from the shores of Hudson bay to the line of the Transcontinental railway and further south to the lake shore, and from the day they came to that district, some fifty years ago, they no longer followed the mode of life of the Indian. They stepped right in beside the white man and became citizens of the country, building homes for themselves and taking positions in railroad service, as mechanics and so on. In the town in which I live there is an Indian community living in homes as good as my own. They run locomotives; they have become telegraph operators, machinists and so on. They never have been recognized as Indians in the ordinary sense, as migratory or bush Indians, as we term them, have been recognized. That brings me to the situation referred to by the hon. member for North Timiskaming, where there are two classes of Indians. One of these classes exercise the franchise, and they have always done so, because they have never been recognized as wards of the government. I go a step further. We have a large Indian school three miles from the town in which I live, where the children of treaty Indians are entitled to free education in keeping with an arrangement made throughout Canada with the different denominations of the churches to which the Indians happen to belong. Now, the children of these Cree Indians are not entitled to the privileges of that Indian school, but their parents pay taxes to the public or the separate school as the case may be and they attend the school wherever it is located.
What is the situation with regard to these people? The term "following the Indian mode of life" has been applied to them although they do not follow that mode of life. People

commonly understand what that mode of life is; it means either that the Indians live on the reserve or that they are taking advantage of the privileges granted them to go hunting and fishing wherever they can. That is a point that should be definitely cleared up.
I come next to the question of the franchise. It is a fact that these Cree Indians have not for half a century followed the Indian mode of life but have lived after the manner of the white man, taking their position side by side with him and accepting all the responsibilities involved. One hon. gentleman referred to Indians who had gone overseas, and I believe I have stated in this house before that you could comb the country from the Mattawa river to the mountain line of Manitoba in 1917 and you could not find an adult Indian of military age and physically fit who had not volunteered to go overseas. But what is the situation when we come to enforce enfranchisement? The state is spending, to my personal knowledge, large sums of money on these Indian schools to train the boys and girls and fit them, not for the Indian mode of life but in order that they may, as their rights and privileges are taken away, and their opportunities disappear, step up alongside you or me or anyone else and take their position as Canadian citizens. But suppose they refuse to do this after all that has been done for them? I personally know of two girls who graduated from the Indian school in Chapleau. They were put through high school by the Indian department, through normal school by the Indian department, and they became qualified as school teachers, so that they are now teaching school in the southern part of Ontario in a settlement where all the children are white. Ultimately these young women will marry. There are men doing the same thing. In Chapleau, a young man, graduate of the Indian school and of the high school, takes a position in a bank or in a store or somewhere else. Should he not assume the responsibilities of citizenship when that has been done for him?
I know the Indians; at least I know two bands of Indians, having lived amongst them, and I know that they will be perfectly satisfied to allow their case to rest in the hands of the Indian department.


John Vallance: No, they won't.


George Brecken Nicholson: I speak only of those I know, and I have had a lot to do with them. All this talk about the Indian department setting up a tribunal that will go among the bands of Indians and take some family and say to them, "You must be enfranchised," is all rot in my opinion. I have had a good deal

Indian Act
to do with the Indian department, for I was a member of the commission that approached that department many years ago and made the joint arrangement under which these schools from one end of Canada to the other are being carried on. The interest of the Indian department in the Indians, and the sympathetic manner in which they have dealt and are dealing with these people, are in my judgment a guarantee as to whether the rights of the Indians will be transgressed or not in any part of Canada. But after all these things have been done for them, if they insist on accepting one position that has been provided and refuse the other, then the Indian department should be clothed with responsibility and should say to them, "Now that we have brought you to this stage you must accept your responsibilities." I think the Minister of Justice should make that point clear with regard to these people. I know from personal knowledge that hundreds of them for the last forty or fifty years have been following the ordinary life of the white man and have not lived as Indians in any sense whatever. I am not a lawyer but I understand that the statute makes reference to treaty Indians, Indians living on a reserve, members of a band of Indians, or an irregular band, or men and women following the Indian's mode of life. But these people have not been following that mode of life in this generation, and many did not do so in the last.


John Campbell Elliott: I wish to say a word or two in answer to some remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Nicholson). There is a clear distinction between the rights in this country of what is known as the non-treaty Indian and those of the Indian as defined by the Indian Act. The treaty Indian obtained his rights as a result of treaties which were made, by which the government of this country agreed, as my hon. friend from Quebec South said, to give to the Indian certain protection in return for what was taken away from him. The non-treaty Indian stands in a different class; he belongs to what is known as an irregular band. That is a band that does not hold lands under location ticket, which is the way Indians belonging to bands hold their lands in this country. The non-treaty Indian belongs to an irregular band which has no land, and he is known as an Indian largely by the fact that he follows the Indian mode of life. He may be only a temporary resident in Canada.
Personally I would not object to the amendment which has been proposed being made applicable to non-treaty Indians because the country does not owe them the same obligations that were imposed upon the government by the treaties with the treaty Indians. There is a clear distinction. It is a breach of faith if the government of this country goes back on the rights which the Indians thought they obtained under their treaty, not merely with respect to the privileges that have been referred -to but with respect to what I regard as the greatest privilege of all which the Indian enjoys, namely, his privilege of being protected against the guile and cunning of the white man who makes certain deals with him that are not in his interest. That is why the Indian Act was drawn as it is. That is the reason that in this country we have not the right to issue execution against the lands of an Indian who is not a non-treaty Indian. Living on the border of a couple of reserves as I have done for many years, and knowing very intimately the difficulties in which the Indian becomes involved at the hands of the not-too-scrupulous white man, I say it is a grave breach of the fundamental principles that underlie the treaty between the representatives of the people of this country * and the Indians if you compulsorily take out of that class people who have for generations had that protection and say to them, "We will now compel you to become ordinary citizens and, whether you want it or not, to accept the obligations and responsibilities of white people to whom we owe no obligation such as we owe to you under our treaties." Every hon. member who lives near the borders of a reserve knows that some very attractive lands have been set aside for the Indians. These lands are particularly attractive because of the waters which run through them or the timber or the grasses which grow upon them. These lands are a credit to the people who selected them for the Indians. Certain portions of these lands may be wanted for timber or for pasture. The protection which the Indian has had in the past will be taken away by this amendment. Previously no man could obtain a lease of any land from an Indian without first having it approved by the Indian department. I do not think the minister realized what he was doing by removing this safeguard from the Indian. It is proposed to give him this land in fee simple and not to have it held in trust by the government.


Charles Murphy: Enfranchisement will be
given only after a proper investigation.


John Campbell Elliott: After it has been obtained in a way never hitherto intended.


Charles Murphy: Pardon me, a similar
amendment was passed in 1920.
Indian Act


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Charles Murphy: I beg the hon. member's
pardon, it was.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister does not get my point. This amendment contains for the first time the evil of which I complain. By it, an Indian can be compelled against his own will to be enfranchised and to be made liable to have his land and his chattels taken in execution. I ask the committee to listen to the provisions of the previous subsection, which reads:
Upon the application of an Indian of any band, or upon the application of a band on a vote of a majority of the male members of such band of the full age of twenty-one years at a meeting or council thereof summoned for that purpose, according to the rules of the band and held in the presence of the Superintendent General or of an officer duly authorized to attend such council, by the governor in council or by the Superintendent General, a board may be appointed by the Superintendent General to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.
It is proposed that the following be substituted for that subsection:
The Superintendent General may appoint a board to consist of two officers of the department and a member of the band to which the Indian or Indians under investigation belongs, to make inquiry and report as to the fitness of any Indian or Indians to be enfranchised.
The action would not be a voluntary one by the Indian, it would be compulsory and would be in violation of all treaties. The government would cease to be the protector of the Indian. He would be left at the mercy of crafty and designing people who wished to make contracts with him. It would be possible to obtain a judgment against an Indian which would have consequences which were not possible formerly. There has never been a time when the people need as much protection against sheriffs and executions. There has never been a time when the privileges enjoyed by our people, whether white people or Indians should be more carefully guarded than now. This action would be a terrible mistake and a breach of faith against this great body of people.
Many of the prizes given at the ploughing matches in western Ontario are won by Indian boys and by older Indians. These people are very capable in many ways but they are not so capable of taking care of themselves in the making of contracts. They should not be robbed of the protection that has been thrown round them for generations. In some cases they need to be protected from their own

improvidence. I would follow the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to this extent, that this amendment should be limited to non-treaty Indians. We do not owe them the same obligation that we owe to the treaty Indians.


Charles Murphy: I do not think the Minister of Justice suggested that it should apply only to non-treaty Indians.


John Campbell Elliott: If the minister had been listening to me he would know that I did not suggest that the Minister of Justice made that statement. I am making a suggestion that it should be limited to non-treaty Indians because otherwise we would be guilty of a breach of the treaty. The Minister of Justice thought that a compromise might be arrived at and he suggested that they should be left the right to make application for enfranchisement and that there would also be the power in certain eases to compel them to accept enfranchisement. My suggestion is that the right of compelling enfranchisement should be limited to the non-treaty Indians. We should not go back on the obligations we undertook years ago to the ancestors of the present Indians.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member is in error when he makes the statement that this is the first time that such an amendment has been proposed.


John Campbell Elliott: If the minister will pardon me, I said that this subsection-


Charles Murphy: I did not interrupt my hon. friend and he should allow me to complete my remarks. He is in error when he says that this is the first time the proposal has been made to give this power to the Superintendent General and the department. This same amendment was passed in 1920 and it remained upon the statute books of this country for two years.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Why was it withdrawn?


Charles Murphy: I do not know what
motives actuated the minister at that time in taking that action. In order to make some progress and to meet the suggested amendment of the Minister of Justice, perhaps this section could stand for the time being.


Paul Mercier: How many Indians were enfranchised during the past two years?


Charles Murphy: I have not the figures for the last two years, I have them only for the last ten-year period. I do not think any

Indian Act
Indians were enfranchised during the last two years under this section; they were enfranchised under section 114, not under 110.


Paul Mercier: Is there a waiting list for the coming year?


Charles Murphy: There is not, under this section; there have been some applications made under section 114.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I have in my constituency the first colony composed entirely of graduates of the various Indian schools throughout the west. This colony has made great advancement in agricultural pursuits during the past thirty years. The main grievance I have from the members of this colony, especially on behalf of the sons of returned men, is that they have not been able to be enfranchised fast enough. An hon. member referred to that and a real question arises there. The sons of men who fought in the war and whose fathers are enfranchised by reason of their war service, are now in a number of cases of age and yet cannot vote. That is something I should like to see dealt with more satisfactorily than under this blanket clause whereby the minister and his officers can, in a wholesale way, take young Indians and old, and, just before an election, manufacture a lot of votes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Very dangerous.


William Richard Motherwell: I am astonished at my hon. friends.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh I


William Richard Motherwell: This would be the restoration of methods that prevailed many years ago, but in Saskatchewan we find the chief Conservative organizer, not on the relief commission, but administering the act as manager. If hon. members want to know his name, it is C. B. Daniels and a capable officer, but before he got the position he was chief Tory organizer in southern Saskatchewan. So we are just a little afraid that Saskatchewan methods may meander down here and be invoked by this government. I would ask the minister not to put himself into that position, because I do not believe he wants to be put in it. That is exactly what may happen, however.
Another point is that these Indians who have been dispossessed of their property, by force if you like, but more humanely in Canada than in any other country, are going to be weaned at a time the most difficult I can remember to be put on their own. I have been telling these young men who are anxious
to be enfranchised, that they are better off to-day than the white man. They have their schools near by, hospitals, medical services and an advisory foreman over them. They have every possible aid of which one can conceive. Now at this time when nobody can make a living on the farm, or at least nobody can pay his debts or replace his machinery, the government, under the guise of enfranchising these Indians, is going to shove them on their own wholesale. There must be some compelling force behind this enfranchisement conception under those inhuman conditions to which I have referred. I cannot conceive of any of them wanting the franchise on such terms as having to pay taxes and so on like the white man and hustling around under conditions that are very difficult, even though they do not start with any debts. I would ask my hon. friend not to have such terms embodied in this section. Let us give the young men as well as the old the right of initiative in making their own reforms. No individual can become a member of a band without the consent of its council. If an Indian from some other reserve wants to become a member of a band, he has to obtain the consent of the majority in it. When my hon. friend is looking into this matter, let him consider also the situation of the wives of these returned men. Nobody knows whether they have votes or not. In some places they vote; in others they do not. What about the wives of any of the Indians who are going to be enfranchised? Why should the franchise be confined to the males only? The Indian women are frequently better workers than the males.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They support the men,


William Richard Motherwell: Of course. As the saying goes:	The woman is the better man
of the two. They certainly deserve as much recognition as do the males in regard to enfranchisement, and they are quite as capable of exercising it intelligently. I think the minister should leave the section as it is, that is, preserve the right of voluntary enfranchisement.


Mr. EULER:: In the constituency which
I represent there are no Indians, either treaty or otherwise, and I rise to say a few words only on behalf of what I regard as a very definite principle. The term "treaty Indians" has been used. That implies, to me at least, although I have no extensive knowledge of this particular subject, that some sort of contract has been made with those Indians. If such a contract has been made, surely it is
Indian Act

not right for one party to it to break it without the consent of the other, or, in other words, to treat it as a scrap of paper of which we heard so much in days gone by.
Moreover, I am constitutionally opposed to anything in the nature of compulsion. I do not like the thought that men shall become naturalized against their will. Further, if they have not a sufficient appreciation of the rights of the franchise, of citizenship, to make the application themselves, I doubt very much whether it is worth while to make them citizens. I would add this as a qualification: If you are going to do that, I see no reason, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has said, why you should make a distinction, naturalizing Indians because they are worthy of being citizens, intelligent, industrious, and should assume all the responsibilities as well as possess all the advantages of citizenship, and not apply the same rule in the case of foreigners who have been in this country for five years or more, who have all the qualifications of citizenship and who yet do not avail themselves of their right to become naturalized. I might even go so far as this, that as regards men from other countries, I do not care where they come from, from the white countries if you like, from the countries of Europe, who have made Canada their permanent home and who for some reason do not become naturalized, it ought to be brought to their attention that it is their duty to assume all the responsibilities of citizenship. I should not make naturalization difficult in cases of that kind. Perhaps I am going a little too far afield in saying that. Instead of making it difficult for these men to become naturalized if they are willing to become citizens, I would make it easy.
I rose more particularly to dwell upon what my deskmate said a moment or two ago. I do not ordinarily attribute sinister motives to anyone. I remember very well some seven or eight years ago when the Hon. Mr. Copp, who is now in the Senate, was Secretary of State and as such introduced an amendment to the Naturalization Act under which the Secretary of State was empowered to naturalize those who applied instead of the procedure before the judges as is the case at present. I recall what severe resistance was offered by our Conservative friends who were then in opposition. They gave as their reason that it would be very easy, just prior to an election, for a secretary of state, at the behest of a government that naturally wanted to be reelected, to naturalize these foreigners in shoals and hordes, in hundreds and thousands, knowing all the time they would vote in a

way that would be advantageous to the government. I do not say that would be done in this case, but as my hon. friend to my right says, it becomes possible for a government so to act. The amendment was withdrawn. The only reason that has been given by the minister for the introduction of this amendment is that there are a few Indians who have refused to pay their just obligations and who have taken refuge behind their privileges. I would say to him: While that argument may be sound, I do not think it is of sufficient importance; I do not think the instances would be so numerous-I believe they would be very few-as to justify him in breaking a sacred treaty with those Indians.


Charles Murphy: A moment ago I asked that this clause might stand in order that the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice might be considered and we might make some progress. I have no desire to shut off discussion; further discussion may be had at the next sitting. Perhaps we would make greater progress with another clause.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur):: Section 7 stands.


Vincent Dupuis: May I ask the minister when this clause will be reconsidered.


Charles Murphy: On the next government day, when it is called or appears on the order paper.
Section stands.


Charles Murphy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Donald James Cowan: Shall I report progress?


Vincent Dupuis: Before this motion is decided I should like to say a few words concerning it. I am afraid that this-


Donald James Cowan: I suggest that the motion to report progress is not debaitable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.	,

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that fhe house go into committee of supply.

Inspection of Canned Salmon
['Yes, it was. Section 98 is\na vicious piece of legislation. It will not be found on the statute books of any other English speaking country in the world. I challenge any hon. member opposite to name any English speaking country on this continent or in the world which has a similar section in its statute books. It is entirely un-British both in substance and in the penalties imposed. In the section there is one clause which\n\nprescribes twenty years in prison for wearing a button. This provision is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a weak government, as was ably illustrated by the speaker who preceded me. It is urged that this section is required to combat communism and those who advocate violence and terrorism. My answer to that is that there are in the criminal code at present sections sufficient for the purpose. There are all the sections concerning sedition and unlawful rioting. The danger in this legislation lies in the fact that it may be used against organized labour. Legitimately organized unions and organized labour have in years gone by protested against this legislation. I admit there is considerable unrest in Canada, and under the pressure of poverty and distress there are a few harebrained and irresponsible persons who advocate force and violence, but surely that is no reason for our losing our heads and becoming panicky and allowing legislation of this kind to remain on our statute books.\nI did not have the pleasure of hearing, but I was rather amused to read, the speech of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. From it one would imagine that Toronto is absolutely overridden with communists and that anyone speaking on a Toronto platform and advocating some measure of reform is taking marching orders from Russia, as the hon. member puts it. The hon. gentleman is seeing red; that is the difficulty. I notice he quoted from the statement of the communist party. I advise him to dispose of the document quickly, otherwise he is liable to be charged with possessing unlawful literature.']
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about a subject of considerable importance to the fishing industry of British Columbia. My remarks arise from the passing on the third day of this month of order in council No. 206. I should like to discuss the matter from two angles, first the ostensible reason put forward for its passage and then I should like to state what I believe to be the real and ulterior motive behind iC
Before doing that however I should like to deal with the method of introducing the order in council. Although it was passed on February 3, it was not gazetted until fifteen days later, namely on February 18. However the public was, so to speak, privately advised of it, and hon. members from British Columbia who were here at the seat of government had to get their information that the order in council had become law from the newspapers published in the west, which were sent to us from British Columbia. While the order in council is vital to the fishing interests, it was actually passed under the authority of the Meat and Canned Foods Act. A section of that act is devoted to fishing matters, and is under the control of the Minister of Fisheries. I suggest therefore that the responsibility for the passing of this order in council is his.
I should like to give three reasons why it should not have been introduced in that way. In the first place the matter to which I have reference should never have been introduced as an order in council. It was of sufficient importance to be introduced as a bill. We are all familiar with the law-I believe it is a law-that regulations under an act must be confined entirely to amplifying or carrying out the purposes of that act, and that it is ultra vires by way of order in council to introduce that which is practically a new law. We are told that any change of that kind must be brought about by means of a new act. Comment is often made by hon. members on both sides of the house that the party sitting opposite is merely rubber stamping the opinions of the government or of t.he opposition as the case may be. That may be so, but at least on such occasions we are rubber stamping opinions and policies decided either in a meeting of the cabinet, at a party caucus or at a convention. But there is another aspect in connection with which we are all equally guilty, and which constitutes a worse form of rubber stamping. The government brings a bill before the house under which it takes power to pass regulations; thereafter all our responsibility and control seems to disappear. We simply come
here and find that the government has rubber stamped the views and opinions of one or two officials, that action has been taken in secrecy and without any publicity. If that is not rubber stamping carried to excess, I do not know what it is.
In 1932, about a year ago, there was a complete revision of the Fisheries Act. That matter was referred to the marine and fisheries committee, and under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) good work was done. A considerable part of the work in that committee was merely that of revision. But in addition some new sections were introduced, passed and reported to the house. But not one of those new sections, or even the whole of them put together, had the importance of this order in council which has now been slipped through without publicity of any kind. All that work was done, and now we find an order in council is passed which might possibly vitiate some of the most important parts of the act itself.
I object, again, to the fact that the order in council was passed when the house was sitting. About the year 1923 a resolution was passed in the marine and fisheries committee of which the hon. member for Antig-onish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was chairman. That resolution was to the effect-and he will correct me if I am wrong-that the committee requested or recommended-the language was not more imperative than that-that if the department proposed to put through any order in council relating to fishery matters while the house was sitting, the committee should first be advised. The idea was that parliament was paramount, and that while parliament was sitting and the committee was sitting it would be wise and well that any material changes proposed to be enacted by order in council should receive the investigation of the committee. I submit that the change to which I shall refer 'is very material, and should have been referred to that committee. There could have been no rush, because the action proposed to be taken could not possibly be taken for three months, and more likely about four and a half months. There was no excuse for the secret rush- because I believe that is the way to describe it.
My third objection is that it is a breach of good faith with the whole fishing industry of British Columbia. In the last eight or nine years a most admirable practice has grown up in the department, whereby the minister or his deputy has visited British Columbia once a year, mostly in the early
Inspection oj Canned Salmon

days of December. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) came one year, and we were pleased to see him. On such occasions the deputy minister holds meetings at three or four of the principal points in British Columbia. An agenda is prepared beforehand, and any person, whether he be rich or poor, canner-man or fisherman, is entitled to place his views before the meeting. All people are welcome, canner-men, fishermen and dealers. The result is that the officials receive an idea of the feelings in the industry. The meetings have been found so satisfactory that a practice has grown up, established by long usage, that unless a matter has been discussed at one of the meetings it will not, except in very urgent oases, be made the subject of legislation during the coming year. That met the objection that was so common for many years that the government had a habit, influenced perhaps by political or other considerations, of passing orders in council and legislation of that kind at the very last minute. The canneries were embarrassed by these regulations coming in the last minute before the season began; the fishermen did not know what regulations they had to comply with; so it became a well established rule that unless it was something of extreme urgency, nothing that had not been discussed at these meetings would become the subject of orders in council for the ensuing season. That has been carried out for eight or nine years with very good results. It was departed from on one occasion last year, a matter of political influence, very much to be regretted, and here we have another departure and a very much worse one. Last year when the deputy was out in December he had four meetings at least, five possibly, and discussed matters fully. The agenda I am of course quite familiar with. There was nothing in the agenda about this subject, it was never brought up at any of the meetings, the deputy minister never heard of it as far as we know, and no hint was given of anything of the kind. Early in January I heard a whisper -these things do leak out-that an attempt was to be made to put over this legislation -and "put over" is precisely the language to use. I wrote to the department on the 13th of January and got an answer dated the 20th of January which indicates that my letter was the first intimation that had reached the department about this matter. Then it goes on to say that the requirement that none other than salmon in perfect condition should be placed in cans was being well taken care of through the inspection of 
canned fish. Well, that reassured me; I was satisfied then that there was nothing in the whispers that I had heard.
So that on January 20 the department had no intention of legislating along the lines of the order in council which it passed two weeks later. I do not suppose they get up before breakfast to pass an order in council; it must have been a matter of consideration, possibly of correspondence. At any rate within two weeks after the date on which the department assured me there was nothing in the wind the order in council was actually signed by His Excellency-without publicity, and it was not put into the Gazette until fifteen days later. Why was no notice given the industry? Why were the independent can-ners, who were going to be deeply affected, not advised? Why were the fishermen, whose livelihood was imperilled to a large extent, not advised? I might even say, why was I not advised, considering that I had been assured fourteen days before that there was nothing in it at all? I think it would have been only fair to advise me of this sudden change of principle and policy and as to what their intentions were. I keep asking myself again and again, why was this thing perpetrated? Why? Why? Well, sir, I can answer my own question. For the same reason that a burglar operates in the dark; it had to be put over in the dark because it could not be done in the daylight. The least breath of publicity, the merest ray of light thrown upon it, would have killed it. Now I want to be perfectly fair. Sometimes I am accused of not being fair, but I am. I see the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) quite agrees with my contention, though I do not know which one it is he agrees with. I am sure it is the first one. At any rate I want to be fair to-day, and I will say that the defence given by the department-I do not know if I am paying them a compliment when I say defence-is this, that the order in council dealt with the inspection of canned salmon, and as this inspection of canned salmon is a matter wholly concerning the oanners it was not necessary to take it up at these meetings on the coast attended by fishermen and others, and therefore all I have said about not passing legislation that was not considered at these meetings was beside the mark. Yes, it is true that ostensibly it deals only with canned salmon inspection regulations, and if that was true in its entirety, then consulting the oanners alone would have sufficed. But it is a terrible and obvious quibble. The nature of this regulation is such that it becomes of vital

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
and desperate importance to the fishermen, and that places it in the category of the things that should have been discussed at the fishermen's meetings. So that dissipates that defence.
To sum up: First, this legislation should have been introduced by an act; second, it should have been referred to the marine and fisheries committee then sitting; and third, it was a breach of the established policy that had been carried out for years and years with the fishing industry in British Columbia.
Now having dealt with the circumstances surrounding the illegitimate birth of this- might I call it-piscatorial foundling, let us devote ourselves to some consideration of the reasons alleged in support of its original conception. Ostensibly it was introduced to strengthen the government regulations dealing with the inspection of canned salmon. Years ago the government found it necessary, and properly so, to install a system of government inspection and guarantee of canned salmon. The question immediately arose as to how to accomplish that inspection. Two ways were suggested. A number of people recommended, and I think I supported them, that it could best be done by having one inspector at every cannery. He would stand there, he would see the fish as it came in; it would matter not to him where it came from or how long it had been caught, or anything else; all he would be guided by would be his judgment of the actual state of the fish. If the fish were bad he would say: That fish must not be canned. If he gave his approval to it being canned-he was there in the plant and would have followed every detail of the procedure; it is a well known process-at the end of the process he would be able in all sincerity to give a certificate that it was of the first class. That would have been the best idea, but the government found it to be too costly. I agree with them; possibly it was. So they decided upon the other method -there were practically only two between which to choose-that is making the test on the canned product. I emphasize that because my whole objection turns upon it. The government decided that the inspection would be made on the canned product. So many tins would be opened and the inspector would pass judgment on it, just as you do in the case of fruit or other articles. Now last April the government in pursuance of this policy introduced by order in council under the Meat and Canned Foods Act a considerable number of regulations dealing with the inspection of canned salmon. It will be recalled that I objected very strenuously to some of them,
not that I objected to the system, but I said they were unworkable, ill calculated to achieve the object they professed to serve. Of course no attention was paid to my protest; they were declared to be perfect. The impression was given that they were inspired. Well, Mr. Speaker, they may have been inspired, but I do not think they were divinely inspired. The inspiration came from a less exalted source. To use the vernacular, I have since got quite a kick out of the subsequent results of those supposedly inspired regulations that could not be improved upon and were the very last word. The thing became, as I had predicted, a joke-simply and plainly a joke. A gentleman came out from London, England, one of the biggest buyers of canned salmon in the world-and that is a big word. He had a very big older with him. He expressed in plain English, very emphatic language that I could hardly repeat here, his opinion of the intelligence and mental capacity of anyone who would consider those regulations suitable or useful. He said that for his part he was not going to buy a case of salmon unless it passed the inspector arranged by himself. Since then I have received information from a gentleman of some standing in Australia who complained 'that the regulations had lent themselves to direct abuse. That was in the early days, before the regulations were amended. He said they encouraged people to take salmon of an inferior grade to Australia, where it was sold as the very best, and a little later I will quote from his letter.
Perhaps the best proof of the futility of these regulations can be shown by the way the department treated its love child. The regulations were put in operation ten months ago, and since then they have been amended five times. The original regulations covered two and a half columns of the Gazette, but the five amendments or additions made since then extend to some five and a third columns. In other words it has been found necessary to patch or add to this good and godly garment until the patches cover the garment not once but two and a half times. That will give us some idea of the adequacy of the original regulations. These amendments were made to a very considerable extent along the lines I advocated. Of course they did not follow my recommendations too closely; that would not have done at all. There is such a thing as saving the face of the department, and it would not have done to give me an opportunity to say "I told you so" too plainly. At any rate the amendments were substantially along the lines I suggested. Finally the officials thought the regulations
Inspection of Canned Salmon

were now all right, at least they thought so until three weeks ago, when they threw this order in council into the works and upset everything again. Let me quote the letter of the department dealing with these regulations:
... it may be said, without the possibility of successful contradiction, . . .
That is a brave statement.
. . . that the fact that the original regulations and the amendments thereto have been accepted with remarkably near unanimity by the canners, is in itself an evidence of the efficiency of the regulations.
Is it really? It is to laugh. It might also be held to be evidence of the fact that the reglations were so ineffective that the people concerned did not bother to complain of them. It might be taken to mean that they were glad to get the appearance of government endorsation of their product even though the regulations were so feeble and ineffective that they did not impose any restriction on them. Suppose I were asked to formulate a set of regulations to deal with a case of smuggling, and later I had to make a report. I might say, "Well, I have a set of regulations that have worked like a charm. The smugglers are perfectly satisfied with them." Would that be considered an evidence of efficiency? I rather doubt it, yet that is all it amounts to. For evidence of that kind I would rather look to statements by buyers and wholesalers in other countries. I would look to see if these Englishmen were content to accept the government inspection and no longer insist on their own inspection.
At any rate, that is the official attitude. We have further endorsation from British Columbia. The chief supervisor of fisheries is quoted as follows:
It has proved a notable success and has been welcomed by overseas buyers, especially in Great Britain and Australia.
Then I see a long article in the Pacific Fisherman, a well known fisheries paper, in which the chief supervisor is quoted as follows:
The results, he said, have been in general highly satisfactory, and the buying trade has been well pleased;-
Then follow endorsations by two or three of the leading cannery operators in British Columbia. That must have been a red letter day for the chief supervisor of fisheries. In addition to having his views recorded on one page, I find on an adjoining page a really pretty photograph of him attired in the most up-to-date golfing togs and associating with some of the leading cannery operators on the coast, an attitude which I 
think is highly symbolic. It was rather curious to hear the chief supervisor talk about the results being so satisfactory in Australia, because I have in my hand a letter written last November by a man who says he is the representative of a large merchandising business in Australia, the name of which he mentions. He says:
For some time past, several merchants have been relabelling salmon, mostly pinks, and naming them reds and distributing them as reds. The practice, apart from its dishonesty and misrepresentation, was causing bona fide traders concern, especially those who would not practise the deception.
Then in a letter he sent to the government of Australia he says:
I understand the federal government of Canada was trying to make it an offence under the pure foods department or health act, but the results are very disappointing.
But the chief supervisor says he has had word that the results are very satisfactory.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the hon. gentleman mind letting me see that letter?


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly. Part of it is a personal letter to myself, but I know my hon. friend will treat it as such.
Among the regulations passed last April was one establishing a board of inspectors. I objected to that system very strongly, because it appeared that these inspectors who were liable to condemn the packs of the canners to the extent of thousands of dollars were to be nominated, appointed and paid by the canners themselves. Is it any wonder that I objected to a system of that kind? I have in my hand a clipping from the journal published by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which comment is made on the system of inspecting meat in Australia. I find these words:
All these inspectors are salaried officers of the commonwealth government entirely independent of the proprietors of the meat works.
Is that not the proper way? How would it look if this same journal, published by the government, in explaining the system of salmon inspection had to say that these inspectors were nominated, appointed and paid by the canners themselves? What weight has an inspection conceived and carried on in this way? I will say, however, as I said in April last, that by chance or otherwise the first men appointed to the board were good, capable, competent and reliable men, whose integrity and honesty is unquestioned. I am not saying a word against them. I said then, and I repeat, that I would be quite satisfied with their judgment as such, but I do condemn the system. We left it to the judgment of

Inspection of Canned Salmon
these good men; we said to them, "You will look at this salmon. If in your judgment it is good you will pass it." Here are the exact words of the order in council defining the duties of these men; it is subsection 27 (a):
Canned salmon that are found by the board of inspection to be fresh, firm, well-packed and in good, merchantable condition, shall be approved and a certificate in the form attached marked A shall be issued therefor.
If the inspector found that the fish was in that condition in the tin, fresh, firm, well-packed and in good, merchantable condition, he would issue the certificate, but if he did not issue the certificate, if it were anything inferior to that standard, it had to be marked second quality, and that absolutely damned the sale of it, because you cannot sell canned fish marked second quality.
That was the section under which these men acted; it was within their sound judgment as to whether the fish complied with that requirement. Now I come to the order in council which was passed on February 3 last. It simply added a proviso to the words I have just read, as follows:
Provided that no certificate shall be issued for canned salmon that had not been landed fresh at a cannery for canning within twenty-four hours after being caught, excepting fish that has been gutted and iced immediately after being caught.
They have their tenses mixed; it is not even grammatical. However we will let that go. You will observe that it stipulates that the fish must be landed at the cannery fresh for canning within twenty-four hours of being caught. It does not say that it must be canned within twenty-four hours, so that vitiates the usefulness of the whole provision right there, to say nothing of other reasons that might be advanced. It may be landed at the cannery within twenty-four hours, but the fish may lie there for another twelve hours to suit the convenience of the cannery man, because there is nothing to prevent that being done.
In the preamble of the order in council it is stated:
Whereas the acting Minister of Fisheries, on the advice of the deputy Minister of Fisheries and the responsible officers of the department, and with the approval-
With the approval of whom?
-of the salmon canners, recommends that, etc. . . .
It is with the approval of the salmon canners, the very people whose goods are to be inspected and perhaps severely dealt with. That order in council creates an absolute departure from the principles that the government had already laid down. Formerly the
test was simply the appearance and condition of the fish. The question that had to be decided was, did it comply with that stipulation that it should be fresh, firm, well-packed and in good merchantable condition. It was left to the judgment of competent, experienced, reliable men. They did not have to consider the history of the salmon or its pedigree or ancestry, or where it came from or anything else. It might have come from California or Mexico or the Arctic pole; all they had to do was to use their judgment and determine whether it was of the required quality. If it did they would approve; if not, they would not. What is the situation now? They may be perfectly prepared to approve it; the fish may come up to every word of that requirement; but if in addition to that it is not proved that the fish has been delivered at the cannery within twenty-four hours of its being caught then it must be condemned.
Now how are these men to know whether the fish has been delivered within that time or not? It might have been delivered within ten hours of being caught and still it might be the duty of the inspector on inspection to condemn it; that would be quite understandable. But what is the test? Is it delivery within twenty-four hours of the fish being caught, or is the test to be the question whether or not the fish comes up to the stipulated requirement that it shall be fresh, firm, well-packed and in good merchantable condition? There is no question at all that in the final analysis this last is the principle on which the inspectors must act. If it is bad, it is the inspector's duty to condemn it even though the fish may have been put into the tin alive. But if on the other hand the inspector finds that it is perfectly good, quite fresh and of the highest quality, he cannot give a certificate unless it can be proved that the fish was landed at a cannery within twenty-four hours of being caught. Now I should like to know how any inspector can get that information? Why the need for this sudden and violent change of policy, changing the whole system right round, from the inspection of the canned product to a question as to the time within which the fish has been delivered at the cannery?
The system was lovely; the department at Ottawa said so. The chief supervisor in British Columbia says so, and he is the last word as an authority on fish, certainly in his own opinion. This was not asked for by the officials; at any rate it was not asked for by them as late as January 20, because I have the letter right here. It was not asked for by the board of inspectors. Now would you
Inspection of Canned Salmon

not have expected to find the inspectors taking part in this and approving of the order in council? Yet there is no record in the order in council, in the correspondence or anywhere else to show that they were either interested in, or invited to express any opinion on the subject. They did not ask for it, and it would have been remarkable had they done so, because it would have been admitting openly an obvious reflection on their ability and intelligence. Who then did ask for this change in the system? It was not the department; it was not the inspectors; it was not the fishermen. I will tell you who did ask for it. According to the letter from the department, strong representations were made to the department on behalf of those who put up over ninety per cent of the canned product-not ninety per cent of the canners, but those who put up ninety per cent of the canned product, which might have represented two or three companies-
-that- the existing inspection requirements that canned salmon must be fresh, firm, well packed and in good merchantable condition to be entitled to a certificate were not sufficient.
And it had to be buttressed up in the way I have indicated. Why did they ask this? Were they dissatisfied with the judgment of their own inspectors whom they themselves had recommended so strongly only ten months before? Was there any reason for dissatisfaction with them? Had any word come back from the markets in Britain and elsewhere that the fish was not in proper condition and that the regulation as it stood was inadequate? No sign cur evidence of that at all. I will give the real reasons in a moment.
Let us consider how this requirement will work, or rather not work. How will it be carried out? Is there to be an inspector on every little boat, a man who will stand there and put a tag on every salmon as it comes on board, or how will he know? Are you going to make the fisherman, when he comes to the cannery, take an oath as to how long this particular fish or that other fish has been out of the water? I have a vision of a man coming in with twenty or thirty fish and taking an oath that these eighteen fish over here had been caught sixteen hours, those six with the curly tails had been caught a couple of hours later, and as to this other lot over here, well perhaps they had been caught twenty-five hours but he was on daylight saving time while the officials were on standard time, so perhaps that would make it all right. Or are you going to require an oath of the cannery man? Of what use would that be? He could not know. He could only repeat what the fisherman had told him. I am not impugning
[Mr. Neill.l
the honour or integrity of the cannery man, but we all know that in any rank of life if you make it compulsory for people to swear to stereotyped statements it will simply mean that some bookkeeper will say, "Here Bill, sign this thing," and Bill will sign it, although he does not know what it refers to. I have known cases-and I am not referring now to the fish business-where one man has been required to sign something and in his absence someone else has signed his name.
I contend therefore that this provision will be entirely superficial. It will be entirely useless, and stereotyped statements forced in that way are of little value anyhow. I want you to note this also. The inspector may be perfectly willing to O.K. the fish but he has to have evidence that they were landed on the wharf twenty-four hours after they were caught. How is he to get it? He must get it or else the whole thing must be a joke and never intended to be enforced. I rather suspect that, in this aspect of it, and I intend to suggest a real reason. How is this thing going to be done? The order in council which I read contains no provision by which it can be carried out. The order in council was passed on February 3, four months before it was needed, and yet no method was suggested for carrying out its provisions. How is he to find out whether the fish was caught within the time? It is unworkable and it is superfluous. It would be superfluous if it were not unworkable and it would be unworkable if it were not superfluous-it is both.
The argument is used that after all twenty-four hours is a long time and a considerable distance can be covered in that period. Time is a comparative thing. If a man is to be hanged, twenty-four hours is a different measure of time than if he is going to be married. It is said that you can go two hundred miles in twenty-four hours, but that means eight and a quarter miles per hour which would require a faster boat than is generally used. Fish cannot be caught like you would go into a store to buy a pound of butter. Fishing is not one incidental, isolated action, it may take twelve or fifteen hours to get a load. If the first part of the load happens to be just within the twenty-four hours, the latter must be within the eight or ten hours. Such a provision would impose a hardship upon the fishermen. Then, as every fisherman knows, it depends entirely upon how the catch is handled. An inspector might properly reject fish which had been only ten hours out of the water. So many factors enter into this matter; there is the variety of fish and the conditions under which they are caught, the weather, icing and so on.

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
The fish must be landed upon the cannery wharf within twenty-four hours, but only landed. What use is that? The idea in mind is supposed to be quality, but how can the quality be improved by insisting that the fish be landed upon the wharf within twenty-four hours after being caught and then permitting them to remain upon the wharf twenty-four hours more. There is no provision to take care of that possibility. The only provision is that the fish must be landed upon the wharf within twenty-four hours.
It is a well known fact to those who know, and the men behind this movement, do know, that some fish carry much better than others. I am told that sockeye carry much better in the round, that is, unopened and ungutted, than other fish do even when gutted and iced. There is something about sockeye which makes them carry better without opening. They do not feed immediately before being caught and are not full of what is called red feed which ferments and decays. Let me quote from a practical cannoryman, as follows:
It is a fact that sockeyes for instance oarvy better in the round than any other species of salmon, having no feed in them, and we are prepared to guarantee that we will land sockeyes properly iced in the round seventy-two hours after being caught in better condition than similar fish landed twenty-four hours after being caught which have not been properly eared for and iced.
To my own knowledge I know that that is true. As I said before, the conditions imposed by the order in council are superfluous, useless and unworkable. I doubt very much if there will be any genuine attempt made to enforce them. It will be a dead letter, there are no teeth in it as regards its ostensible purpose.
I shall now deal with the other purposes of the regulation and to do this I shall have to go back a little into the history of the canning industry of British Columbia. Many years ago there were no canneries, the waters were open to everyone and to everything. Certain men b^gan to can and it was thought desirable to encourage them. The thing was an uncertain venture and the government quite properly gave them the exclusive rights to large bodies of water. I am not kicking against that action because I probably would have done the same thing as there did not seem to be any reason at that time for not doing it. Unfortunately, where you create a monopoly, in time you lead to favouritism and graft. The worst feature of the whole proceeding was that it gave not only exclusive rights to canning but also to fishing. It is hard to believe that only fourteen years ago it was a criminal offence for a Canadian
to go out into territorial waters-I think it applied also to extraterritorial waters-and catch fish. He could not get a licence or if he did it would be of no use to him. The cannerymen received and farmed out the fishing licences to the fishermen who were in a state bordering upon economic serfdom. They were absolutely at the dictation and the influence of the men from whom, and from whom only they could get the licence which enabled them to fish. The canning trade proved to be profitable and many petitions were made to obtain the rights which at that time could be obtained only by political influence.
In 1917 or 1918, I just forget which, the Hon. Mr. Rallantyne, Minister of Fisheries in the Union government, went out to the west coast. I am glad to note that in the parliamentary guide book he puts his politics down as Independent, and this perhaps accounts for the courage and foresight with which he acted. To paraphrase Genesis, he saw that the thing was not good and he put his foot down and said: I will do away with all this. He established an open door policy, so that everyone who bought a licence and complied with the conditions could go and fish and carry on as a canneryman or fisherman. The fishermen could then call their souls their own, they ceased to be criminals when they went fishing. They had a standing in the community, they saved money and bought their own boats. They became a sturdy and desirable class of citizens, they married and settled with their families to form little fishing communities. They represent a bulwark of empire upon our western front. Some day some nation-I am not indicating which-may want to form another Manchukuo on Vancouver island. It may be said that that is impossible, but we thought the other Manchukuo was impossible. From an imperial and national point of view it is very desirable to have these little settlements along the narrow waters and fjords. These sturdy, hardy fishermen are thoroughly familiar with the waters of the western coast.
Another result, perhaps not as desirable, which followed this open-door policy was the increase in the number of canneries. People rushed into the business and before long there were jealousies and rivalries between the different canneries. It led also to very intensive fishing. To equip properly a seine boat costs from $20,000 to $25,000. Previously, two canneries located in comparative proximity were in the habit of each putting in, say a couple of seines. However, in order to make more money and to get ahead of the other
Inspection oj Canned Salmon

fellow-the undying horror of a canneryman is to let a neighbour get half a fin ahead of him-they went out and put four seines each into the water. Then the other fellow would try to go one better and I have heard of cases where fifteen seines have been placed in waters which would ordinarily take only four. The department, realizing the danger to the industry brought about by this action, formulated a rule that if more than a reasonable number of seines were being used, the department to be the judge, the number of days for fishing per week would be cut down. Of course by this method you get more fish. But it was far more expensive fish; it cost the eaoners more money to get a given quantity by these intensive methods. You can imagine that catching one-third more fish with five times the equipment would not be profitable. The rivalries and jealousies led also to fish of poorer or more doubtful quality being put up. The one idea in those years seemed to be to get a bigger and bigger pack regardless of the cost and heedless of the quality of the fish put up. This meant a huge outlay for the boats and a bankrupting outlay for the canners. By and by the inevitable result followed of heavy losses. Backers and bankers began to ask:	Why all this sudden
loss? Why this large expenditure? Like the Israelites of old, who when they were cornered in the wilderness as a result of their sins, instead of acknowledging them, cried: Would to God we had stayed with the fleshpots in Egypt, the cannerymen, because it is not human nature to admit one is wrong, instead of admitting the facts as they were, said: It is all due to Ballantyne's malicious policy; if we could only get back to the good old days when there was the closed door and exclusive rights all round, when I owned this fifty miles of seaboard and you owned the other, everything would be all right.
In fulfilment of those views, which the backers and bankers had to accept in lieu of a better and more definite statement, they tried to get back the good old days. They made a perfectly legitimate effort by endeavouring to have the Dominion government alter its policy. Succeeding governments were approached, and quite properly, but all efforts were unsuccessful. Then they attempted to work it through the provincial government, it having acquired rights over canneries and the fish after they were caught. The Hon. Mr. Howe, who was minister in charge, in a very roundabout way sought to give them the advantage for which they asked, but the method he proposed was so nonsensical that after it had been threshed out in committee of the local house, the cannery men's own 
lawyers advised him to withdraw it because if he attempted to put it through, it would only make his ignorance of the subject all the more apparent.
Following this, less creditable methods were adopted. They said: If we cannot get it by means of change of policy, of legislation, perhaps we can get it by means of regulations which say one thing and mean another. What they wanted to do of course was to get back as near as they could to the good old days, eliminate the small independent canners that had sprung up among the old established ones and also eliminate the independent fishermen who weTe growing in strength and importance, and make them serfs and tools of the cannerymen and dependent on them. This meant huge expenditures in boats and so forth. The really proper policy for the canners to adopt is to encourage the independent fishermen and let them fish and let the cannery men can. In all phases of industry it has been a good system not to try to do too many things at once. So the independent fishermen should be encouraged instead of being discriminated against. In this way the cannerymen would be saved great outlays and they could devote themselves to their business which is sufficiently large and profitable under normal conditions for them to pay their whole attention to it. It is needless to say that all these recommendations and proposals were made in the name of conservation and quality. Someone has said:	O patriotism, what crimes are committed in thy name! I have had a long and wide acquaintance with fishermen and cannerymen and every other class of the industry, and not one of them, when asking for something to which he was not entitled, has not laid his argument on the altar of conservation and quality. That is a proverbial and well known fact.
Mr. Speaker, as I have finished this phase of my argument, I would ask you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL



[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Explain.

Criminal Code-Ihdawjul Associations


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member has asked me to explain; I do not know that he would like to go through the bill with me, since in it there are some fourteen pages of printed matter. I may say, however, that the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto was incorporated by statute of the old province of Canada, passed in 1844. Naturally since that time there have been other statutes, one of which incorporated the Board of Trade with the Toronto Corn Exchange Association, and many others amending the original provisions applying to the corporation. I have read the bill and cannot see that it contains anything new. It is simply a consolidation of previous legislation, and is designed to put everything in more compact and understandable form. I suggest that any questions hon. members may wish to ask be asked in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code (unlawful associations), and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when the hour for private bills expired on Friday evening I was just about to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) on his success, at least to his own satisfaction, in answering charges made by hon. members opposite to the effect that there was some connection between the group to which he belongs, or groups in this corner of the house, and the communistic organizations of Canada. While I wish to congratulate him upon his success in satisfying his own mind, I am very much afraid that his was a labour of love which will remain unrequited for a long time, because hon. gentlemen opposite who insist upon making the charge would be very much disappointed if they had to accept the truth, which is that there never has been and never can be any connection between these groups and communistic organizations.
It appears to me that perhaps one reason why a certain section of the house opposes the repeal of section 98 is in order that it might be used for political purposes. By inspiring fear they hope to accomplish that which they cannot accomplish by applying reason. Such terms as bolshevism, communism and revolution used by people who have 53719-147
political objects in view present alarming pictures to the general public. Each one of those words in the minds of some people stands for something quite objectionable. Their connotations are such as to inspire fear and repulsion. So, in a movement in this country if one manages to connect with it the terms bolshevism, communism and revolution, he immediately raises an unreasoned objection on the part of the general public. It is very much like witchcraft. I suppose there never was actually such a thing as witchcraft, yet many poor old women paid with their lives for that superstitution. I do not suppose there is any real revolutionary movement in Canada; certainly those in this corner who are charged with being revolutionary are not. And yet this suggestion is being used, just as witchcraft was used, to scare people.
As I have said, perhaps that is one reason why some hon. gentlemen wish to retain section 98. They keep it alive for political purposes. I am not so sure that government agents are not employed in certain parts of Canada to stir up strife, in order that section 98 might be used. Certainly we have had examples of this in Leopold and Zanetti. These gentlemen were government-paid agents who took an inside leadership in certain communistic movements of Canada; they led on a few ignorant dupes until they got them wheTe they wanted them. At that point section 98 came into play and arrests were made. Surely the powers that be ought to hesitate to stoop to that sort of thing. Yet it was done, and maybe it is going on now to a greater extent. Perhaps the most radical revolutionary papers in Canada are being edited by agents of that type, who desire to prove the value of section 98, and to make connections with the groups in this comer of the house in an effort to gain ground for the argument that there is an association between the two.


Mr. ERNST:: Such as Change?


William Irvine: The hon. member has mentioned a very notable and exceptionally well edited paper which is very far ahead of any paper which at the moment can be claimed in support of the Conservative party.
Then, another group who want to retain section 98 are those who are afraid. They may have personal cause for fear about which I do not know, or their fears may be purely pathological. But that some of them have such fears there can be little or no doubt; and fears have always in the past expressed themselves in obscurantism and persecution. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who is not in his seat, is in my

2330	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
opinion one of those people dominated by fear. He is so afraid that a resolution passed by the synod of his own church seemed to disturb him greatly. I have before me an excerpt from a news item appearing in the Ottawa Journal of September 23, which reads as follows:
Nicholson, M.P. urges resolution toned down lest they be misquoted on communist platforms.
Toronto, Sept. 22.-Anglican Synod-A demand for condemnation of "capitalistic methods'' and of financial scheming which takes millions from the many, to put into the hands of the few, was made by the Very Rev. Archdeacon F. G. Scott of Quebec, at the general synod of the church of England to-day.
On motion of Canon A. P. Gower Rees of Montreal, the synod committed itself to the principle that "the nation is primarily responsible for the support of any citizen who, through no fault of his own, is deprived of his right to secure his own means of livelihood and the maintenance of his dependents."
Moving that the resolutions be referred to the special committee G. B. Nicholson, M.P. of East Algoma urged that they be toned down "lest they be misquoted on communist platforms all across the country."
When the hon. member is actually afraid of the resolution passed by the Anglican synod, one cannot wonder that he would literally quake with fear at the resolutions which come from this corner of the house.


William Gordon Ernst: Were both resolutions
passed?


William Irvine: Yes, so far as I can learn
from the report, both passed. So I say it is not surprising that one who for pathological or personal reasons is afraid of a resolution of the Anglican synod should be perturbed by a resolution coming from this comer of the house.


Mr. MORAND:: He was afraid of being misquoted.


William Irvine: Well the fear of misquotation is not expressed in the report which I read, and I have never heard any such fears expressed by the hon. gentleman here. It was always the reality of his imaginings he was afraid of, not of being misquoted. Now it appears to me that he and a few others in this house are suffering from Russiaphobia, and being in that condition they seem to be entirely unconscious that they are following Russian methods themselves. The attitude of the government in retaining section 98 and in arresting and imprisoning people under that section is undoubtedly that of the czar. That is the course the czar followed prior to the revolution. No matter how intelligent a man was, if he opposed the czar he was clubbed or murdered or sent to Siberia under laws similar to this that we are opposing. So that 
while hon. members apposite charge us with being bolshevists, I feel very much prouder of that than if I were on- the other side following in the footsteps of the czar across the sands of political time. And that is what they are doing. I say I would far rather be charged in this house or anywhere else with being a follower of Lenin than of the czar, though I am a follower of neither. Supporters of section 98 are followers of the czar. He who practises what the czar practised is a follower of the czar. This section 98 if it had been drawn by the czar would not have been any more rigorous than it is. Its method, its spirit, the political philosophy behind it, are those that were characteristic of the czar and led to the revolution which hon. gentlemen so much deplore and fear will be repeated. Economic slavery and persecution were the seeds of communism. Whatever associations hon. gentlemen may try to establish between the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, for instance, and groups associated with it, and the communistic groups, whatever success they can make of that they are welcome to, but I repeat, I would much rather be associated with communism than with the group to which they belong, namely the czaristic group. Section 98 is certainly not British, it is certainly not Canadian, it is a weapon of prerevolutionary Russia, and I do not marvel that those who advocate it are afraid. They are certainly taking a course which would give them cause for fear if they only realized it.
There is a third type that seem to desire to retain this legislation, namely those who honestly believe that ideas can be and should be put down by force. Those of us who want to see section 98 repealed believe that the widest possible latitude should be given to all thought, and that thoughts, whoever may express them, should be allowed to be uttered unhampered. I would not go so far with action; I quite realize that a government that cannot retain power ceases to be a government, and if force is exercised against the government then the government has to exercise force to maintain itself. In other words, if any group in Canada made forcible attacks upon government or upon the institutions necessary, to law and order, then I do not doubt that the government should take action, but for the government to begin to take action by force before any action has been taken against it is undoubtedly persecution. Let the government wait until the action has been taken against it; then it is time enough for the government to act. I suppose most of us have noticed that those who, like this parliament for instance, do a lot of talk-

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
ing, never act very quickly if at all. Great Britain has recognized that for a long time. She permits liberty of speech; men and women can go into the halls and the public parks of Great Britain and say what they like, there is no restriction on words or ideas. And Great Britain has found that that is much safer than to try to repress utterance. Think of the absurdity, for instance, of a single communist or a handful of communists standing up and saying that they are going to upset the Canadian government by force! There they are, a few poorly fed, poorly clad and sometimes ignorant individuals, with no organization, no money, no guns, no arsenal, no munitions, no aeroplanes, they have nothing but their mouths and they stand up and threaten to attack by force the government of this country! A ridiculous thing, a joke. Those, as a rule, who thus threaten attack by force, do so because of the realization of their utter inability to carry out their threat. If they really were trying to upset the government by force they would not be talking so much about it. Let them talk. Let them say what they will, as long as they do not act. When they act, and if their action be subversive, I agree that the government must be firm, but the government has authority to take action under those circumstances without this action, which, on the other hand, provides opportunity for any government inspired by fear to persecute instead of punish. There is the point, I think the most powerful point in the whole argument against the repeal of this section. In that connection may I refer to a statement which I think was made by Macaulay? He says:
The true distinction (between punishment and persecution) is obvious. To punish a man because he has committed a crime, or is believed, though unjustly, to have committed a crime, is not persecution. To punish a man because we infer from the nature of some doctrine which he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime is persecution; and is in every case foolish and wicked.
It appears to me, sir, that that is the whole point at issue in regard to the repeal of section 98. The government has all the authority it requires for the protection of the government and the state. But this section gives them the opportunity to persecute if they desire to do so. I do not say that they wilfully desire to persecute, but when men are as afraid as the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and find themselves with a weapon of this sort at hand, they use it. It has been used rather liberally in the past few months, and if it is not taken away no doubt S3719-1475
will be used in the future perhaps even more liberally. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all who believe in freedom of thought, who believe that every man should have the right to express his views when and where he desires, will support the repeal of section 98. Let those who are afraid, those who desire to use it for persecution, keep on their fateful course; history will deal with them just as it did with their predecessor the Czar of Russia. But for those who wish to retain British institutions and who wish to give freedom to thought- or shall we say those who wish to retain Canadian institutions, which are perhaps even higher-I say, let us wipe this legislation from the statute books and allow Canadians the right to express themselves on political and economic and social questions as they feel inclined.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of this measure which is before the house. I was surprised-and I suppose being surprised arises from the fact that I am a new member, because I notice that the older members are not surprised at anything that happens in the house-I was surprised, sir, when I heard the attacks of hon. gentlemen opposite on this bill, especially when they endeavoured in some way to connect Canadian labour with soviet Russia. I am sure no hon. member seriously believes that any member on this side of the house believes in or would advocate force or is connected in any way with soviet Russia. So I say I was rather surprised and also disappointed when 1 heard the attacks on hon. members supporting this bill. I can say this much, Mr. Speaker, that the communists of this country utter more denunciatory remarks against the labour members in this house than they do against even the vested interests; they are more severe in their criticisms of those who stand up for labour.
I hope the views expressed by hon. members opposite who have spoken are not held generally, because if those fears spread I am afraid we are then in danger of losing our individual liberty. For that reason, therefore, I would be loath to see the present act retained on our statute books. Not long ago a prominent judge on the Pacific coast said that if ever there were a time when individual rights should be respected and preserved it was during this trying period through which we are passing. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said only two prosecutions had been carried on under this section since it was passed in 1919. I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that those who supported
2332	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
the measure in those days had some reason to believe that this provision was necessary then in order to prevent rebellion or revolution, but since that time only two prosecutions have been carried out. The fears held at that time have been proved groundless, and I am convinced that the fears some hold now are equally groundless. I do not think we are in danger of revolution if we remove this section from the criminal code. In time of peace there is no need for any such provision, because the whole nation is calm and can reason out all such matters that might affect the peace of the country, but conditions are entirely different at present. A wave of fear is likely to spread over the whole country, and no one can tell what may happen if a panic of fear should spread from one end of Canada to the other. It might not be very difficult to start a reign of suppression if the fears I have heard expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite should spread to any great degree.
Let me remind hon. members that Great Britain has not forgotten her magna charta of individual liberty; for many years she has carried on in the belief that there is more danger from bottled steam than from steam that is allowed to escape. So she has wisely adopted the policy of allowing any person to say almost anything so long as he does not go too far in regard to the king himself. He can say almost anything, however, with regard to the government. I have listened to speakers in Glasgow who had to be protected from those who wished to mob them for daring to say the government was evil. As I say, Great Britain has adopted the policy of permitting great freedom of speech in all public places; public speakers are protected by the law and are allowed to say what they wish. If you do not care to listen or do not agree with what they are saying it is your privilege to walk on and pay no attention to them. It might be well, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members who could afford it took the opportunity to visit that great country. We have heard a great deal about the Anglo-Saxon spirit, and we pretend to follow the lead of Great Britain in a great many things. Let us follow her lead in this case. For years the socialists and communists have been preaching their doctrines in that country but Britain is still as sane as ever. At the last election some people thought Great Britain would swing to socialism, but a national government was formed. Even Stalin, after the results of the last election were known, said that Great Britain was impossible. He believed that after socialistic doctrines had been preached there for so long,
[Mr. Reid.l
with unemployment prevalent and the depression and distress continuing, revolution was at hand and that after the election the socialist party would take charge of the country. That did not happen, however, due to the good sense and foresight of the British nation, which had allowed absolute freedom of speech.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that you can never keep down any movement by repression or force.
I remember very well that even Kier Hardie, the great labour leader, preached the red flag and taught socialist hymns in the Sunday schools in my younger days. Those hymns have been repeated in this country, and many members opposite seem greatly exercised in connection with them. I do not advocate immunity for those who would take charge of the government of this country by violence and bloodshed, but I do not think the removal of this section of the criminal code will bring about any such revolution in this country. I heard the Minister of Justice mention the long list of foreigners who were connected with the communist movement. I hope he does not make the mistake I made two years ago. There was a communist riot in the city of Vancouver, and I happened to say to the mayor of that city, "I suppose most of the leaders of these men are foreigners?" He said, "You are darned right they are foreigners; the head man is a Scotchman." Scotchmen are noted however for their great love of liberty, but I would not like them to be classed as foreigners.
There is a striking difference between the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite and that taken by those on this side of the house; there is really a clear line of demarcation. The Liberal party and those in this corner of the house-and this is not another move to the left_have been in favour of individual liberty and took that attitude even when this measure was introduced in 1919. Those on the government benches fear that some great catastrophe will result if this amendment is carried. But the repeal of this provision is not asked for by labour only. I have had communications from many farm organizations asking me to do everything in my power to bring about the repeal of this section if the opportunity should arise. I greatly fear, Mr. Speaker, that if a wave of panic should sweep across the country the citizens of Canada may suffer greatly; they may be subjected to many injustices on suspicion only. We are told that the courts give a man a fair trial. That may be so, but in days of panic it is possible that the courts might become a little panicky also. History has proved that repression and force never stamped out a movement such as this. We know that to be the case in connection with

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
religion. In the early days endeavours were made to repress individual liberty in connection with religion, but it was found that this end was not accomplished. I might say to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) that the greater the repression, the better for any new movement. History has demonstrated this to be the fact.
I would ask hon. members opposite to use their calm judgment; if this panic spreads among the members of the house no one knows what may happen and what numbers of people may suffer. Repression is repulsive to the Anglo-Saxon. The way to keep communism from our country is to endeavour to work out some measures which will benefit the masses of the people, and if we can do that we need have no fear of communism or of a revolution, in my opinion. The people cannot be blamed if they gather in groups and talk and scheme about a new social order. Surely it is their right to do so, especially when we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed, not only in this country but in every other country in the world. Surely, when they have lost their all and have become charges on the state, they have a right to endeavour to take steps to better their conditions and talk about a new social order. Sometimes I think the city of Ottawa is as far removed from the rest of Canada in her knowledge of actual conditions as Siberia is removed from the rest of Russia. I do not think you can properly get the viewpoint of the rest of Canada from this city.
For all these reasons, and many others, Mr. Speaker, I shall take great pleasure in voting for this measure to repeal section 98.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: I did not intend at first to take part in the debate, but as I listened to the arguments of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I thought I should say a few words. I heard the hon. gentleman speak in favour of the repeal of section 98, and one of the arguments he used was that the other clauses in the criminal code are quite sufficient to deal with the situation. This is the legal opinion of a high personage whom I respect, but it is not my opinion. I do not agree with the hon. member for Quebec East when he says that section 98 is legislation that should be repealed; on the contrary I think it is the only legislation which adequately meets the case against communism. In my opinion, and it is only a personal opinion, sections 87, 89, 130 to 136 of the code do not sufficiently cover communism, and if the hon. member for Quebec East is right, which I deny, then section 98 is only a mere repetition. If it is only a repetition why oppose it so strongly?
There is a very simple way of nullifying the purport of section 98 and that is for every man in this country to abide by the law and not to try to soviet or revolutionize or to overthrow the social order by force, violence or physical injury to persons or property. Section 98 does not affect the ordinary trade and labour organizations or unions; they have nothing to fear from that section. The law abiding citizen has no reason to be apprehensive of section 98, and the section is by no means an attack on the right of free speech. Any citizen may advocate the most radical changes and criticize in the most emphatic language our institutions and laws; it is only when force, violence or physical injury to person or property is used or threatened to be used that the section applies.
An additional argument advanced by the hon. member for Quebec East is this. He said that such legislation is arbitrary and contrary to the ordinary rules of British justice and British procedure. I presume my hon. friend meant en resume that it was opposed to liberalism. I wonder what liberalism he meant. Is it his own liberalism or the liberalism practised by his party in the province of Quebec? A study of the Quebec Alcoholic Liquor Act will show that by that act are abolished all the writs of prerogative. By section 139 no writ of quo warranto, of injunction or of certiorari may be granted; no writ of mandamus and no writ of prohibition may be issued. Even the sacred rights of habeas corpus are abrogated by section 130 of the Quebec Alcoholic Liquor Act. Another Quebec law, the Alcoholic Liquor Possession and Transportation Act, also abolishes all these writs of prerogative, including even the habeas corpus; whereas section 98 of our criminal code does not abolish the habeas corpus although it is for a higher purpose than the Quebec liquor acts, its object being the maintenance of peace, order and good government.
It is very amusing to hear our friends advocating the principles of liberalism. On the one hand we see the ex-Minister of Justice advocating the repeal of section 98, and on the other hand we find his friends in Quebec abolishing the writs of prerogative and habeas corpus. It reminds me of what I heard one day in Quebec; it was on the 14th of January 1933. The Liberals gave a big demonstration to their chief, the leader of the opposition, at

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
a huge banquet. We heard the Hon. Mr. Tas-chereau saying that maybe democracy had gone too far and that we should go back, and immediately afterwards we heard the hon. member for Quebec East declaring that on the contrary we should go forward. At that meeting we had the great privilege of listening by radio to the views of these gentlemen. It was a love feast of Liberal adherents and we had the privilege of listening to the most interesting contradictory meeting one could attend.
I admit that this is exceptional legislation. The Minister of Justice admitted the other day that there had been times in the past when he looked upon the repeal of this section as a matter of indifference; he even added that on one oocasion he stated that this particular section had perhaps survived its usefulness and that there was no further necessity for it. But, added my hon. colleague, at that time there was no communist agitation in this country such as prevails to-day. May I add that this communist agitation is spreading and gaining ground all over Canada. We think therefore that the only legislation which adequately meets the situation is this section 98; we look upon it as a rampart against communism.
I will not quote at length some of the passages of such literature as is actually circulated throughout this country; I should be afraid of promoting its propaganda. I do say however that the Minister of Justice was quite correct when he stated that the literature circulated is most scandalous, most seditious and in many cases blasphemous and obscene.
Section 98 was inserted in 1919 and up to 1926 there was mo move om the part of my hon. friends, who were then in power, towards the repeal of that provision. Then came the elections of 1925 and both parties were returned with almost equal strength. Then followed the famous letter written by my hon. friends of the Labour party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Vancouver asking the then Prime Minister the price to be paid if he wanted the support of the two members.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I say that there is no member in this corner from Vancouver, and further that no letter such as described by the minister was signed by me. I ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Maurice Dupré: Instead of withdrawing, I will read the letter. It is quoted in Hansard of January 29, 1926, and reads:
Dear Mr. King:
As representatives of labour in the House of Commons, may we ask whether it is your intention to introduce at this session legislation with regard to-
(a)	Provision for the unemployed;
(b)	Old age pensions.
We are venturing to send a similar inquiry to the leader of the apposition.
Yours sincerely,
J. S. Woodsworth.
A. A. Heaps.
The horn, member for Winnipeg North Centre -then went on to say-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about the letter?


Maurice Dupré: He said:
We sent a similar letter to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meiglien) and to the leader of the Progressives. Mr. Mackenzie King was good enough to give us the opportunity to present our ease in detail, and to-day I received from him the following letter, which I should like to place on Hansard.
Then follows the letter of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). As my time is short, I shall read only a portion of this letter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all.


Maurice Dupré: It appears in Hansard and any hon. member can read it. The second and third paragraphs read as follows:
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act; (b) the Naturalization Act; and (e) the criminal code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Nothing wrong with that.


Maurice Dupré: A few weeks after that letter the then Minister of Justice introduced a bill to repeal section 98 because he and his leader wanted to pay the price for the support of the two labour members.


Mr. FAFARD:: That is the minister's own conclusion.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: They would have gone out of power if they had not had it.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Maurice Dupré: It was in the name of British justice and British procedure that they asked for the repeal of section 98. My question at the present time is this: Is the Liberal party having recourse to the same tactics in 1932 that it had recourse to in 1926?


An hon. MEMBER:: This is 1933.


Maurice Dupré: Are they paying a second price? That is my question.
Taking part in this debate a few days ago, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), after referring to British justice and procedure, said:
Apart from that I am free to admit that temperamentally I do not like this kind of legislation. I do not believe that it is a good way to repress error.
I direct attention to the following words:
After all, to allow freedom is the best way of dealing with people in a democracy, and I am free to confess my belief that always when truth and error are given a fair field, truth ultimately prevails. That is one of the chief reasons for my opposition to this legislation.
An, hon. MEMBER: Who signed that?


Maurice Dupré: That is the Liberal doctrine, let truth and error, bad and good have a fair field. Truth and good will prevail ultimately; if they do not, so much the worse for truth and good. I commend these words of the former Minister of Justice to the people of this country and particularly to the people of my province. I think they are a vindication of what the hon,. member for Labclle (Mr. Bourassa) said, that the essence of Liberalism was to have no principle. No wonder some of us seem to think that the former Minister of Justice, consciously or unconsciously, is drifting towards the extreme left. It is because we do not want to give error a fair field, it is because we feel that error should not be given a fair chance, it is because we do not belong to the same school as the former Minister of Justice, that we ask for the maintenance of section 98. Shall we permit in this dominion the use of force, violence, intimidation and terrorism? Shall we permit communism to flourish? Shall we permit a civil war? My answer is no, and that is why I shall support the amendment of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) asking for the six months' hoist on this bill.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the
remarks of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) as to why section 98 should remain upon the statute book, I have come to the conclusion that he has three reasons for the stand he takes. The first is that he does not like the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe); second, he has no love for the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and, third, he feels that section 98 is necessary to combat Liberalism in the province of Quebec.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Or anywhere else.


Samuel Factor: Before I continue with the history of this question may I, shall I say apologize, or, say a few words in defence of my action in supporting this bill? It has become fashionable in this house when any member desires to support any legislation or any proposed changes in our present laws for him at once to assure the house that he is not a communist. I say that without any reservation, and I also assure hon. members that I do not favour force, violence, terrorism or any other similar methods of procedure referred to in this debate. I am wholly in accord with the policy of expressing ourselves by means of ballots rather than bullets. Now that I have made my personal explanation and feel satisfied that even hon. members opposite will realize I am not at all in league with Moscow and have not received marching orders from Russia, as the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol) put it, I purpose to discuss the enactment dispassionately and without in any way making a speech either in favour of or against toryism or in favour of or against liberalism.
First, I must make this general observation. It has become a popular pastime, particularly on the part of hon. members opposite, if any member, especially on this side of the house, advocates some measure of reform, some change, to discredit him on the ground that he is a communist, to criticize his action and to represent him as being in league with Russia and communism.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. member looks like a communist. That is the trouble.


Samuel Factor: All I can say in reply to
the hon. member is that if all the communists in Russia look as mild as I do, well-
If an hon. member advocates in this house some measure of reform, there are immedi-iately hurled against him the epithets "bolShevist," "communist," "red." The people in this dominion are getting tired of this kind of talk; it lacks intelligence. It is silly to hurl such accusations against any hon. member who discusses something which he thinks is for the good of his country. If we ever hope to solve the difficult and complex problems with which we are faced to-day, we must have free, unfettered and enlightened public opinion and not the application of the iron heel.
2336	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
Section. 98 was introduced in 1919 to meet post-war conditions. We were still suffering from war hysteria and were willing somewhat to restrict and abridge our liberties. The result was the measure which appears on our statute books and which is now known as section 98. But let me remind you, sir, just as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) pointed out the other day, that this legislation was not passed unanimously. When the draft bill was referred to the committee, it was, as the Minister of Justice told us the other day, passed by a majority of one vote in favour of reporting it to the house, and it was subsequently enacted by parliament.
Let us for the moment examine section 98. The first paragraph refers to any association, and so forth, that advocates force, violence or physical injury. No hon. member will be a party to advocating violence or physical injury to any person or property. But what is the meaning of the word "force"? If the words "physical injury" are used, why put in "force"? Is this not a case of moral force?
A recent occurrence in Toronto shows how extremely ridiculous a situation may be rendered. A couple of young lads from the Jarvis collegiate were distributing cards to their co-students to attend a meeting of the high school boys to discuss social and economic problems. The principal of the school, after looking at the cards, was rather put out and called in a policeman. The policeman thoroughly examined the boys and ascertained that they were calling a meeting of the high school students in a certain hall for the purpose of discussing social and economic problems. But through some workings of the police, the owner of the hall was frightened out of allowing its use to those boys, with the consequence that the meeting was cancelled. Just imagine! High school boys gathered together for the purpose of discussing our social and economic problems, and the power of the police force used against them with the result that they are unable to meet and discuss those problems!


Mr. YOUNG:: That must have been in
Toronto.


Samuel Factor: Yes, it was. Section 98 is
a vicious piece of legislation. It will not be found on the statute books of any other English speaking country in the world. I challenge any hon. member opposite to name any English speaking country on this continent or in the world which has a similar section in its statute books. It is entirely un-British both in substance and in the penalties imposed. In the section there is one clause which

prescribes twenty years in prison for wearing a button. This provision is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a weak government, as was ably illustrated by the speaker who preceded me. It is urged that this section is required to combat communism and those who advocate violence and terrorism. My answer to that is that there are in the criminal code at present sections sufficient for the purpose. There are all the sections concerning sedition and unlawful rioting. The danger in this legislation lies in the fact that it may be used against organized labour. Legitimately organized unions and organized labour have in years gone by protested against this legislation. I admit there is considerable unrest in Canada, and under the pressure of poverty and distress there are a few harebrained and irresponsible persons who advocate force and violence, but surely that is no reason for our losing our heads and becoming panicky and allowing legislation of this kind to remain on our statute books.
I did not have the pleasure of hearing, but I was rather amused to read, the speech of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. From it one would imagine that Toronto is absolutely overridden with communists and that anyone speaking on a Toronto platform and advocating some measure of reform is taking marching orders from Russia, as the hon. member puts it. The hon. gentleman is seeing red; that is the difficulty. I notice he quoted from the statement of the communist party. I advise him to dispose of the document quickly, otherwise he is liable to be charged with possessing unlawful literature.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply.
['Or done by a supplementary estimate.\nProgress reported.']
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking on this order in council this afternoon I tried to lay down the premises that it had, so to speak, two angles, two faces: one I deemed the obvious, so to speak the face value of it, the ostensible reason, and the other side or face or angle was what I termed the indirect or ulterior which I alleged was the real reason that this order in council was introduced. But in dealing with that phase of the matter in connection with the ostensible reason, I omitted to

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
discuss one branch to which I should now like to revert before picking up the thread of what I was saying at six o'clock.
That order in council, before it was amended, read like this:
Canned salmon that are found by the hoard of inspection to be fresh, firm, well packed and in good merchantable condition shall be approved and a certificate in the form attached, marked " A," shall be issued therefor.
That was the original order in council. Then by order in council No. 206 the following words were added:
Provided that no certificate shall be issued for canned salmon that had not been landed fresh at a cannery for canning within twenty-four hours after being caught, excepting fish that has been gutted and iced immediately after being caught.
I direct the attention of hon. members to the last twelve words. While this afternoon I quoted them, I did not dwell upon them.
I feel there is an argument in that connection which might be used against me, and for that reason, for a few moments, I revert to the matter. The argument might be that while I have made a great deal of fuss about the restriction imposed by this provision which provides for landing fish at the wharf within twenty-four hours after catching them, my objection would be dissipated if the fishermen complied with the last twelve words of the order in council and saw to it that their fish had been gutted and iced immediately after they were caught.
I realize that it is somewhat difficult, in connection with a measure like this, to explain the obvious difficulties. However, I shall make an attempt. There are three main branches of fishermen, namely, trailers, gill netters and seiners. The trailers might possibly, and very often do, gut and ice their fish as they are oanght. It is possible to do that, and many of them do it because they catch them one by one, and it is not difficult to gut and ice as they are caught. However, in regard to gill netters and seiners the position is altogether different. In the case of gill netters the process would be difficult and expensive, and so far as seiners are concerned I should imagine it would be almost entirely impossible. Of course, in one sense, nothing is impossible. If one is willing to spend enough money, time and perhaps human life, he can do a great many things. But when we speak of a thing being impossible in a business and economic sense we mean that it cannot be done at a cost which would leave any profit or margin for operation. Hon. members will readily understand that for purposes of economy the boats used must not be too extensive in size. If they were they would require too large engines for operation, and would not be able to operate in shallow waters. Further, they cannot have too elaborate or extensive accommodation for the crew. Space must be cut down to a minimum.
The average purse seine boat is ran by from five to seven men-not more than seven. They have very narrow and small quarters for the crew. The whole of the remaining space other than that taken up by the engine is used for the storing of fish. Then, considerable space is required for the net, which takes up a lot of room and then, of course, further space for the fish. Every inch of free space must be given to accommodate the fish, and the hold when filled is loaded until one could not put another fish into it. In catching the fish large seines are used. They are ran out in a circle, and are brought in as quickly as possible, because there is a time limit. Those seines are brought back to the boats from which they started. Then, by means of a winch on the boat, the nets are brought in. These are called purse seines, because there is a cord attached which pulls it together like the old fashioned purses that the ladies used to use. When it is pulled together it is hauled to the side of the boat. The problem of getting the fish out of the net then presents itself. I do not want hon. members to think that that operation is always performed in smooth water. If the boat is tossing in a choppy sea the operation becomes mare difficult. One of the seven men must stay by the engine, and the other six are very fully occupied, and taxed to the limit of their ability and power to unload the fish. The fish are generally unloaded by means of what is known as a brailer. This article is something like a big scoop made with a net with an iron around it attached to which is a long handle. This is operated with the winch and is let down into the seine alongside the boat, and with it they dish up three or four dozen fish. When they get the fish aboard, there is only one place they can be dumped, and that is into the hold. If the fish were placed on the deck, loose, quite possibly they would roll overboard the next time the boat rolled. For that reason the fish have to be brailed right into the hold.
For the reasons I have already indicated it would be impossible to have double space so that the fish brailed out of the net could be put into number one hold so that the crew, after they had finished unloading, could set to work to gut and ice. The men could not be spared for the process, and further than that it would take five or six hours to gut and ice the quantity they would take. Meantime the

Inspection of Canned Salmon
boat with its costly equipment would be lying idle. Such a boat could not carry enough crew to do all the operations simultaneously because the accommodation is limited, and the expense of carrying such a crew would be prohibitive. So far as I am concerned-and I am not trying to make a partisan statement -I am convinced it would not be economical to gut and ice the fish taken by a seiner. Further, I think it would be very difficult to gut and ice by gill netters. That, I believe, is an argument against the suggestion that the whole matter might be very easdly overcome by simply gutting and icing. It is all very well to make that statement, but in my view it is a requirement impossible of fulfilment.
I shall now return to the point I had reached at six o'clock. I -was dealing with what I called the real motive or object-perhaps object is the correct word-for the introduction of the order in council. I said this was an attempt made by the canners who had tried by thoroughly legitimate means to repeal the legislation passed in 1918 by the Union government, which proclaimed the open door in fishery matters. I said it was an effort on their part to get back to what they termed the good old days, when each man owned his own water, and so on. I said that, failing success by way of changing the legislation, they had sought to achieve the same results by having changes made in the regulations covering fishing. In their view it would have had the same effect, while ostensibly their efforts would have been devoted towards the conservation or improvement of quality and so on. The methods by which they sought to bring about these results were quite numerous, and for that reason I shall deal with only three of them.
Many methods were suggested, and at one time I was familiar with all of them, because these efforts have been continued for about ten years. I have files in my room and at home which would fill a wheelbarrow dealing with the different attempts made to get indirectly what they could not get directly. The three main methods which come to my mind at the moment-and I state them because I know they have been the subject of attempts quite recently-were first, that fish caught in an area would have to be processed, or manufactured in that area, and could not be taken into an adjoining area. I should add that when I use the term "area" at least some hon. members will understand that the whole of the waters is divided into areas. Had they been successful their object would have been attained, and they would have had the whole thing in a nutshell, because they would have cut off the cannery which did not have fMr. Neill.]
an area, and would have made the individual fisherman the servant of the cannery. The fishermen would have had to take the prices offered by those canners. If they did not choose to accept those prices their punishment would have been that the canners would not buy their fish.
The second attempt was along the lines of limiting the distance fish could be taken after being caught. That contention was in favour for quite a time, but there were so many obvious reasons against it that eventually it was abandoned.
Then, the third attempt was towards limiting the time within which fish caught would have to be canned. If the processing in area in which fish caught had been established it would have affected not only the outside cannery but also the fishermen. I want to explain what I mean by the outside cannery. When the open door was adopted it became possible for a cannery to be put up not immediately adjacent to the fishing grounds, and they depended upon getting their supply of fish, under the laws of Canada at the moment, anywhere they could. This processing in area regulation would eliminate them. As time went on it was found that a different system as regards the place of canning was more profitable. In the old days when a cannery wras located say in the Skeena district it was at an isolated place, no town, no village, no residents, just used for six or eight weeks in the summer time. The cannery owner would have to send up the whole equipment from Vancouver, perhaps five hundred miles away, and not only the whole equipment, but the whole provision for a preconceived pack. He would have to get cans for perhaps a big pack, would have to guess as he best could what the pack would be, and would have to buy cans for that pack. He would have to make arrangements for sufficient labourers to handle that big pack; he would have to take food for them and start a village and make provision for all that goes with quite a large settlement for the time being. Then, as nature cannot be counted on, it might turn out that the pack would be disappointing; he would have large supplies of food and tins, and a large amount of labour employed which he could not use, and would be burdened with heavy charges for taking it up and down again. So it was discovered that he could do better by locating his cannery at a place like Vancouver or Alert bay or Port Albemi, where he had ready access to wholesalers, and did not need to buy even five sacks of flour more than he needed. In fact the question of

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
feeding his staff was almost non-existent, because they would have their homes there. There was no question of getting an under- or over-supply of labour; ample was available. And while the transport of the fish cost a little more, by putting on fast boats with Diesel engines that can be run on fuel oil at a very cheap rate, it was found more profitable to have the cannery at a centre of population than to have it away off in a remote place. Consequently these canneries have grown up. If this order in council goes into effect and operates as I think it will, these canners will just be out of luck because they will not be within twenty-four hours run from where the fish are caught.
As I have said, these attempts to get this legislation put through were not confined to a day, but continued through a series of years. For a number of years the obvious injustice of some of these things I have mentioned prevented them being put into effect. It did until last year, in fact up to this year. Just recently-I mentioned it in the letter I wrote to the department on the 10th of January-I heard a whisper in Vancouver that an attempt was going to be made to put it over this department along the lines of processing in area and preventing the fish from being canned unless they had been delivered at the wharf within twenty-four hours of being caught. The processing in area has failed for the moment-I anticipate it is only for the moment-but they did put it over as regards time limit within which the fish had to be delivered to the wharf. They have slipped it in under cover of this order in council as an amendment to the inspection regulations. If they get by with it this year, it will be a very apparent handwriting on the wall indicating that we will find the idea of processing in area introduced next year, and then heaven help the independent canners and all the money they have spent, and still more the independent fishermen, who will be reduced to a condition of servitude. That, I claim, is the real objective of this order in council, and I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. That is why the demand for the order in council came not from the purchasers. It came not from the inspectors, to whom it must be a nuisance and an interference with their work and a reflection on their ability if not their integrity. It did not come from the departmental officials, at any rate up to two weeks before the order in council was passed they said they were satisfied. But it came from those who in the language of the department control ninety per cent of the fish canned, but not ninety per cent of the canneries. It came
from the men whose goods were subject to inspection; apparently their views on the method of inspecting their product had weight with the department. One would think that those were the last people to whose opinion consideration should be given as to what was the best way of controlling the inspection of their stock. The undoubted result will be, as I have said, to eliminate the smaller and newer canneries in Vancouver and elsewhere, and worst of all to eliminate competition in the buying of fish, because the fishermen must sell to the local cannery. I have heard it said: "Oh, there will be competition, because there will be two canners in a given area." But how long will it take two canners to get together? I have been in business and I know how readily that would be arranged. So it would make it impossible for them to have competition in price. Hitherto, if the local canner does not or cannot or will not give a reasonable price, the fishermen could send their fish away to another canner, or they could invite a packer, that is a boat that carries fish on contract, to come into their neighbourhood. I am not suggesting, I do not want to be thought of as suggesting, that the canners are full of nothing but malice and ill will, and want to injure the fishermen. Not at all; there are many fine canners who realize that the best interests of both are served by getting the fishermen and the canners together. I have heard many canners say that they think the best ultimate condition will be when the fishermen do nothing but fish and the canners nothing but can. I say it is not always the fault of the local canners that they cannot give a sufficient price to the fishermen. It may be due to accident; it may be that the canner did not lay in enough cans, that he did not have a cannery of sufficient size, or maybe he had put up enough for all the orders he had and did not care to or could not go any further, or maybe he had exhausted his financial backing. All or any of these reasons might suffice. It does not mean at all that these men are necessarily trying to work an injustice or hardship on the fishermen because they offer him a price he could not accept. I want to quote a canneryman on this point: Taking these facts into consideration we can only assume, subject of course to correction, that this regulation was passed to assist certain powerful canning interests who have canneries situated on the fishing grounds and who wish to embarrass others not similarly situated who rely upon collecting boats for their fish. Our experience has been that canners sending out collecting boats, properly iced, pack a better grade of fish as a whole than those situated on the fishing grounds since in the majority of cases the latter have no ice available and not having far to run do not take the same care of the fish.

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
And he goes on to say:
We are well aware that our protest will be "as the voice of one crying in the wilderness" yet we feel it to be our duty to make it when, as we see it, sectional legislation that will not stand argument is placed on the statute books of Canada.
I want to quote one which surely is from an independent source, namely a cold storage plant. This I took out of a Conservative paper, and I had no knowledge of it before. The letter from the canneryman also came to me quite unsolicited. I might be making an ex parte statement on behalf of the fisherman, but I could not have invented this article in the Victoria paper. This is an article by the manager of a cold storage company on the coast. He says:
Mr. McBride interpreted the twenty-hour limit clause for delivery of purse seining catches to canneries as a blow at the independent fishermen.
Notice that, Mr. Speaker.
He pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for independent fishermen to complete their catch and deliver the salmon to the canneries, either along the west coast, or in Victoria, within twenty-four hours of making the catch.
That is an independent, unbiased opinion from men with whom I have not communicated and whose views I have not requested. Certainly it coincides with the opinion I expressed. I have a 'letter from the department from which I must quote just one sentence. It says:
From the aspect of preventing competition for the catches of the fishermen this regulation should have no detrimental effect. On the contrary it should result in the fishermen obtaining higher prices for their fish.
If that gets into the press, Mr. Speaker, it will be laughed at from Prince Rupert to Vancouver and from Ketchikan to Seattle. The idea is ridiculous that in a narrow, constricted area, by reducing the number of buyers to one man or one company you are going to increase prices. If that is not enough to make one laugh I do not know what is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no suggestion in the order in council that the number of buyers should be reduced to one company.


Alan Webster Neill: No, but I am talking about the effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nor is that the effect of the order.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I have read what the manager of the cold storage thinks, so I am not the only one who makes this statement. As I have said, it will result in the independent fishermen being driven out, and that is a very

Shortsighted policy. It is to the real interest of the eannerymen to support the independent fishermen and not have to invest huge sums of money in equipment and have men on wages and so on. I might say also-and I do not know whether this will have any effect on the government-that is just so much more propaganda for the reds.
Now I Should like to sum up the situation very briefly. The order in council is irregular, I contend, because this measure should have been brought in by an act of parliament, and the question should have been referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries. Also it is a breach of faith and a departure from the .policy which has been followed for quite a number of years. The ostensible reasons given, with which I have dealt, are unworkable and superfluous and I doubt if they are intended to be enforced. I might pause 'here to say that after all it does not make any difference to my argument whether or not I aim correct in saying that this order in council was introduced at the instigation of certain parties for a certain purpose and with a deliberate, preconceived and ulterior motive, or whether I simply make the allegation as I do now that the result will be as I have stated. Let us forget about motives for the moment, and forget about the origin of this measure; at least the result will be as I have stated, no matter why it was brought in. It will put out of business the independent canneries and very nearly ruin the independent fisherman. He is nearly ruined now, and you are going to destroy the market for his product. Already prices are insufficient to maintain a decent livelihood. The fisherman is handicapped by the high ,price of gasoline and by the phenomenally low price of fish, as well as by the further fact that in many districts the market is lacking altogether. There is no use catching certain grades of fish because there is no market for them, and now the fisherman is to be restricted as to Where he can sell his catch. I wonder what hon. gentlemen opposite and those to my right who represent constituencies where wheat is grown would' say if they were told that in view of some supposed benefit to 'be derived from the quality of the wheat they were to be compelled to sell their wheat only to their country elevator. There would be a bloody revolution. It may be said that there are two elevators in the village and that a farmer could sell to either one. How long would it take them to arrange matters between them? There are so many technicalities in connection with the fish trade, and they aTe so difficult to understand and explain, that it is not easy to see that it is just as impossible in the one case as in the other.

Inspection of Canned Salmon
I started out with the intention of moving an amendment to the motion to go into supply. I am not going to move the amendment, but I should like to read it:
That till the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted in lieu thereof:
This house recommends that the subject matter contained in order in council No. 206, be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries for discussion and report.
My excuse for moving this amendment would have been that it was the only way I could bring this matter to a vote. I cannot bring this question before the house by means of a resolution because, as we all know, private members' days soon will be taken away from us, and it would be impossible to reach that resolution. I think the urgency of the matter would justify my moving such an amendment, but I am not going to do so because that would mean a vote of want of confidence in the government, and of course that would be used against me; hon. gentlemen opposite would say I was playing politics. I would rather leave the matter to the goodwill and judgment of the government, and I ask them if they will not refer this matter to the committee on marine and fisheries. Surely that is not a drastic step to take. I am only asking that the matter be investigated. The government will have a majority on the committee, and they need not fear any ill considered action being taken. I am not afraid to leave the matter to the committee, because all I want is an investigation and to have some publicity thrown on the matter with all the facts brought to light. I will be satisfied with the judgment of the committee. I feel sure that if the government would take this step this legislation, which came in through the back door by means of an order in council, would be thrown out the front door in the interests of fairness, equality and justice and to the ultimate benefit of everyone concerned in the fishing industry.
Now it is very much up to the government. What are they going to do? There are thousands of fishermen in British Columbia whose livelihood will be seriously imperilled if conditions remain as they are. These fishermen will be waiting for the decision of the government with anxious hearts, and I hope and trust that the government will see their way clear to allow this matter to go to the select standing committee on Marine and fisheries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, for over an
hour and a half the hon. gentleman has
regaled the house with a dissertation on fishery affairs on the Pacific coast. I shall not attempt to follow him, either in the extreme language he has used in describing matters which are capable of being discussed in the most ordinary way, or in the extravagant manner in which he has referred to this matter.
These regulations arose out of certain matters which were brought to my attention as Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I wish to take a measure of responsibility for the order in council to which reference has been made. Canada has a very valuable canned salmon business, which is largely limited to the Pacific coast. Our exports of that class of goods amount to from $6,000,000 to $9,000,000 a year. I think for the past two years they have amounted to something over $6,000,000 yearly, so it will be seen that this business is very important. About half these exports, roughly speaking, go to the United Kingdom, while our exports to Australia total over a million dollars, and in addition very considerable quantities go to other countries scattered throughout the world. It is highly essential that, so far as possible, we should maintain the quality of this product. Canada has achieved a very good name for its canned salmon in all the markets of the world. During the last ten years, in fact for a good many years, we have been faoed with keen competition from the United States in fish packed in Alaskan waters and in adjacent American waters, but in more recent years Japanese salmon caught off the Siberian coast and the northern coast of that country 'has been a very serious competitor with our product in the world market; and during the past three years or so Russia also has come on the market with an excellent product in the form of canned salmon, making the competition against the 'Canadian product more and more keen.
We have been rather jealous of our pack. Efforts have been made for years to ensure that it should be uniform and of high quality. It is quite true that salmon of the same variety caught in different sections will frequently be somewhat different in colour and in the quality of the product, but efforts have been made for many yeans to maintain at least some standard of excellence in our product. During the past year, through information obtained from the commercial intelligence branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, we learned that the Canadian pack was deteriorating in some respects. Some portions of the pack had been called in question by importers, and indeed very serious loss to our business was


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I think he knows more about fish than any hon. member on this side of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On that side of the house, that is possible.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any side.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I say, there are two
sides to all questions. I am quite willing and quite prepared to admit that there are two sides to this question. We are not adverse to this matter being called into question and to having it examined carefully, but we should look at some of the facts before we jump to conclusions.
The Pacific coast of British Columbia is divided into three large fishing districts, and each fishing district contains from six to a dozen subdistricts for inspection purposes. The districts are very large and each contain a large number of canneries. The hon. gentleman sought to leave the impression with the house that there was but one cannery to a district. The hon. member shakes his head, but he will remember that I interjected while he was speaking to point out that that was not the case. Perhaps I should have secured a map of these districts, but I think I am safe in saying that there are from ten to fifteen canneries in each district, and even more in some districts. I will admit that last year they were not all operating, but a great many were. The fishermen in a district are at liberty to sell their fish to any cannery in that district. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but I say positively that that is the case. I shall repeat it so that there may be no doubt about what I am saying. The fishermen in any one of these districts are at perfect liberty to sell their fish to any cannery within that district.


Alan Webster Neill: Subject to this twenty-four
hour rule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, but he is within twenty-four hours of any point in that district. Due to weather conditions it might be possible that a fisherman out on the west coast of Vancouver island could not come around the lower or nothern part of the island to some remote cannery on the inside of the channel within twenty-four hours, but there are a number of canneries on the west coast of Vancouver island quite convenient to the fishing grounds where the fish are naturally caught. The fish to which my hon. friend referred that are caught outside and are brought into the Fraser river are largely fish caught by seiners out in what might be called extraterritorial waters. The fishermen on the west coast of Vancouver island near where my hon. friend lives have a number of canneries in that vicinity to which they can sell their fish. There are no complaints made as to the facilities for selling fish in that district.
This order in council which has been beleaguered so vigorously this afternoon, which has been condemned by my hon. friend, is precisely in the terms of another order in council which has been on the statute books -if you like to use that term-for many years. The hon. member has been sitting in this house for seven or eight years while [DOT]that other order in council has been in force and he has not said a word about it. That order in council proscribes the movement of fish from Queen Charlotte island to the mainland. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) knows that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Prescribes?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Proscribes the movement of fish from Queen Charlotte island to the mainland. This order in council was prompted by the previous order- which has been in force for years. Did we hear the hon. gentleman spend an hour and a half in condemning the government which he was supporting at that [DOT]time because of that order in council?


Alan Webster Neill: That is not in my district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman says that that is not in his district, but is the whole Pacific coast in his district? For an hour and a half he has been talking about the whole Pacific coast. As far as the fishermen in his district are concerned they can sell their fish to forty or fifty different canneries contiguous to his district. The point to be brought to the attention of the house is that an order in council in precisely the same terms has been in force for years.

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
Why was this order in council passed? As I have intimated, information came to us from all parts of the world-the hon. gentleman cited one from Australia-that there was a deterioration in the standard of our fish.


Alan Webster Neill: That is hardly fair. The letter I quoted had nothing to do with quality.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to contain himself? He has had an hour and a half of this.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister must not make a mistake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend did not catch what I said. I will put it in the first person. Information came to me in my capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce from Australia, Great Britain and different sections of the world that our canned salmon was deteriorating in its standard, that it was not as good as it had been. I became somewhat alarmed about this and I took up the matter with my colleague, the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), and the outcome was this order in council. After studying the situation for months we found that the movement of fish over long distances on the Pacific coast caused a deterioration in the condition of the fish when brought to the canneries for canning purposes. We felt that it was desirable to restrict the movement of fish virtually within the district in which they were caught. The order in council provides for a movement of twenty-four hours, and the hon. gentleman asks how we are going to enforce that. I will admit that with clever men designing to evade it, it can be evaded just the same as any other regulation. However, we are advised by the inspection officers, and they are a fine group of men, that it can be enforced and that they will be able to control that movement, which in my opinion and in the opinion of those most concerned is seriously affecting the salmon pack. It is felt that the delivery of fish to canneries within a reasonable distance of the place where they are caught will result in an improved pack and the saving of this industry from serious loss in its reputation and standing abroad.
I wish to refer to some statements made by my hon. friend, because I think it would be a great mistake to allow them to remain on Hansard unchallenged. I admit that his manner of presenting his views is very effective, certainly when it is not tried too often. He said that this order in council stated that the fish must be landed within twenty-four hours, and he then went on, with tragedy in his voice, to say that the order did not

state that they must be canned. He said that they could be allowed to lie there for an indefinite period. Does he or anyone else think that a cannery with thousands of dollars at stake is going to receive nice fresh fish and allow them to lie on the wharf in the sun? The first principle of proper cannery operation is to get the fish canned as quickly as possible.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not say so?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one needs to say it to any intelligent person. That is the first principle of successful operation of a cannery, so that when the fish come within the twenty-four hour period to the cannery, they will be canned as quickly as possible.
The hon. gentleman said that something had been put over and that this had been done in the dark. All I can say is that in my department we gave it a great deal of study and thought. There was no attempt to put anything over; it was done just as was the previous order, under the terms of the act that empowered us to do it, and it was done for the purpose that I have mentioned.
The hon. gentleman referred to the inspectors, indicating, as I said a moment ago, that the inspectors were capable. Then he spent about fifteen minutes ridiculing the system of inspection we are at present carrying on. I have already intimated that we do not assume that this system of inspection is perfect. It has been put into operation for one purpose, namely to seek the improvement of our product. How is the inspection carried out? It is carried out precisely the same as that of almost any other product that is put into a container.


William Duff: Under the Meat and Canned Foods Act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Take fruit that is boxed or barrelled. It is inspected by selecting a number of boxes, taking one here and there, and inspecting them. If any suspicion is aroused by the boxes that are opened, a closer inspection is made and a larger number are opened. When these canned salmon are brought to the point of export, generally Vancouver-although it is not essential that they come to Vancouver because the inspector will if necessary go to an outport-and put into the large sheds, the inspector goes into the warehouse, takes a box here, then passes over a dozen boxes and takes another there, and so on, and inspects the condition of the salmon in the can. If he finds the pack is not up to the standard fixed1 by the inspectors and the department, then the shipment is not given a certificate for export as No. 1.

Inspection o/ Canned Salmon
The hon. gentleman read a letter which he had received from Australia. Just what his point was in reading that letter I could not quite see; I followed him with some care, but I did not just see the application. He now disclaims any suggestion that his reason was that the pack was inferior. The letter referred to this: Canadian (vanned salmon had been shipped to Australia and it was labelled "pinks" or "chums" or whatever quality it was, but some unscrupulous individual or dealer in Australia took the labels off. and put on others indicating that it was first-class red salmon, sockeye, although it was not sockeye and it was not first-class red salmon, so that this admittedly inferior salmon was being marketed in Australia as No. 1 fresh, thus injuring our reputation in that market. Officers of my department were brought into contact with the matter and it was taken up with the Australian government and adjusted, I think quite satisfactorily, because the Australian government would not knowingly countenance anything of the kind.
Further, suggestions have come from Great Britain as to the inferiority of the pack. I am sorry that the matter comes up in this form, because we are simply giving publicity to it and probably doing still further injury to the reputation of our salmon. We are exceedingly jealous of the standard of our products, not only canned fish but other commodities, but now that we are discussing this, I am referring to canned salmon. We feel it is our duty to do everything we can to maintain the high standard of that product. We want the people abroad to feel that when a Canadian official inspection certificate goes with a shipment, it will carry the same weight abroad as would grain shipment certificates. That is what we are seeking to do, and what we have done was with one desire and one object only, namely, to achieve that end.
In regard to the fishermen, let me say this: no fisherman is forced to take his catch to any one cannery, as was urged. On the contrary, as I have already indicated, he is at liberty to take his fish to any cannery within the sailing distance mentioned in the order, and without doubt he will have the chance of any one of at least a dozen canneries where he can market his product. I can give more detail of what has been going on with regard to the practice that I have mentioned of these collecting boats going out, but I do not think it is desirable to do so. I do not wish to stir up undue controversy, but I should like to impress upon the house that what I have said is our object, our desire.
My hon. friend referred a moment ago to wheat. He said: What would you think if we were to pass a law saying that our wheat had to be taken to one elevator? In the first place wheat is not a perishable article like fish; it is an entirely different kind of product; and in the second place, as I have already shown to the house, there is no such limitation.
Let me say to my hon. friend and to the house that the government is disposed to give the fullest consideration to any reasonable representations that may be made as to, shall I say, the adverse effects of this order, if there are any such. We are quite prepared to receive those representations and to give them every consideration. I deplore the extreme terms in which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni put forward his case. It is very difficult to administer fisheries; there are conflicting interests. I deplore the reflection upon the cannery interests, because I believe on the whole the men operating the canneries on the Pacific coast are doing the best they can for the trade in which they are engaged. That their interests at times conflict with those of the fishermen, would be expected, and they undoubtedly do. But I want to assure the house that there was no ulterior motive, no attempt to put something over. This was not done in the dark; it was done in the open and for the good of the industry, and we believe it will be beneficial thereto. At the same time I say again that should there be any representations it is desired to make, the government will be pleased to receive them.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my protest with that of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), even at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and even though I may be blamed by him for taking up some time, although I shall not take an hour and a half. I believe what has happened regarding these orders in council and the conditions affected by them warrant the attention of the house being called to the whole matter. I have not many remarks to make about the particular order in council to which the hon. member for Comox-Albemi referred and covered fully and to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied. I wish to speak with especial reference to another order in council that has been passed and that is, I believe, more harmful in its effect and will certainly do more damage to those engaged in the industry than the order in council which has just been under review.



Inspection of Canned Salmon
I want first, however, to protest as strongly as I can against the methods used in making these changes without any reference whatever to parliament, and especially changes that are of importance and that might have serious effects. Changes are now made in the law simply by order in council and neither the fishermen concerned nor even members of parliament are aware of them until they see them in either the newspapers or the Canada Gazette. In 1930 the fisheries committee reviewed the whole of the present fishery act. Matters went along rather harmoniously at that time and after every one of us was allowed an opportunity to put forth his ideas. At that time we had a chance to speak on every clause and section. But since that time there have been dozens of changes until to-day the only parallel I can call to mind is the jig-saw puzzle. It is just about as great a puzzle to find out what the act really means as to put together one of those pictures. I ask the committee this question: What is the purpose of the fisheries committee, and why have we one at all. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) introduced a bill concerning the inspection of hay and straw. Before that bill proceeded far it was referred to the committee on agriculture, so that full opportunity would be given for discussion. Surely in connection with fishery matters we are entitled to the same consideration; surely we should be entitled to a hearing. I maintain all matters of importance affecting the fisheries should go first of all before the fisheries committee so that full opportunity for discussion might be afforded, and so that hon. members may be in a position to make their representations.
The fishing industry should also have a specially appointed 'minister. To-night it would appear that we have two acting ministers of fisheries. One spoke in reply to the hon. member for Camox-Al'bemi, and the other is termed the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau). I believe the fishing industry, involving millions of dollars and the employment of thousands of people, should have devoted to it the full time of a minister. I am bold enough to state that had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) who was previously Minister of Fisheries, still! been in that .position, I doubt very much if these orders in council would have passed without first having the approval of the committee or of the House of Commons. I say, further, that if the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Finance had continued to act as Minister of Fisheries, I believe he would have given that considera-

tion to hon. members and to the fishing industry in general.
It might be interesting to the house to hear how some of the representations are made regarding the industry. The deputy minister for the past few years has made trips to British Columbia in the interests of the fishing industry. The Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Fisheries, made one trip, for which we were pleased and also grateful; the British Columbia fishermen were very much pleased with the interest he displayed. When the deputy minister comes to the coast, meetings are arranged with the fishermen. There are two distinct bodies I might say in the fishing industry, namely those who are engaged in fishing and have boats and nets, and the canning interests. I am sorry there are two such distinct bodies, because I maintain the sooner they cooperate and come together the better it will be for the industry.
When the deputy minister comes out west meetings are arranged between the various bodies. I want hon. members to bear in mind, however, that while the meetings with the fishermen are open to the public and the recommendations made to the minister are broadcast, the canning interests also have a secretary in attendance taking notes. They are very cute about it. They do not hold their meetings until after the meetings with the fishermen and the deputy have been completed. Then it is that the eanners hold a secret conclave with the deputy minister all on the quiet and so put forward their resolutions and recommendations. Naturally I am very much interested in the fishermen, and still hold that interest. With that in mind I decided to go to one of the meetings of eanners, because representing a fishing constituency I thought I ought to know or hear both sides of the industry. You Should have seen the look of consternation and fear when I walked into the meeting of eanners. They took fright. One of them got uip and said, "Mr. Deputy, I thought this was a private meeting Where we would be allowed to 'talk in secret with you. Is the hon. member going to be allowed to listen in?" As a result I was asked to withdraw until they had1 had an opportunity to discuss my presence and the whole matter. At the time I wished I had a camera, because the moment I entered the room there was a look of consternation in the faces of those men. They were preparing to put recommendations before the deputy minister in secret. In my view that is not the proper way to carry on. The eanners and fishermen who have mutual interests should have joint meetings, and at those meetings

Inspection of Canned Salmon
botlh the cannery interests and the men should place their proposals before the deputy or the government. When the fishermen hold their meetings first, the canning interests have time to know what is being proposed or opposed by the fishermen. They then meet in secret and tell the deputy minister What they believe should be done for the good of the industry. They are not thinking or acting on behalf of the fishermen-oh, no; they are acting on behalf of themselves, ithe (vested interests. The cannery interests harm considerable capital at hand, and are also in a position to send deputations to Ottawa. In fact, I believe that has actually been done; a deputation did arrive not long ago, at a time I believe previous to the change of the act, by order in council.
We have always understood that we would be told when changes were going to be made. But in connection with the order in council no consideration was given to us at all. Like a bolt from the blue it was put into effect. The first we learned about it was when the notice appeared in the Gazette.
The statement is made that the cannery interests represent all the canners, but I suggest that is not true. In support of that contention I shall read from a letter before me received from Colonial Packers Limited of Vancouver, British Columbia. I believe the deputy minister received a similar communication, reading in part as follows:
The canned salmon section of tile Canadian Manufacturers Association is the only association formed to date by the salmon canners and they certainly do not represent one hundred per cent of the canners, of whom we believe there are nineteen. They are the body who are consulted in cannery matters as a rule, but it is extremely doubtful whether half the canners in British Columbia are members, but the fact that it is dominated by the three large companies is unquestioned.
Regarding the amendment to section 27a of the Meat and Canned Foods Act which states "No certificates shall be issued for canned salmon that has not been landed fresh at a cannery for canning within twenty-four hours after being caught, excepting fish that has been gutted and iced immediately after being caught" we should like to inquire; Why not?
Surely the inspection board was created to function in these cases. If they are satisfied that the salmon was fresh when packed what hearing has the length of time in which they were landed on the matter? According to this regulation if a eanner lands salmon twenty-five hours after being caught and cans it immediately he is deprived of all chance of a certificate whereas if the salmon is landed twenty-three hours after capture and held in the cannery for a further twenty-four hours it can obtain a certificate if the board passes the product although it might he much older fish than the other. Does this make sense?
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said there were two sides
to the story, but fortunately or unfortunately there are three sides to it. I shall give another side which he has entirely omitted. Not being Deputy Minister of Fisheries, he is probably not aware of what I am about to state. He said the object of the change was to have the fish properly gutted and iced, and so kept fresh and in proper condition. Last year certain canning interests on the Fraser river brought in from the American traps over 27,000 American caught sockeye salmon which were later canned, stamped and sent, I believe, to Great Britain. That is the information I have, and I have stated it to the deputy minister. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in his seat, because I should like to tell him that the sockeye salmon caught in those traps might have been there two, three or four days, and the longer they are kept in traps the greater is their deterioration. Although brought from the trap to the canneries within probably four hours, they may have been in the trap for five days and so would not be as fresh as fish caught in other districts and brought perhaps a forty-eight hour journey to the cannery.
There is another aspect. I might point out in passing that the canneries who had objected to the poor fishermen sending their fresh salmon across the line when they could obtain better prices there last year themselves deliberately bought fish from the American traps and brought fish in from the United States because they could purchase them a little cheaper. They practically told the fishermen of the Fraser to do what they liked with their fish, because they could buy cheaper on the American side. I think that ought to be taken serious notice of, and I am glad the acting Minister of Fisheries is in his seat. Not only has objection come to the acting minister from the Colonial Packers Limited, but objection has come also from the cooperative association, and, through its secretary, Mr. Maiden, from the British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association of New Westminster, which is composed of hundreds of members. I might point out that there are over fourteen hundred individual licences issued on the Fraser river, and all those men are vitally concerned in this matter of the transport of fish.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and myself are not the only ones who hold the views that we are expounding here to-night, because I note in The Province of February 6 that the Hon. Mr. Howe, the Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia, attended a meeting in New Westminster, and,

Inspection oj Canned Salmon
speaking about- this very same thing, the transport of fish from one area to another, said:
As dominion inspection of canned salmon takes -place it safeguards the public irrespective of where the fish had been transported from to the cannery.
That is the opinion of Hon. Mr. Howe, who is in charge of the fisheries for the province of British Columbia. So we are not alone in regal'd to this matter.
The most serious matter, however-and I say it in all seriousness to the acting minister-is the question of purse seines in the gulf of Georgia. I might say that on the 8th of February I wrote the acting minister regarding this matter and I received a reply from him dated the tenth, in which he says the question is still receiving consideration. I will just ask you to note that, Mr. Speaker, because at the time that letter was written the order in council had been passed or was being passed. I think it is unfair to write a letter to a member saying that this would receive consideration, "this'' being the protest that I was then making against purse seining in the gulf of Georgia, at a time when the order in council had already been passed. I would like some explanation of that, especially if the acting minister is going to reply, because the order in council is of the same date. I do not know who is responsible for the orders in council which have been put into effect, but we had an explanation to-night of who was responsible for at least one of them, when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) took the responsibility for the one regarding the gutting and cleaning of salmon. The men engaged in the industry have been entirely ignored, and by this order in council which allows purse seines in the gulf of Georgia have had it put over them. I will send this map to the minister when I am through. I have it marked, and if he will examine it closely he will see that the area now taken in by the order in council practically cuts across the mouth of the Fraser and blocks the whole river. I would remind him also that gill nets cannot operate where seines operate, so that if seines are allowed here to catch pinks in the mouth of the Fraser it will do away entirely with the men who use gill nets. That is point number one. I am also drawing his attention to another point, that the individual fisherman fishes far into the area now open to seines. It will absolutely do away with the individual fisherman, and at a time like this I maintain is very serious indeed. The acting minister may say: Oh yes. but the pink salmon
(Mr. Reid.]
are in far better condition being caught out there than after they come up the Fraser river. This is questionable, Mr. Speaker, but even so the pink salmon in the Fraser river is not such a serious matter as to warrent the use of seines, because from the particulars before me I find that in 1931, out of 83,000 cases that were canned in district No. 1, which is the Fraser river district, there were only 557 cases of pinks. The year before there was a smaller catch, 13,375, and out of that 896 cases of pinks. So the matter of catching pinks out there is not as serious as either the deputy or the acting minister would have us believe. Another point overlooked entirely is this, that the pink salmon that is caught there does not all go into cans; part is canned, but a great part of the catch is dry-salted and shipped abroad. The Japanese fishermen sent more dry-salted pink salmon to Japan last year than was canned, according to the return of the deputy minister, which I have in my hand. It was valued at roughly $12,000,000. And pink salmon is not only canned and dry-salted; it is also sold to the public and used as one of our excellent fishes to eat fresh.
Another serious matter, and one I would ask the hon. minister to pay some attention to, is this: In 1930 there was a treaty adopted by Canada, called the Sockeye Salmon treaty. It was acceptable to this country, but up to date it has not been passed by the Senate of the United States. I had great hopes that with the change of administration this would pass the United States Senate this year. But by passing order in council No. 274 and allowing purse seines in the mouth of the Fraser and the gulf close to the international boundary I claim we have struck a serious blow at the chances of the passage of that Sockeye Salmon treaty by the United States Senate. If we had approached them and said, "You are using traps and seines below the international boundary and are catching the majority of. the fish; wre spend thousands of dollars a year in breeding fish which on the return journey are caught by the destructive methods used on your side, by both seines and traps", we might have come to an agreement that would allow us a fifty per cent catch. But now we are attempting to retaliate. We say: They are using seines; now we will use seines. And I suppose this is going to be the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of traps; because they use traps we will say the Canadians might as well use them too. I am very sorry that this move was made at this time, especially since a bill has just been introduced into the Senate of the United States asking for the abolition of the use of

Inspection of Canned Salmon
fish traps and seines for the catching of salmon in the Washington state and Puget sound area. I have information to the effect that this bill has been introduced, and I have every reason to believe that it has a good chance to pass the United States Senate.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, on the Fraser river we have about 1,400 individual fishermen. The use of seines at the mouth of the river will actually drive many of those fishermen away or at least curtail their opportunity to earn a livelihood. By using seines at the mouth of the river they will also catch many sockeye; it is stated by the British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association that there will be probably two pink salmon for every sockeye caught when using seines. Permitting the use of each purse seine will do away with about 150 or 200 fishermen; each seine is equal to about that number of men. The use of seines in certain districts may be all right; I am not saying they never should be used in some districts, but if -the minister will take note of this map which I have marked very carefully I believe he will agree that the individual fishermen will be driven off the Fraser river. The fish will not be able to pass the seines and individual gill net boats will be unable to work. It is true that in the United States they have used seines and traps, but we have condemned and still condemn all such methods.
I do not know that I have a great deal more to add with regard to this matter. I believe the order in council has been far too drastic, and I think this and the preceding order in council should have been referred to the committee on marine and fisheries. I thought it was the policy of the department and of parliament to give that committee something to do. Both the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and myself are members of that committee, but apparently it is not to function at all; apparently all regulations are to be put into effect by order in council. The functions of parliament have been taken away, and really if this kind of policy is carried on much further there is little use in our coming here in an endeavour to represent our constituencies if we are to have no chance to present the case of the people who send us. As I say, this order in council affects hundreds of fishermen on the Fraser river. Just why the policy of the department, which has previously been to curtail the use of seines, should be departed from at this time when thousands of men are unable to get employment, I am at a loss to understand. I protest against this measure as strongly as possible. I did not want to bring forward a want of confidence motion, but I am going to ask with all the power I can that 53719-149
the acting minister seriously consider this whole matter and see if it would not be possible to refer all the Tecent orders in council to the fisheries committee where they can be properly dealt with, and in the meantime to defer any action allowing the use of seines in the gulf of Georgia.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I wish to support the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) in this matter.
I have a number of fishermen in my riding, and whenever I meet them they always complain about the changes in the regulations. They do not know what is going to happen from one year to another. I think altogether too many changes are made to suit the whims not of the fishermen but of the canners.
I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is not in his place; I was going to take exception to the licking he undertook to hand out to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. The minister made the statement that the arguments of my hon. friend were not understandable. Apparently the people in Comox-Albemi understand them; the hon. member has been sent here for many years with big majorities. If there were a by-election in British Columbia to-day and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the Minister of Trade and Commerce were to contest the seat, I am sure the minister would be lucky if he did not lose his deposit. The people of British Columbia have a warm feeling for the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
We in British Columbia are all anxious to see the quality of British Columbia salmon maintained. I am not going into details, but I ask the acting minister it if would not be possible even now to cancel this order in council and refer this proposed regulation to the committee that is ready for action but has nothing to do. I am not a member of that committee, but I do not believe it has done anything this session. Goodness knows this problem could have been threshed out long ago. The minister of Trade and Commerce was in Vancouver a short time ago, and no doubt he discussed this matter while he was there. It is not at all likely that he had any representations from the fishermen, and I should like to know where the minister got the information that led him to believe these changes should be made. It see-ms to me any proposed changes should be considered in Vancouver, which would permit the fishermen to make representations in their own behalf. The canners can come to Ottawa, but the fishermen are not, able to do so.



Marine-Alleged Maladministration
I will not take up more of the time of the house, but I do think the government should drop this business of government by order in council. What good are we here? What are we here for? This matter could have been threshed out long ago by the committee on marine and fisheries, and I would ask the minister even now to consider cancelling this order in council and leaving the matter to that committee.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not intend to
answer in detail the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Munn). My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has fully covered the ground. With regard to the two matters brought up by my hon. friend from New Westminster, particularly with reference to purse seining at the mouth of the North Fraser river, let me assure the hon. member that we will study the question very closely. This is a very important matter, and this government has in mind only one end; that is the welfare of the fishermen, of the business interests and of the country at large. Those orders in council were adopted after consideration by the officials of my department, who are men of long experience, and by the government. After listening to my hon. friends, however, let me say that we will again consider these matters, and I hope we will come to some reasonable conclusion. That is all I can say at the moment.



Alfred Duranleau: I would ask to be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words with regard to a matter brought up the other day by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) with regard to some repairs made on the trail between Bamfield and Pachena, on the west coast. My hon. friend brought this matter up the other day without any previous notice, and I want to say that he was unfair to the Minister of Marine and even to this house when he made the statements he did about the minister.
This is a contract for SI,000 for repairs to five little wooden bridges on that trail and the hon. gentleman made the statement that he was bringing up the matter here because he had received no satisfaction from the Minister of Marine although he had been in correspondence with him since October last-


Alan Webster Neill: With his department.
(Mr. Munn.]


Alfred Duranleau: -without results,
without reply. I could not answer the other day; my hon. friend had his file in his hands and I had none here. However, I was amazed when I came back to my office to discover that the first and only letter which was directed to the minister by my hon. friend was a letter dated February 9, 1933. This letter was received at my office on the following day, the 10th, and the hon. gentleman brought the matter up in this house on the following Tuesday, the 14th. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, that this statement was absolutely unfair to the minister-the statement that he had been in communication with the minister since last October. I have his statements here. He said, "I have been writing to the minister since October."


Alan Webster Neill: It should have been the
department.


Alfred Duranleau: And further he says that "you cannot get replies to letters." I say that was absolutely unfair. I had only one letter which was received at my office an the Friday, and on Monday morning, when I came back from the week-end in Montreal, I wired immediately to my marine agent in Victoria, asking him for particulars about that contract. My hon. friend, in that letter dated February 9, summarized the charges he made the other day, that in connection with that contract of $1,000 the contractor had made a profit of $700. On the Monday I wired to my marine agent in Victoria in these words:
In connection with McDonald contract repair bridges on trail between Bamfield and Pachena. it is necessary to know at once how long McDonald took to do work, how many men he employed, what wages he paid to each, amount of material McDonald supplied and how much profit he made on the job. Wire reply soon as possible.
That was on the 13th, the following Monday, and before waiting for my reply my hon. friend got up on the following day and made the charges which I have just stated. The hon. gentleman compared this contractor to highwaymen, to Bill Miner, who robbed the Canadian Pacific, and so on.
Now what are the facts? The answer I received was this:
Your wire repairs bridges Bamfield. Work lasted twenty-seven days. On account lateness of season men worked every day at ten and one-half hours per day September twentieth to October seventeenth. Crew consisted six men, four men at four dollars per day and board, one at five dollars per day and board, one at six dollars per day and board, total wages seven hundred and forty-five dollars. Expenses food ninety-six dollars camp equipment and launch hire one hundred and seventeen dollars, material furnished by contractor forty-two dollars. Contractors profit represented by

Supply-National Revenue
wages as already stated at six dollars per day. Contractor also carried out considerable additional work. Work completed thoroughly satisfactory manner.
My hon. friend stated that he had been in communication with the minister since October last without receiving any reply or any satisfaction. As a matter of fact, he had been in communication with my assistant deputy minister since last October and he received an answer to every letter he wrote, obtaining every possible detail with regard to the contract.
I do not want to take up the time of the house giving full details, but I can assure the house that the hon. gentleman was treated in the fairest possible manner by my department. I can also assure the house that my instructions to my officials are to be considerate to every member of this house whether on the other side or on this side, and if there is one instance in which those instructions have been carried out to the limit it is on this occasion. They even sent my hon. friend the tender for these works, not only the details but even the tender, and he received every explanation.
There was absolutely nothing wrong in this matter. It was a small contract of SI,000. The hon. gentleman said that they should have asked for tenders. Well, he was told why tenders were not called for by my department. It was suggested by our agent at Victoria, Colonel Wilby, that no tender should be called for in order that local labour only be employed. That was the information given my hon. friend by the department. The works had been estimated by one official of my department to cost $1,300, and they were estimated by Colonel Wilby himself, who is an engineer, to cost $1,220.


Alan Webster Neill: Was he on the ground?


Alfred Duranleau: That is the information I received. As a matter of fact, the total work cost $1,189.72.


Alan Webster Neill: More than the contract.


Alfred Duranleau: -and the profit of the contractor, according to the information I have received, was exactly $162, that is, his wages for 27 days at $6 a day.


Alan Webster Neill: How did it come to $189 more than the contract?


Alfred Duranleau: The contract was for
$1,000 plus certain materials to be supplied by the department. We supplied lumber to the value of $154.35, hardware to the value of $35.37, and the contractors supplied the rest
to the value of $42. I claim that my hon. friend was absolutely unfair to the minister and to this house when he represented the facts in the manner he did. There was nothing in this contract that was at all reprehensible. I thought it was only fair to the house and to the officials in my department that I should give this explanation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $865,692; contingencies, $40,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: What is the reason for
the increase?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The increase is very
small.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think it would be well to ask the minister to have this item stand. The right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has suggested that all items dealing with salaries should stand until the legislation in connection with the salary deduction is passed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think that position is quite fair. Perhaps we could take up the contingencies.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not see how we could
pass one portion of the vote and not the other.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is this vote for?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The amount is arrived at by taking the average for the six months in the current year. The amount is split up as follows:
Clerical and other assistance, $15,000.
Printing and stationery, $9,500.
Sundries, $15,500.
This is $2,000 less than last year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Perhaps this part of the item should also stand.
Item stands.


DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
[Stage Direction]
Lighthouse and coast service - amount required to pay compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly lightkeeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is this vote for?


Alfred Duranleau: This is a compassionate allowance to John Davidson, former lightkeeper at Cape Mudge. The same vote has been in the estimates for years.
Suppl y-M arm e


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In what district is that?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) can tell you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $99,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has a signal been placed on the light upon the island of Anticosti in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think any
new apparatus was installed last year. This vote is for service, not for new construction.


DEPARTMENT OF MINES
[Stage Direction]
Mines and geological survey-for administration of the Explosives Act (chap. 62, r.s., 1927), $10,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any salaries
in this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is partly salary.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then perhaps this item
could stand.
Item stands.
Miscellaneous-grant to Imperial Institute, $9,733.33.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister explain the reason for this grant?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This is under an agreement with the United Kingdom and the other dominions. It is one of those institutions that were set up in Great Britain for the purpose of assembling information in connection with the mineral resources of the empire. Under the agreement each dominion contributes so much money, Canada's contribution being as is indicated in the item, S9,733.33.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is that in Canadian funds
or English currency?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How long has this
agreement been in force between the government of this country and those of England and the other dominions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I recollect aright, since 1923.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How long has it to run?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: At the present time a
conference is taking place in London with a view to consolidating the various efforts such as this that have to do with assembling empire information with respect to many matters
Htfr. Duranleau.]
including minerals, and I am hopeful that after- this conference has concluded its work, all these matters will be consolidated in one information bureau. If that takes place, then this vote will disappear and probably be absorbed in a general vote covering items of this character.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are any reports from
this Imperial Institute available at present?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: They have been available for eight years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I imagine there are reports, although I have seen them only when I have sought some special information. At times I have received information from the institute with respect to certain minerals. I have not seen any comprehensive annual report; I am not sure there is one.


James Layton Ralston: I do not wish to be
disrespectful, but as a matter of fact is the institute anything more than a post office, if I may so say, or a collection office through which are transmitted reports received from various parts of the empire? In other words, is a synopsis made of these reports and a new report published, or are just such pamphlets as are thought to be of use to some particular part of the empire transmitted through that office?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would not go so far as
to say that it is merely a post office. It is essential, and the mining industry considers it essential, that information should be assembled from various parts of the empire showing what minerals they have in abundance, what minerals they are short of, what minerals we could export to them, what minerals we are short of and could get within the empire, and whether those mineral deposits have been developed or are capable of being turned into industry. Matters of that kind are assembled in the Imperial Institute and from time to time the Dominion of Canada has turned toward the institute for that information. Personally I believe the institute has been of more service to the colonies than to the dominions; that has been my view for some years, and I am not at all wedded to the continuance for any great period of time of this institute without a revision of its activities. As I said a few minutes ago, I believe after the conference to which I have referred these various activities will be coordinated, their expense reduced and their usefulness to those seeking information about various parts of the empire and their products increased.

Supply-M ines


James Layton Ralston: What I was really trying to find out was whether anything was done there in the way of expert work or whether it was more or less clerical, if I may so term it, synopsizing the various reports received. It occurred to me that the transmission of these reports from various parts of the empire could, in these times when conditions are difficult, be done directly between the different parts of the empire instead of the information having to go through a central office, and that such reports as were useful to us could be used in our Department of Mines and others discarded rather than that they should all go to a central bureau and be distributed from it.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I understand the minister to say that this institute had been in operation only since 1923?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is my recollection.


Alan Webster Neill: I have an idea, unless I have the wrong name in my head, that this had been running for about forty years and that at one time it was considered as being of great advantage, but for some years it has died out altogether. Could this information not be obtained through Canada House?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $2,000,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the minister explain the increase of $250,000?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The increase is because
more coal has been moved subject to what is known as subvention. This increase is to take care of that extra movement of coal upon which subvention is paid.


Thomas Reid: Is this a rebate given to the
railway companies for transporting coal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. Under the coal subventions the money is paid to the producer of the coal, not to the railways. The subvention applies not only to a comparatively
small movement for the railways, but east and west for coal used for industrial purposes. That is where most of the money involved in this vote goes.


Alan Webster Neill: Does this cover payment to the coal mines in Vancouver island?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: As this amount is larger than formerly and as I presume we are voting it for the future, am I justified in assuming that the grants will be continued after they lapse as they will in June of this year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is the intention of the
government at present to see that the various orders in council establishing the subventions are renewed, and those who contemplate making the usual spring contracts have been advised that it is the intention of the government to renew these subventions in order that there will be no anxiety in regard to entering into contracts for the coming year.


Alan Webster Neill: For what period will they be renewed-a year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The subventions being payable out of a vote of this character are of necessity only for the current year, because they come out of money voted by parliament for the purpose and not under a statute. Therefore this will be until the end of the fiscal year 1934.


Alan Webster Neill: But the existing grant runs
out in June, 1933. Will the government renew it for another year or will it be renewed only for nine months?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If it were possible to renew it for a whole year, I see no objection to doing so, but my view at the moment is that we can renew it only until the end of the next fiscal year. If it is renewed again, then it would be for a twelve months period.


Mr. BENNETT:: Or done by a supplementary estimate.
Progress reported.


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