1935-03-11

Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, owing
to the unfortunate death of Mr. LaVergne last week, the office of Chairman of Committees is now vacant. This office carries with it the duties of Deputy Speaker. I move:
That the Hon. Raymond Morand, M.D., member for the electoral district of East Essex, Ontario, be appointed Chairman of the Committees of the whole house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I would like simply to say that Doctor Morand has evidently made himself popular on both sides of this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Halsey Perley: -a very desirable attribute for the Chairman of the Committee. Doctor Morand is getting to be one of the older members now, as he was first elected in 1925, and I feel sure he will carry out his duties in this office with impartiality and satisfaction to both sides of the house.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: It will be apparent to Your Honour that as far as it is possible for hon. members on this side to make the motion of my right hon. friend unanimous, we are only too ready so to do. The house generally will regard the nomination of the hon. member for East Essex as a very happy one. He possesses the temperament and other qualities which eminently fit him for the position of Chairman of the Com-

mittees of the house and Deputy Speaker, and I am sure we shall ail have reason to take pride in the manner in which he presides, in his impartiality and his general efficiency.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Probably as far as this section of the house is concerned I have been more closely associated with the hon. member for East Essex than most others, especially in connection with the work of the radio committee. I must say that if he can handle the house as elegantly and harmoniously as he handled that committee- as I think he will-no mistake has been made in his appointment. I feel sure that we can offer him our cooperation and congratulations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 32, respecting the additional protocol of 1935 to the Canada-P'rance trade agreement of 1933.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain


George Halsey Perley: This bill is for the purpose of enacting changes in the arrangement between Canada and France which have been made by mutual consent, and which will appear in the bill itself
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31 for the relief of Travor Eardley-Wilmot.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

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

Mr. SEGUIN:: Considering the results of the agreements of the imperial conference, held at Ottawa, could Canada immediately put into operation a general reciprocity treaty with the United States without previously obtaining the authorization of the British government.


George Halsey Perley: No authorization from the British government would be necessary but in negotiating any trade treaty we must bear in mind the obligations entered into under existing trade agreements.

Questions
auditor-general's reports on unemployment RELIEF EXPENDITURE IN QUEBEC


Mr. GIROUARD:: Did the auditor general of Canada, in addition to reports tabled in this house, present other reports to the Minister of Labour or to officials of his department, respecting the audit in his department and the control of amounts paid to the province of Quebec following investigations mentioned in reports already produced?


Mr. RHODES:: Reports of the auditor general on unemployment relief expenditures are made to the Minister of Finance who transmits a copy to the Department of Labour. In addition to reports tabled in the House of Commons, the following reports were received:
Expenditures on relief works, city of Montreal, 1930 and 1931 acts-report dated July 6, 1934;
Provincial accounts for relief works and direct relief, 1930 act-report dated December 11, 1934.


REPARATIONS PAYMENTS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Have all the eases of reparations claimed by civilians for war damages been heard and passed upon by the commissioner?
2.	Are some of the awarded claims still unpaid?
3.	If so:	(a) how many claims are still
unpaid; (b) for what reason; (c) what are the amounts of said claims?


Mr. CAHAN:: 
ENGINEERING STANDARDS ASSOCIATION
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Is the Canadian Engineering Standards Association in receipt of a subsidy from the federal government?
2.	If so, what is the amount of such subsidy?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	The Canadian Engineering Standards Association is a separate corporate body, but in order to coordinate its activities with those of the National Research Council the main committee of the Canadian Engineering Standards Association has been created an associate committee of the National Research Council. This committee receives financial support from the National Research Council
on the same basis as other associate committees of the council. The amount varies according to the exigencies of the work undertaken by the committee. The C.E.S.A. also receives considerable financial support from Canadian industries interested in and benefited by its activities.
2.	During the fiscal year 1933-34-12,300. j. E. laforce


Mr. POULIOT:: Referring to a telegram read by the Hon. W. A. Gordon, Minister of Labour, on April 27, 1933, in the House of Commons (Hansard, page 4326), and signed by J. E. Laforce,-
1.	Was the said J. E. Laforce then employed in any of the departments headed by the Hon. W. A. Gordon?
2.	If so, which one and was it his duty to report to the said minister?
3.	If not, did the Hon. W. A. Gordon, or anyone on his behalf, communicate by telephone, letter or telegram with the said J. E. Laforce, before the latter sent the telegram already referred to?
4.	If so, when and why?
5.	Before proceeding to read that telegram, did the Hon. W. A. Gordon refer to a "committee with respect to this work"?
6.	If so, what was that committee, who were the people who formed it, and what was its purpose?
7.	Were any of the departments of the federal government represented on such committee?
8.	If so, by whom?
9.	What was the occupation of the said J. E. Laforce when he sent the telegram referred to to the Hon. W. A. Gordon, and in what capacity did he do so?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	The agreement regarding relief settlement between the dominion government and the province provides, "The province shall set up and advisory committee upon which shall be included representatives of the dominion land settlement branch, the colonization branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the colonization branch of the Canadian National Railway.
7.	Yes.
8.	J. G. Russell, district superintendent, soldier settlement of Canada, Sherbrooke, P.Q.
9.	Colonization representative, Canadian National Railway.


CANADIAN BANK DEPOSITS
Mr. COOTE:: What is the number and aggregate amount of deposits payable on demand in Canadian chartered banks in each of the following classes:

Questions

(a)	(1) Deposits under $1,000; (2) Deposits
over $1,000 to $5,000; (3) Deposits over $5,000 to $25,000;	(4) Deposits over $25,000 to
$100,000; (5) Deposits in excess of $100,000?
(b)	What is the number and value of deposits payable after notice in Canadian banks in the same size groups?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer to this question will be found in the return which was tabled on the first of March.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. SPENCER:: How many parcels of land' in the following categories have been forfeited to the soldier settlement board through the inability of the farmer to meet his liabilities since the soldier settlement board started operations (a) soldier grants; (b) homesteads; (c) second homesteads?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


NEWMARKET CANAL-CONSTRUCTION
Mr. TUMMON:: _ 1- Through what territory was the Trent galley canal extension, better known as the Newmarket canal, intended to be constructed?
2.	How far did the construction of this canal proceed?
3.	In what years was the construction carried on?
4.	Who represented the constituency of North lork during the years construction work was carried on?
5.	Did the engineer's report provide for pumping the water into the said canal, or reservoirs, and what was the estimated cost of such service?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	County of York, province of Ontario, from lake Simcoe to Newmarket.
2.	Total estimated capital cost, $1,011,642.87; expenditure against capital, $818,642.87; percentage completed, 81 per cent.
3.	1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912.
4.	Sir William Mulock resigned his seat and portfolio as Postmaster General on appointment to the bench, October 16, 1905. Hon. A. B. Aylesworth succeeded Sir William Mulock as member for North York at the by-election of November 22, 1905, and re mained until the defeat of the Laurier government in September, 1911. Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong, Conservative, succeeded Mr. Aylesworth, now Sir Allen Aylesworth, senator.
5.	Yes, pumping, capital cost, $17,000; annual operation and maintenance cost, $4,000.
[Mr. Coote.l


NEWMARKET CANAL-EXPENDITURE
Mr. PECK:: 1.	What has been the total expenditure made on the Trent Valley canal extension, better known as the Newmarket canal?
2.	Has the amount expended on the Newmarket canal extension been charged to the capital account of the Trent Valley canal?
3.	Has any use ever been made of the Newmarket canal?
4.	Has any money been expended on this
enterprise since October, 1911?


Mr. MANION:: 1. Capital expenditure	$818,642 87
Maintenance and supervision to February 28, 1935.. ..	17,678 36
Total	$836,321 23
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Following decision in December, 1911, to abandon the enterprise, unavoidable capital expenditure on road approaches, etc., necessitated by the closing out of contracts, were made to the amount of $27,929.48. Additional expenditures for maintenance and supervision since December, 1911, have amounted to, approximately, $17,700.


NEWMARKET CANAL-INITIAL GRANT
Mr. STINSON:: 1.	In what year was the initial grant made to the Trent Valley canal extension, better known as the Newmarket canal?
2.	Who w-as the sitting member of the riding of North York at the time the initial grant was made?
3.	In what year was the work commenced and how much money was spent in that year?
4.	Has there been any return from the said expenditure for power, rentals, or otherwise?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Initial surveys-1904.
2.	Hon. William Mulock.
3.	In 1906; expenditure fiscal year 1906-07 -$12,282.23.
4.	Yes, $5,971.10 to date, from land leases and pasturage privileges.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC MUNICIPALITIES   DORCHESTER COUNTY
Mr. GAGNON:: Has the Department of Labour ever requested the Quebec provincial government to take proceedings against some municipalities of the county of Dorchester with respect to the expenditures of relief moneys, since 1930?


Mr. GORDON:: No.

Questions as Orders for Returns


CENTREVILLE N.B. MAIL ROUTE
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	When was the contract awarded for rural mail route No. 1, Centreville, Carleton county, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the present contract price and what was the price of previous contract?
3.	Who is the present contractor, and who was the former contractor?
4.	What was the expiry date of former contract?
5.	Were public tenders called for present contract?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	15th December, 1926.
2.	SSSO and S6S0 per annum.
3.	Edgar F. Wright in both cases.
4.	31st March, 1927.
5.	Yes, on 15th October, 1926. Renewed on 10th December, 1930, and 12th November, 1934.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	How many bills passed by the House of Commons were rejected by the Senate, between 1921 and 1935?
2.	What were such bills, and at what dates were they rejected?


George Halsey Perley: Return tabled
herewith.


GRAND MAHAN, N.B.-'WHARVES AND BREAKWATERS-TIMBER PURCHASES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How much lumber or timber for repairs on wharves and breakwaters on Grand Manan, New Brunswick, was purchased during the last three years?
2.	What price per 1,000 feet was paid for said lumber?
3.	From whom was such lumber purchased, and if from more than one firm or person, how much lumber from each?
4.	Are the persons from whom such lumber was purchased regular lumber dealers?
5.	Were public tenders called for such lumber?


CONSUMERS COMMODITY STANDARDS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Has the National Research Council organized a committee to prepare consumer commodity standards?
2.	If so, what is the specific purpose of this committee?
3.	Will the specifications developed by the committee be available on request to provincial, local and institutional authorities in Canada?
4.	Will those specifications for commodities in common use be published so that individual consumers may avail themselves of the guidance contained in the facts?
5.	Will individual consumers or the public generally be able to learn of the products by name, which conform to the government standards?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Return
tabled herewith.


WAR PENSIONS REDUCED
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many war pensioners have had their pensions reduced during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	What is the total amount of the reduction?
3.	How many war pensioners have had their pension completely cut off in each of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and' 1934?
4.	What is the total amount involved?
5.	How many ex-service men in receipt of war veterans' allowance have had their allowance reduced or totally cut off during each of these years?
6.	What is the total amount involved?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Miss MAOPHAIL:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, and reports, of inspections made of the Kingston penitentiary by Inspector Dawson and interviews of Inspector Dawson with inmates in the same institution between February 1, and July 1, 1934.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion passing, but it will be subject to all proper reservations in regard to confidential documents and information in regard to prisons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. DONNELLY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department or any member of the government, from June I. 1934, to date, in connection with the change and appointment of a postmaster at Meyronne, Saskatchewan.
l'ile-aux-grues, signals service


Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all correspondence passed between the Minister of Marine, and any person or persons, with respect to the signals service at l'lle-aux-Grues. Montmagny county, Quebec, from the 1st of May, 1933, to date.
GRINDSTONE, N.B., lightkeeper


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports on examination and names of applicants in connection with the appointment of the lightkeeper at Grindstone, New Brunswick; also a statement showing the rating of each applicant in the examination, both verbal and written, which took place in May, 1934.

Vautrin Colonization



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: In view of the fact that the fiscal year ends on the 31st of March might I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) when he expects to make an announcement to the house with respect to the government policy concerning the unemployment relief situation for the ensuing year


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The policy to be adopted by the government with respect to unemployment of course has been under consideration constantly. The measure I trust will be introduced in the course of the next few days, and when it is introduced it will disclose what the government will ask from parliament in the way of authority to carry on work in connection with assistance to the unemployed and to the provinces whose primary duty it is to take care of matters of this character.



VAUTRIN COLONIZATION SCHEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) if he has given his final answer to the proposal made by the government of the province of Quebec in connection with the expenditure of $10,000,000 to send young people back to the land, otherwise known as the Vautrin colonization scheme. I saw an announcement in the press the other day in this regard and I should like to ask if the minister has finally concluded not to participate in that scheme.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Vautrin plan was brought to my attention and, through me, to the attention of the government some weeks ago, following the address made by Mr. Vautrin to the convention he called together at Quebec to consider this plan. Of course I am and always have been agreed that there is a very great deal of room for the activities of all those engaged in colonization in connection with our own people here in Canada. I believe I am correct in stating that such colonization is one of the matters coming directly within the ambit of provincial activity, particularly in view of the fact that at the moment, as for some time past, all the lands capable of being used for this purpose belong to the provinces.
The matter was given very great consideration by me, and my views were laid before the government. I do not believe the dominion government should participate in
[Mr. Veniot.l
a colonization plan of this character. Members of the house will remember that assistance was offered and given in a modest way, with no limitation being placed upon the number that could be assisted, but this was not in the nature of a state-aided colonization plan; rather it was a plan that we hoped would appeal to the provinces and the municipalities. To a considerable measure it did appeal to them and was taken advantage of by them. If my recollection serves me right the agreements with the provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are still in force and the plan outlined was in fact entirely in the nature of a plan to relieve unemployment to the extent that it would place people on the land; it was a relief plan pure and simple. It may be that time will disclose the desirability of the dominion government assisting provincial colonization plans, but at the moment the decision of the government is that assistance will not be given to such a plan as the Vautrin scheme.



ILLNESS OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: I regret to have to inform the house that the Prime Minister still is not very well and will be confined to his apartment for some time yet. His medical adviser, Dr. R. S. Stevens, has given me the following statement:
The Prime Minister's recovery was uneventful until Thursday last, when he suffered a syncopal attack. Following this there was some disturbance of cardiac rhythm. This has now disappeared, and his general condition is improving. This, which is not serious in itself, necessitates further rest. The respiratory infection which appeared February 24, with long continued overwork and' strain, undoubtedly precipitated his illness.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hasten to say to my right hon. friend that I am sure all hon. members of this house will learn with very deep regret that the Prime Minister's indisposition is as serious as is indicated in the communication just read. We will all hope, with the acting leader of the government and hon. gentlemen opposite, that by taking the rest which his physician has advised the Prime Minister may have not only a speedy but a complete recovery, and that he may soon be back in this house again. May I say to my right hon. friend that in the meantime if by arrangement with him I am able to do anything to facilitate and expedite the business of the house in the absence of the Prime Minister I shall feel it

Ottawa Agreements
a privilege so to do. I am sure that in saying this I am only voicing the will and wish of all the members of the opposition to cooperate with the government in order that there may be occasioned as little in the way of embarrassment as possible.


George Halsey Perley: May I, on behalf of the Prime Minister, thank the right hon. gentleman for his kind words. I shall certainly see that they are placed before the Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity.



MINIMUM WAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
draft convention appearing on the orders of the day for to-day, and in connection with the creation of minimum wage fixing machinery may I say that I have before me the journal of the League of Nations, and although the convention appears on the order paper to have been passed in the month of June, 1928, I do not find it. May I ask the acting Prime Minister if he would be good enough to see to it that the page number is given when the matter is under discussion?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I shall see the question in Hansard, and from that I shall be in a position to prepare the answer.



BUTTER PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. O. BERTRAND (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to put a question to the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley), in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat. My question is based on an article appearing in the Border Cities Star of Friday, March 8, and stating that while butter sells in Windsor at twenty-seven cents per pound it sells in Detroit at forty-five cents per pound. Would the acting Prime Minister be kind enough to explain the difference in prices between these two points?


George Halsey Perley: I believe the hon. member has read only a newspaper statement, but although the Minister of Agriculture is not present to-day I shall have him look into the matter.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: If the statement is
accurate may I expect an answer from the acting Prime Minister to-morrow?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: No hurry.
92582-100}



TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. V. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are in my constituency a number of holders of Toronto Suburban Electric bonds I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if recently there have been any negotiations with respect to the interest rate upon retirement of those bonds?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, one day last week the hon. member for North Timis-kaming (Mr. Bradette) asked a question regarding an article signed by F. J. Savage and which dealt with the Ottawa agreements. I have made inquiry and in reply I would say to the hon. member that the government of the United Kingdom has not indicated to the Canadian government any intention or desire to revise the trade agreements entered into between the United Kingdom and Canada in August, 1932.



EIGHT HOUR DAY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the
Eight Hour Day
[Stage Direction]
general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
my purpose in rising is not to oppose the second reading but simply to say that I believe the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) wished to say something on the bill on second reading. However what he has in mind to say can, I imagine, be said as well on the motion for third reading, which I presume will not be moved to-day. When the resolution on which this bill was founded was before the house both the hon. member for Quebec East and myself made some remarks concerning it. Anything I might say at this stage will, I believe, have been covered by what has already been said.
Motion, agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.


The CHAIRMAN:: Hon. members, before
beginning my duties I should like to thank you for the manner in which my appointment was received, and for the very friendly words which have been said. My only hope would be that when I leave the office I may carry with me the same friendly feelings.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am really
happy to thank the hon. members of this house for my appointment.
On section 1-Short title.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before
proceeding with the discussion I should like to direct the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to a question I asked on February 26. and which is reported at page 1201 of Hansard. Upon that occasion I directed attention to article 19 of the convention, which appears at page 109 of the votes and proceedings for February 8. Article 19 is as follows:
Each member which ratifies this convention agrees to bring its provisions into operation not later than July 1, 1921, and to take such action as may be necessary to make these provisions effective.
On February 26 I asked the following question :
Whereas the eight hour day convention appears to have lapsed since 1921 is it the intention of the government to proceed with the bill based on such convention? This is stupendous, but it lapsed fourteen years ago.
The right hon. Acting Prime Minister answered as follows:
In answer to the hon. member for Temis-couata may I say this matter will be brought

to the attention of the Prime Minister, and the question may be asked when the resolution standing in his name is before the house.


George Halsey Perley: On February 26, Mr. Pouliot asked if the government proposed to proceed with a bill based on a convention which lapsed fourteen years ago.
This argument is based on the wording of article 19 of the convention, which provides that each member which ratifies this convention agrees to bring	its provisions
into operation not later than July 1, 1921. Such articles fixing a maximum time limit for the bringing into operation of the provisions of conventions, were inserted in conventions adopted prior to 1928 in order to facilitate their entry into force for different countries at the same time. States members of the international labour organization are, of course, free to ratify conventions at their own time, and, moreover, they clearly cannot be obliged to bring a convention into operation before they have ratified it. In conventions adopted since 1928 no such article purporting to fix a maximum time limit appears. The article in question has no application to members ratifying after the named date, and such members are bound by the convention from the date of the registration of their ratification in accordance with the provisions of article 18. In support of this view two facts may be cited:
(a)	The constant practice of the members of the organization, many of whom have ratified conventions after the named dates and have been considered as bound from the date of registration of the ratification;
(b)	The view taken of the article in question by the international labour conference in 1928 when it was agreed to suppress it as superfluous in future conventions. In 1927 Mr. Morellet, the legal adviser of the international labour office gave it as his opinion that the legal force of articles such as article 19 of the hours of work convention was as follows:
When a state ratifies after the date fixed by the clause, the clause has no effect for that state; when, on the contrary, a state ratifies before this date, it has the benefit of a waiting period and may abstain from applying the convention until the date fixed.
It might be pointed out that nineteen countries have ratified the convention limiting hours of work since July 1, 1921, the date cited in the article on which Mr. Pouliot bases his case that the convention has lapsed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the right hon.
gentleman, but at the same time I know that no country is bound by that convention.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Eight Hour Day
On section 2-Industrial undertaking.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I have had representations from small saw millers who have been in the habit of employing men both in the mills and in the woods ten hours a day, and as the work is intermittent I take it it comes under the provisions of this bill and will not be interfered with, or at any rate an adjustment may be made by order in council under section 10.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is correct.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The workers employed in restaurants and hotels are not included in this bill. I believe that if the government investigated the conditions in this occupation they would probably find that the hours of labour are longer and the conditions more intolerable than in any industrial establishment in Canada, and I see no reason why these men and women should not be included in the provisions of this bill. Quite recently I went into a restaurant in this city and asked a man how many hours a day he worked and he said he worked 365 days a year and ten hours a day, from eight at night until five o'clock in the morning. If it is essential that there should be an eight hour working day in the industrial structure of the country, I think it is just as essential, and just as practical, for the government to provide that these same conditions surrounding the hours of labour should be enforced in the restaurants and hotels of the country. A large number of workers are involved, and the enforcement of legislation such as this in all these establishments would be comparatively simple; indeed, it would be far more simple in my opinion than the enforcement of the law in some of the outlying districts where this legislation will govern those employed in mines, quarries and industrial establishments. I would ask the Minister of Labour why the government leaves outside the jurisdiction of this legislation so large a body of workers, who in my opinion are vitally in need of legislative action to curtail the intolerably long hours and to improve the conditions that exist in many sections of this particular calling in Canada.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We can all sympathize with the class of workers to whom the hon. member has referred. This legislation however is based upon the convention which was ratified by this parliament and which interprets "industrial undertakings." The bill follows the convention very closely; in fact, throughout it follows the wording of the convention itself. Moreover, it must be remembered that the provinces have legislation which covers the very
point the hon. member has raised, and the process provided by the various provincial statutes can be resorted to. It may be that the future will disclose some method whereby this parliament can assist the provinces in working out plans to relieve these workers, who perhaps do not come within the scope of the convention and of this bill. But inasmuch as the bill follows the convention, I am afraid that at present the workers referred to by the hon. gentleman will have to resort to provincial legislation, which covers their situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: The legislation in Ontario governing this class of workers is not worth the paper it is written on. While I am aware that this bill is based on the convention of the international labour office, I would point out that the convention lays down only a minimum; there is no regulation, there is no law, there is no advice to any government as to how far it shall go beyond the minimum fixed by the convention. If I am not mistaken, the hours of labour permitted under the factories act of Ontario are limited to sixty a week. I could understand the minister's position if this were a peculiar industry where regulations would be difficult or the enforcement of the law would present obstacles, but I see no reason why the men and women engaged in this particular calling should not come within the jurisdiction of this act, because the women and girls are more or less defenceless. Indeed, that might be said of the occupation generally. I suppose it is fair to say that the wages paid in the catering business are among the lowest in the dominion. Before this section is passed I think the minister should take into serious consideration the suggestion I have made. I think it would be well to let the section stand until the government can come to a decision to include the men and women engaged in this industry, from one end of Canada to the other, within the provisions of this bill, so that they may have the benefit of the eight hour day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the various provincial acts there are certain specific exemption and exceptions. In the British Columbia hours of labour act, section 6 provides:
The limit of hours of work prescribed in section 3 may be exceeded in case of accident, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant, or in case of force majeure, but only so far as may be necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the undertaking.
Eight Hour Day

In one of the communications we have received from some of the business interests I find the following:
We would not like to see a dominion law because in rush periods such as the fishing and the berry season, when there is a heavy, seasonable demand for packages, we find' it necessary at times to work some of our men overtime. In British Columbia we can get quick action in the way of procuring permits for such _ overtime but if legislation came from 3,000 miles away we might be faced with a difficult situation.
Where there are exemptions or exceptions by agreement between the industry and the workers and a permit is received from the board of administration, would this legislation cover such cases as are now protected by legislation in the various provinces.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is dealt with in section 10.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
wide enough to cover the point?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think so.


Mr. THOMPSON (Lanark):: Will this act apply to cheese and butter makers? Paragraph (b) refers tc industries in which materials are transformed, and in my opinion that would include the cheese and butter industries. They of necessity work over eight hours a day. Again, what about the night watchmen in factories and other places of business, most of whom work twelve hours? Will it be necessary for these firms to go to the expense of having two shifts of night watchmen? I suggest that this will demoralize the cheese factories in eastern Ontario if we are obliged to put two cheese-makers on the job during the day. Some provision should be made to exempt night watchmen and men engaged in cheese and butter factories.
Mr. MaoINNIS: With reference to employees in restaurants, I do not think that the minister can very well shelter himself behind the convention. As already stated, the convention only lays down broad general principles, and it is not necessary to coniform to these principles in enacting legislation for national purposes. Each country will accept the convention as a minimum, but may go as far as it likes in extending the eight hour day law. In regard to restaurants, perhaps they could be included under such industries where articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned and so forth. In restaurants, eggs are manufactured into omelettes and into various other things as well, so that possibly restaurants could be brought under this clause'. But we nhould not forget the restaurant employees,
4Mr I. A. Mackenzie.]
particularly where this work is being carried on by women. The work is arduous where the women are on their feet for long hours in the day and the time should not in any case exceed eight hours a day. Some time ago I made some inquiries into this matter similar to those made by the hon. member for East Hamilton, and I found cases wnere young girls were working for twelve hours a day. As regards the particular place where I made the inquiry, I found out that the employees ha've now been put on an eight hour basis. But as the dominion government has assumed the responsibility of putting legislation of this kind on the statute books, we should make it as broad as possible, particularly so as to cover such people as waitresses in restaurants.
If we are not taking these clauses seriatim, I would like to ask whether paragraph (d) referring to transport of passengers by road Included taxi drivers.


Peter John Veniot: I want to draw the attention of the minister to a particular case, and I would like to ask whether in his opinion clause 10 would apply there. Let us take for instance the canning factories, and I refer particularly to the fish canneries in my own county as I am more familiar with them. The employees have to work in those factories very often according to the tides and at times they will have to exceed the eight hour day specified under this legislation. Is there anything to prevent punishment of those exceeding the eight hour day in a case of that kind? The offence is punishable, and as I say these employees very often have to work according to the tides; they may have to work six hours at one time and perhaps eight or nine at another. I understand that under this bill they cannot do so without being subject to punishment for violation of the law.
While I am on my feet, may I draw the attention of the minister to another case? Let us take stream driving. I understand that this comes under this legislation because it is preparatory to the manufacture of lumber; I may be mistaken, it may not come under it. The men have to work short hours some days and very long hours at other times in order to take advantage of a freshet to bring the lumber down the stream. Often the work starting at from seven to ten o'clock in the morning will have to continue until late at night in order that full advantage may be taken of the condition of the water in the river at the time. I would like to know whether this bill would prevent the carrying on of that business as it has usually been carried on in the past.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may be permitted to answer, I think I can visualize what the hon. member for Gloucester has in mind, especially in the bay of Fundy where there are very high and low tides. I think the sardine industry is a case especially in point. The fish are caught at the low water period; they are carried by the carrier to the factory which they reach at about half tide. Then they have to be dealt with immediately no matter what time of the day or night it may be, because decomposition sets in rapidly. Such a case would come under clause 10. The same would apply to spring driving; the legislation is not intended to interfere with that.


Mr. NEILL:: Salmon canning?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The same thing would apply.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Would the minister reply to my question in regard to taxi drivers?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My view is that the legislation would apply to taxi drivers.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Clause 2, paragraph (a) reads:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term "industrial undertaking" includes:
(a) Mines, quarries, and other works for the extraction of minerals from the earth.
In regard to coal mining in Nova Scotia, from my association with the miners' unions, I believe it is a great bone of contention with them whether the eight hour day should apply to what we call "bank to bank" or to the working face. If this were interpreted to mean an eight hour day at the working face, the coal miners of Nova Scotia would really be working about nine hours a day; but if it means from bank to bank, then the eight hour day would probably mean seven and a half hours at the working face. That is what they have been striving for through their unions for many years, and I hope the legislation will be interpreted so that it will mean an eight hour day from bank to bank.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not particularly
acquainted with conditions under which the coal miners work in Nova Scotia. I would like to be informed as to what agreement the miners are working under at the moment.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: In Nova Scotia the eight hour day is statutory and it is an eight hour day at the working face, but the objective of the miners is to have an eight hour day from bank to bank. Probably I use some technical terms unfamiliar to the minister,
Eight Hour Day
but the miners are very much concerned about the matter and I would like to see the legislation cover the miners' objective.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will this legislation be applied to the printing bureau?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My view is that the interpretation of "industrial undertaking" would not include the civil service.


Angus MacInnis: Would it not include such services as are engaged in construction work in connection with maintenance, repairs, alterations, demolition and so forth? Surely the dominion government is not going to be exempted when private employers come under the legislation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The civil service is now working under an eight hour day in matters like those to which the hon. member for Vancouver South has referred. In all cases where the dominion government is repairing or demolishing buildings or doing anything of that character, the work is always done on an eight hour day basis as covered by the statute.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered the question of the effect of the supreme court decision as reported in 47 Supreme Court Reports at page 505 in regard to hours of labour. I do not propose to argue the matter, because it has been referred to before and will be dealt with later, but before the clause passes I would like to direct the minister's attention to that decision which is one bearing directly on this question, and it is clearly to this effect:
That the matter of labour in industrial undertakings in Canada, is primarily within the competence of provincial legislatures, but parliament can legislate as to labour in territories not yet organized into, or forming part of, a province and as to labour of servants of the dominion if these are within the scope of the draft convention.
I just wanted to call the minister's attention to the fact that this decision is not referred to in either the radio decision or the aeronautics decision which were relied upon by the Prime Minister as possibly giving jurisdiction. So far it has not been referred to, distinguished or overruled, and of course I take it that it stands. I do not propose to argue the matter at any length, but I wanted to know whether the minister had considered it. Surely this decision, as it stands, makes this legislation entirely ultra vires.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Of course I am not unacquainted with the decision to which the hon. member has made reference. We have either
Eight Hour Day



C0A1M0NS

[Stage Direction]
heard in this chamber or read very able arguments made in another place in this parliament by a number of lawyer members of both chambers. I was very much interested in hearing the argument of the Prime Minister, and the very clear and lucid argument of the hon. member for Quebec East, and in reading in the minutes of the Senate the arguments of those who so clearly spread upon the record their views as to whether this legislation is intra or ultra vires this parliament. I do not know that I can add anything to what has been said by those gentlemen. I think perhaps it would do us good as lawyers to read with care the arguments that were advanced. There are many nimble minded men in the legal profession and some I presume in other professions, as well as profound philosophers who have spoken and WTitten about questions of this character. This parliament has, with perhaps some reservations, agreed to the principle which underlies this legislation. I believe that hon. members of this chamber are profoundly concerned, not so much with those arguments, lucid as some of them were, and obscure as were others, with respect to the constitutionality of the measure, but about the great majority of the people of this country who desire the passage of this legislation and who I think we all believe will be very greatly benefited by it and by its proper administration. Therefore while the hon. member for West Middlesex has raised the question of this decision of our supreme *court, I can only repeat that I have listened to and read the very illuminating arguments on this point that have taken place in this chamber and in another place during recent weeks. I can add nothing to or subtract nothing from them, I think they have covered the ground pretty well.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I asked the minister a question a few minutes ago as to having some uniformity with provincial legislation as far as exceptions and exemptions were concerned. The question I now ask is consequent on that. Take for example an industry in British Columbia, some 3,000 miles from the minister's office in Ottawa; does he contemplate having provincial machinery there which can be appealed to in a moment in case of an industrial accident where an exception specified in provincial legislation can be resorted to, or what does he contemplate to meet an emergency situation of that kind?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Section 10 of this bill reads:
10. (1) The governor in council may also make regulations permitting - f.Mr. Gordon.]
(a) permanent exceptions to the limits of hours of work fixed by this act in ease of preparatory or complementary work which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment, or for certain classes of workers whose work is essentially intermittent;
Then of course section 7 covers other exceptional cases. I had hoped that we would take the sections up seriatim, but -since we have not adopted that course I will try to deal with points as they arise. I have given that section a great deal of thought, having regard to just such situations as referred to by the hon. member. I know of cases in various parts of Canada which it would perhaps be extremely difficult if not impossible to bring exactly within the four corners of the bill. When section 10 is under discussion I was going to ask that it stand and perhaps by that time I may have an amendment to suggest, if there is doubt here-and there may be-as to whether or not subsection 1 (a) of section 10 goes far enough to exempt from the operation of the bill some of those undertakings which in the very nature of things would have most difficulty in complying with the requirement of an eight hour day. The danger of course always is that a bill which is reformatory in its character and, we all hope, remedial in the best sense of the word, by providing for exemptions might itself be imperilled or destroyed. That situation must be avoided. I think perhaps section 10 might be amended, placing in the governor in council some further or more defim'te authority, so that these exceptional cases can be dealt with by regulations which, at any rate until they are shown to be insufficient, will be permanent in their nature, and can be subject to prompt revision to suit conditions or emergences which might arise, particularly in avocations such as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggested. These occur mainly in the northern parts of Canada and are not referable so much to the highly industrialized centres. I will speak to this point again when section 10 is under discussion


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One
further observation, because this is very important to us in the far west. Section 10 (b) refers to temporary exemptions. My point is mainly with respect to the machinery which the department would use in making immediate decisions as to possible temporary exceptions made necessary either by accident or by other causes referred to in the provincial statutes. Could the minister for instance contemplate the possibility of using these provincial boards which are now administering eight hour legislation in the various

Eiyht Hour Day
provinces, or would they have inspectors in the various provinces with authority to make immediate decisions with regard to these temporary exceptions?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe that the industries that might be seriously affected can be sufficiently identified and are sufficiently well known that all these conditions can be taken care of in the regulations. The regulations of course would be subject to revision from time to time. I can well understand that legislation of this character to be effective must be progressive in its nature. It has to be understood and administered in such a way that industry will not be impeded, and those for whom the legislation was specially passed will not have their position imperilled. There will have to be a great deal of thought given to the regulations, and when we come to section 10 I may suggest that the powers of the governor in council be made more clear with respect to framing regulations applying them to industrial conditions such as those to which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and others have referred.


Humphrey Mitchell: In doing that it must
not be forgotten that this act can be regulated out of existence.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I stated that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not like to see
those powers there. Take the Lord's Day Act, it was considered a great thing, but the ink was hardly dry on it until, in my judgment, it wTas made useless by regulations. This act can be regulated out of existence. I have had some experience in connection with the reduction of the hours of labour, and I do not know of any case where long hours are worked to-day in which they could not put up the best argument in the world why such hours must continue. It will take some ingenuity on the part of employers to meet legislation of this description. They will have to sit down and think their way through. The act will not be worth much if the governor in council has the power to except so many people from its provisions by regulation. And what is more important is that the people who frame the regulations shall be sympathetic to the purpose of the act. I believe that in the next ten years we shall go a long way further than the provisions of this act; this merely lays the foundation stone. If we can jump the legal hurdles that have been put up by some people on this side of the house, in my judgment it will be the greatest contribution
made by this parliament in connection with social legislation, and I hope the government is successful, and that those on this side will be able to follow in their wake if they are the next government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like
to say just a word by way of correction of what my hon. friend has said. He has spoken about political hurdles which he says have been put up by this side. This side has put up no hurdles whatever. Attention has been drawn by this side to what appear to be hurdles actually in existence, but that is a very different thing from being responsible for putting them up.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not mean political hurdles, I said legal hurdles. I am not questioning for a moment the sincerity of the men who have come to certain conclusions. But in my judgment, taking a long view of the thing, it is absolutely essential that we should take national action on these very vital questions, if democratic institutions are to be preserved. If we think we can carry on indefinitely in this country with a million and a half people on relief, and place obstacles of a constitutional character in their way, we are just fooling ourselves, that is all. I believe that sincerely; I am just as sincere in that statement as those hon. members who take the position that this measure is what the lawyers call ultra vires. I am not one given to extravagant expressions of opinion, either in this house or back in my own city.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Some call it intra vires.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some call it that, but
whether it is ultra vires or intra vires, I think we should press it to a conclusion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking about fooling one's self, I submit it may be only fooling one's self to assume that this parliament has power to do things which the courts may hold it has not power to do. In pointing out that the last word in the question of ultra vires or intra vires is going to be given by the courts, no one is seeking to block any legislation; we are rather seeking to hasten the day when what may be an obstacle will be removed and the proper method of procedure adopted.


Angus MacInnis: The only way to hasten
the day when the obstacles in the way will be removed is to keep hammering away at the legislation, and very little along that line has been done federally. We have a good deal of social legislation on the statute books of the various provinces; we also have
Eight Hour Day

dominion legislation of that kind, but all this legislation is largely a dead letter because the employees engaged in the particular industries dare not draw the attention of the authorities to infractions of these laws. I think that has been brought out quite clearly in the investigation that has been going on here in the last year.
I do not think the people for whom the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was speaking need feel concerned about the rigidity of the act. I feel that it will have to be very rigid and definite, but that does not mean that in its operation that rigidity will be continued. If the employers concerned have proper regard for their employees, with proper understandings and agreements, I think, there will be no difficulty in getting the employees to carry on in any emergency. I speak with some knowledge; I have been engaged in industry and have to had to do with employers. I know that where employees are decently treated and consulted by their employers there is no difficulty at all in getting such employees to carry on in an emergency. There is scarcely a law on our statute books which would not defeat itself if it were administered according to the terms and letter of the statute. That cannot be done. I have in mind particular regulations in regard to street car service in the city of Vancouver, and I presume the same situation prevailed in other cities. I remember that the legislature passed very drastic regulations in regard to the operation of the street cars in Vancouver. We drew the attention of the management to the fact that the street car service could not be operated if all the regulations were carried out, and we had a letter from the attorney general of the province telling us to carry on as we always had done.
The point I wish to make now is that if this law is to be enforced-I have not in mind now the question of whether or not it is ultra vires-it can have application only in those industries where the workers are well organized. In that regard I might say that if the government wish to see the legislation bring forth fruit they should promote organization among the employees of industry in this country. I agree with the hon. member for East Hamilton ; I have no fear that the law may become too rigid. We are all reasonable people where our living is concerned, and those engaged in industry certainly are not going to advocate the sabotage of industry if it is carried on by the employers in a reasonable manner, and if the employers do not attempt to take advantage of openings that the legislation may give them.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister could
tell the committee how many provinces have legislation along these lines at present.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe eight of the
provinces have some legislation along these lines. I have not under my hand a review of the provincial legislation, though I could easily procure it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wonder if
the minister could give the committee any approximate estimate of the number of persons who will be benefited by this legislation. My impression is that most of the industries, and certainly all the major industries, in the country already have the eight hour day in operation, and I am just wondering to what extent this legislation will be of direct advantage, if the minister has any figures on that point.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I could procure approximate figures, but I would say that on the general horizontal across Canada perhaps 35 per cent would be affected by this legislation. I make that statement, of course, subject to correction. I have seen the figures but I am not able to carry them in my head.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the
minister give the committee a general list, not in any great detail, of the industries in which the eight hour day does not now apply?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I have not the figures before me.


Humphrey Mitchell: Before this section is
carried I want to refer once more to the hotel and restaurant employees. I think they should come under the provisions of this act. I do not want to go over all the ground I covered a few moments ago, and I am fully aware that the minister does not care to make a snap judgment on the matter, but the reason he has given as to why these employees are not under this legislation is not satisfactory to me. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to let this section stand, to study the matter for twenty-four hours and see whether it is not possible to include this large army of workers who, perhaps more than the organized labour movement, need the advantage of legislation of this description. We know that the average girl goes to work as a stepping stone to getting married, for better or worse, and it is hard to organize them. It is only natural that many employers should take advantage of this fact, and that statement applies to the industry in general. In normal times it is an industry in which the labour turn-over is very high; men go into and out of it as a matter of course, and in my

judgment it would be a really constructive measure if the government could see its way clear to include these employees under this act. So I would ask the minister to let the section stand for twenty-four hours in order that he might go into the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: I want to
endorse that suggestion. I do not need to stress it further; I believe the minister is just as sympathetic as we are, and he knows that the employment of young people-and there are large numbers of very young people employed in restaurants and hotels-for these long hours is detrimental to their general health. It is not a happy condition for the country, and now that we are applying a general eight hour law surely we should make that law apply to hotel and restaurant services. I do not see why those people should be exempted; there is no good reason for it. The fact that they do not come withip the socalled interpretation of the labour conventions does not prevent the government providing that paragraph (b) of section 2 should include these employees. They alter, clean, do ornamental work, adapt for consumption, transform materials for use, and so on. I would like the minister to consider this matter carefully.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I do not think there can be any possible doubt as to the advantage of an eight hour day; as a matter of fact we have had the eight hour day in most industries for some considerable time. In my life time there has been a very great change. I remember that in my boyhood days shipyard work demanded a twelve hour day, and that situation existed in many other industries as well. The length of the working day has a very important effect on the accidents in industry; as to that there is no possible doubt. There are three periods during which accidents reach their highest point. The first is Monday morning, or the morning after a holiday; that is the hour in which most accidents occur. The next is the first hour or hour and a half of the ordinary working day, or from seven o'clock to eight o'clock or half past eight, and the third accident period is the closing hour in the afternoon. If hon. members will give the matter a little thought they will realize that I have stated the facts. Some few men who go off on a week-end holiday, or for a holiday longer than that, perhaps do not spend their time in the best possible manner, with the result that Monday mornings following holidays produced their crop of accidents. Of course I speak about the steel works, machine shop work and work
Eight Hour Day
in the rolling mills and forges. There we had first aid equipment, a registered nurse in attendance and an ambulance service always available.
There are other phases of the matter which I believe should be given the attention of hon. members. I do not know whether or not I am in order when I attempt to take them up at this time. There are several classes of workers who could not come under the operation of eight-hour day legislation; certainly fishermen and farmers could not. The farmer's day is never done, at least in certain seasons of the year. We could not control his working hours; no legislation enacted by this parliament or any legislative body could do that.
Then we come to that type of operations in which materials are transformed. Let us for a moment consider blast furnaces. A blast furnace operation is continuous from the time the furnace is blown in until it is blown out. That period of time may be one year, it may be five years, nine years or even longer than that. The fact is that so long as the furnace is in blast the operation is continuous; it operates on Sunday, Monday and every other day and no regard is had for the end of the week, holidays or any regulations which may be made.
Mr. MITOHElLL:	The eight hour day is
used in blast furnace operations, both in the United States and in 'Canada.


Thomas Cantley: No. To a large extent
the same observations would apply to open hearth furnaces, because those furnaces take the hot metal from the blast furnaces. These are factors which have to be considered, and I assume before we have completed consideration of the bill they will have been given due consideration.
Reverting to the case of blast furnaces, the large blowing engines furnishing the blast to the furnaces are entirely automatic and are housed in buildings well lighted, with tiled floors and kept scrupulously clean, bright and comfortable. The engines are practically completely self-controlled. While the usual working pressure of the blast furnace is about 10 pounds per square inch in the event of a hang-up in the furnace stack, the resistance may become so great as to run the pressure up to 30, 40 or even 50 pounds per square inch. On the other hand, when the furnace is being tapped and the molten metal drawn off, the wind is practically shut off and these big engines then idle along, revolving very slowly. The engineers who attend them are white-collared men with practically nothing to do except
Eight Hour Day

when trouble develops. They customarily and, in fact, invariably work twelve hour shifts and have been vehemently opposed to an eight hour shift in so far as they are concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: It sounds nice.


Thomas Cantley: Those are the factors
which have to be considered. I have no doubt that before we have completed consideration of the bill we may make some alterations to provide for circumstances such as I have indicated, and others which I have in mind but shall not refer to at the present time.


Mr. PARENT:: A few moments ago the
minister said that the passage of this legislation would work to the great advantage of the majority of workers. So far as that is concerned I agree with him, but I am wondering if he has considered the conditions which obtain in some localities. I believe this legislation will help large numbers of workers in urban centres where great numbers are out of employment during some seasons of the year, and where there are more wmrkers available than are now required or have for some time been required by the. industries. However conditions are different in other parts of the country.
I live in a part of Canada where there are a limited number of small industries connected with lumbering. I refer to sawmills, wood processing mills, and planing mills. This work is seasonable, there being work for only a certain number of months in the year. Sawmills can be operated only a certain number of months because the lumber has to be sawn early in the season and piled for purposes of drying. In the last two weeks, following the presentation of the bill I have been approached by workmen connected with these lumbering operations, and they have told me that the adoption of an eight hour day regulation during the summer season would not be in their interests. They suggest the minister should consider the matter of leaving optional with the workers any arrangements which may be made between employers and employees towards a ten hour day, or sixty hour week. They suggest further however that it should be left to them to state whether or not the eight hour day would be accepted.
There is a further consideration which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. In the constituency from which I come a limited number have work during the busy season, and during that time they collect savings to carry them through the winter season.	During the winter season
their working	hours are	very greatly

decreased. The present legislation would bind them to work only eight hours a day or forty-eight hours a w^eek in the best season of the year, and I am wondering how they would collect their savings to carry them through the season when work is scarce. During that time they may be unemployed or be employed only fifty per cent of the time. When we reach sections 9 and 10 the minister may feel inclined to redraft the legislation so that arrangements between employers and employees may be optional, and thereby permit a sixty hour week during certain months of the year.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I have been interested i;n the observations of the hon. member for Pietou. So far as I am concerned it is my belief that the twenty-four hour operation is about the simplest with which we have to deal. If two shifts are required to conduct a twenty-four hour operation, then three shifts of eight hours would do the work just as well. In that event however the workers would expect a higher rate per hour so that their wages might be favourably comparable with those they earned on the longer shifts. Therein lies the danger, so far as business is concerned. This change would undoubtedly increase production costs. Provided customs tariffs are maintained at a high level such an arrangement might not hurt us in our own country, but undoubtedly our export trade would be affected.
Representations have been made to me from various sources, and particularly from the smaller communities, and I believe it would be well for the minister to consider what I have said, should he choose to redraft section 10. Then, may I ask him this question : How many countries have adopted the eight hour day convention?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The difficulties raised by the hon. member have been in my mind, and I realize further, that if th:s law is to prevail there must be a very considerable readjustment in industrial undertakings. In my view it will never operate successfully unless all parties interested, and the government seeking to enforce the measure, deal with the matter with the utmost frankness and unselfishness. If the employers and employees exhibit an attitude of self preservation, with some degree of selfishness, and if the government has no method of control then in attempting to pass the legislation we are wasting our time.
When legislation of this kind is introduced for the first time there are bound to be circumstances which are not covered, but I believe we are acting quite properly if we

make a beginning with the confidence that our constitutional position is sound. We do not wish to have the legislation take in too wide a circle only to be confronted with confusion, and the great difficulty of narrowing the circle to where it should have been in the beginning. I hope I shall live to see the day when legislation of this kind will be widened to include every worker in this country, but one of the things we must remember is that when we are embarking on such legislation we had better be sure of the ground we are on to-day, gradually enlarging the circle to take in other vocations and activities, rather than in the words of the street biting off more than we can chew.


Alan Webster Neill: Will this act apply to saw mills, logging camps and fish plants?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: To fish plants? I thought the hon. member-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Unless there is an exception.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought the hon. member for Gloucester pointed out that it would be difficult to rim a fish plant unless they were exempted, because the fish had to be treated as they came in. I have received representations from British Columbia to the effect that it will be very difficult to run fish plants on the basis here proposed. A plant may be idle for a week waiting for fish to come along, and then they come in in large quantities and the men work until the fish have all been treated. I have in mind pilchards from which oil and meal are made. Sometimes the fish do not come in for a day or a week, and then they are brought in in large quantities. And the same in the handling of salmon for canning purposes. As regards the particular company that got into communication with me, I drew their attention to section 2, pointing out that I did not think it would apply to fish plants. If however, the minister assures me now that this provision will apply to these plants then the situation is indeed a serious one, because the fish must be handled when they are fresh, and men who have been idle for a day or two are willing to work extra. It would be disastrous to the salmon and pilchard industries of British Columbia if any other interpretation than that should prevail. Paragraph (b) includes industries in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned, repaired, ornamented, finished and so forth. Well, pilchards are not altered, though they are cleaned; nor are they repaired or ornamented, but they might be said to be manufactured. If the minister's statement is
Eight Hour Day
given after full consideration of the subject, then I suggest that the section should stand. The government should consider the disastrous effects which the section as it is now is likely to have in British Columbia.


Mr. DUFF:: Who asked for this legislation? Have the people engaged in industry asked that this eight hour day be put into effect? Has organized labour asked for it? This is an important measure which affects the lives of all the workers in Canada and of everyone else, whether producer, manufacturer or consumer. In my opinion this legislation is absolutely unworkable. As a matter of fact, employers of labour in this country have got together in the last fifteen years with the result that we have now an eight hour day wherever it is possible. In my business the men work sometimes fifteen and twenty hours and on other days tney work only two or three hours, but the men are delighted to get fifteen or twenty hours of work because we pay them time and a half over eight hours. Where the employment is steady, men work only from eight o'clock until five. When I am having my breakfast I can hear the whistles blowing at eight o'clock, and if my window is open, I can hear them again Mowing for the knock-off hour at five o'clock. We do not need this legislation. Who demanded it? Is this part of the reform program? If it is it is a pretty cheap method of trying to influence a cert-aiin number of votes in the country at the expense of the people. I know, from the way the minister spoke, that he is not sincere about this legislation; he knows it is not right and cannot work out. Why should one class work eight hours a day and others ten, fifteen and twenty hours if necessary? If you could pass legislation that would deal with everyone on the same basis, chen I would say, put it on the statute books; but until you can do that, then I say there should be no discrimination. Take the unemployment insurance legislation: why should certain classes come under the provisions of that act while others who have to contribute will not derive any benefit from it? The same applies to this so-called legislation; it is a snare and a delusion, and the minister and his colleagues sitting in the front benches, including the minister from Pictou, know that what 1 am saying is correct. We are trying to get this country out of the hole and we are willing to spend our money to give the people work whenever possible, but this legislation will put back the hands of the clock. It is not necessary, because for years we have
Eight Hour Day

had a forty-eight hour week and an eight hour day, and it is only in cases of necessity that men have worked overtime, and they have got paid for it. I can understand that in the old days the situation was different when people were paid by the day, irrespective of the number of hours they worked. They worked ten or twelve hours and got paid by the day or the month. But to-day men are paid by the hour and for overtime they get time and a half or even double time. I have paid my men on that basis and I am delighted to do so-and I work as hard as they do and often do not get very much out of it. I say, let us get out of the hole first. If we ca.n pass a national law to cover everyone, I am for that law; but I do not believe in stepbairns in the family. Everyone should be treated alike. I know the minister realizes that this legislation will never be effective, and he should move that the committee rise and report progress and let this bill go t,o the foot of the order paper, not to be brought up until after the election.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope the minister will make a statement in reply to the representations I have made in connection with fish plants. If what he has already said represents his attitude I must put on record a telegram I received on February 22, from one of the largest fish plants in British Columbia. This telegram reads:
Just had opportunity of reading details proposed eight hour day draft convention. Although, in principle, consider eight hour day sound, feel, very strongly, that this company must be exempted' therefrom because fishing, fish canning and processing are definitely seasonal and it is utterly impossible to restrict daily or weekly supplies, during season, to ensure performance under requirements of said draft convention since, owing to perishable nature of the commodity, same must be eared for and processed immediately after delivery.
There is no means of telling what each day or week will bring; each plant must be in position to care for what fish is tendered as tendered; consequently, although every effort has been made in the past and will continue to be made in the future to restrict hours of labour, it is a physical impossibility for this company to assume the conditions set forth in the draft convention.
The provincial government, in administering the eight hour day legislation, recognizes position of this industry and grant the necessary exemption.
Furthermore, in our markets, which are largely export, competition is already sufficiently keen and subject to sufficient handicap without still further hampering by rigid eight hour day requirements.
Shall, therefore, much appreciate your assurance that exemption requested be granted.
At that time the company had not seen the actual bill but only the convention. I im-

mediately mailed them a copy of the bill and said that, so far as I could judge, the definition of industrial undertaking in section 2, while somewhat vague, would appear to leave the fishing industry out of the operation of the bill, and that seemed to me to be not only necessary but reasonable. I received a letter from the company in which the writer said that he had looked at the definition given in section 2 and that it seemed to indicate that the industry would not come within the operations of the bill. It was only intense Scotch caution that led me to ask definitely for a statement from the minister to the effect that it did not apply. The hon. member for Gloucester raised the question in connection with the sardine industry and was told, I thought, that the industry would not come under the bill. It would be disastrous if this provision were held to apply to these fish processing and canning plants. The minister., unwittingly, is not playing fair to the industry when he couches the provision in such ambiguous language, because I thought it was all right and the company in Vancouver-and they have Lawyers there -were also under the impression that the industry was exempt. Now the minister says it will not be exempt, and I cannot protest too strongly. At least he should allow the section to stand until the interests in British Columbia are given an opportunity to make representations, because their belief is that they do not come under the bill.


Thomas Reid: It has always been the lot of labour to have to fight the employer. I remember when as a boy I saw men working twelve and fourteen hours in the steel mills. The employers of that day said to the labourers, "If you get ten hours a day we shall have to shut down our plants." They were given a ten hour day and later when a plea was made for an eight hour day the same excuse was given-it would ruin industry and cost more. I think this measure should meet with support from every section of the house. It is a step in the right direction. Personally, I am all for this measure, but the reason I rise is just to point out to the committee that if there is a twenty-four hour day operation and a continuous operation in those mills for three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, it is the easiest thing in the world to put on three shifts. I am strongly of opinion -and I say this from a labour point of view- if labour had stressed shorter hours instead of higher wages, I believe labour to-day would be in a better position because employers have to provide food, shelter and clothing for

Eight Hour Day
those labourers. The reason I rise is to support the bill, and I wish to see it go on to the statute books so that all in the dominion will come under its provisions.


Mr. MILLS:: I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that a big manufacturing company can put on different shifts, but how is this going to apply to small plants?
I am thinking in my town of some foundries and mills that are just able to exist and employ five or six hands who are sometimes working ten hours a day. It is going to be a hardship for these organizations to be limited to eight hours a day. I am thinking of a big milling company in a city in my constituency. It has ceased to operate; a man has leased the small mill there and he is operating it ten hours a day. He employs five men; be has never cut those men's wages, and they are well satisfied and want to continue working as they are doing. Would their hours of work have to be reduced to eight?
In regard to restaurants we have in our city a good couple, white people, who are conducting a first class restaurant and who are employing all white labour. I was given some figures just last Saturday night in regard to this. They are paying out over $8,000 in wages a year and this money is all spent in our city; it is not sent away to any foreign country. They pay S150 a month rent for the premises they occupy; their power runs them $100 a month, and their business taxes come to about $115 a year. They have a baker's licence and also a restaurant licence. Their girls work only fifty hours a week, but their boys are working longer hours. These were boys who were working on a farm-


Humphrey Mitchell: How .many hours a
week are the boys working?


Wilson Henry Mills: Those boys have a position
there at $9 a week. They get their board and room. They are working longer than eight hours a day, but it would be a hardship on those people to enforce an eight hour day because it would drive the business to restaurants run by foreigners. I would like to know how one would keep track of how many hours a Chinese is working. When it is hard for companies to exist, I think it is a poor time to introduce an eight hour day. If all factories were busy and everybody had a position, the plan proposed would be much more workable. As I see the situation, I am not in favour of this legislation at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have heard arguments of this kind all my life, and I think we should get down to earth. If long hours and low
wages are the measure of civilization of any country, India and China would be the most prosperous in the world. Let us be frank about the matter. I have heard it said here several times this afternoon:	There will be
a great deal of difficulty; it will be a hardship to change from these long hours for $9 a week like those the hon. member has just been discussing. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said that he had the eight hour day among his employees. This bill is not intended to deal with the fair employer; it is intended to deal with the unfair employer who will not cooperate, who will take advantage of the good employer and work his men an extra couple of hours a day so as to get the advantage under those conditions.


William Duff: What if they get paid by
the hour?


Humphrey Mitchell: Some do and some do not. Everybody in this country is not paid by the hour. Frankly, I do not think the bill goes far enough. I have before me a copy of World Current History which points out that a six hour day was introduced in Italy this year.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: That was enforced whether they liked it or not.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know that was done
under a dictatorship in Italy. This is being done under a democracy in this country. I know there are many who will be opposed to a shorter day, and anybody who has experience with certain men knows that is always the case, but a start has to be made somewhere. This bill should be more comprehensive, and I agree with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough in that regard. There is an important industry, that of distribution, which was discussed in the price spreads committee; I refer to the chain stores, and it is more important for them to come within the confines of the bill than it is for anybody else. The federal government or the provincial governments, whichever win out on the legal aspect of the matter, are going to go a long way further than this legislation if they are to meet the needs of the masses not only in industry but in agriculture. Let us take the case of the United States. If they got back to the production capacity of 1929, there would still be 6,000,000 people out of work in that country. The question that is confronting the people not only of Canada but of the United States is:	What are we
going to do about the matter? The workmen in their practical way know that the only real advance they have ever made has been in
Eight Hour Day

shortening the working day. In Italy by reducing in certain industries the working hours from eight to six they have been able to put 130,000 more people at work. In Canada, if the leadership is not going to come from this House of Commons, I do not know where it will come from. If this house is not going to say to those unfair employers, those employers who take advantage of the good ones, that certain things must be done, I do not know of any other agency that can deal with the matter. The last thing in the world for a member of this house to do is to argue in favour of anybody who would take boys off the farm and make them work twelve hours a day for 89 a week. Let us not shed tears over any such employer. Those are the conditions we have heard brought out in the price spread investigation. This legislation will apply to the Chinese or the Greeks just the same as to the native born Canadian. The intent of it is to see that everybody gets a fair deal, because everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. I do not think it becomes any member to shed tears about a man who works a boy in a restaurant twelve hours a day for S9 a week. That instance used shows all the more reason why we should have legislation of this description.


Thomas Cantley: When I referred a few minutes ago to the difficulties of the situation and said that some regulations would have to be made in that connection, I hope the committee did not form the opinion that I was opposed to an eight hour day, because I am not. For more than twenty years our practice was to have a sixty hour week; to-day I believe a forty-four hour week will produce more in the course of a year and under better conditions for both the workmen and the employer than would a longer week. If the committee will bear with me, I shall give one or two reasons why I hold that opinion. In a steel plant the repair gang is an important part of the organization. Under ordinary conditions twenty years ago when the mills ceased work at six o'clock Saturday night, the repair gang of thirty or forty men came cn, worked all Saturday night, all day Sunday and all Sunday night to get the mills, hammers, presses and furnaces into proper condition for resuming work on Monday morning. About twenty years ago some men came into my office one Saturday and suggested that Saturday afternoon during the summer months from June to September should be a holiday. I thought the idea was a good one and agreed to it. What was the result? We were able to get our repair work all completed in the Saturday afternoon and

Saturday night or by Sunday morning without any Sunday work, which the repair gang appreciated. That also meant a considerable saving so far as the cost of repairs was concerned because Sunday work was paid double time. All needed repairs were completed, whereas under former conditions there very often was not time enough between six o'clock Saturday night and Monday morning to complete the repairs. At the end of that season I decided that a half holiday on Saturday was the proper thing every month in the year, and it has been in effect ever since. To-day more goods can be produced in a forty-four hour week in almost every line of manufacture than in sixty or seventy hours twenty years ago; I think we all agree as to that. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough thinks this legislation is not required. It is required in some sections of the country at least in regard to some operations. There will have to be a good deal done by way of providing for the classes of labour that I referred to a little while ago, and it will be only by trial and error and changes and modifications in the next two or three years to get it working smoothly that we shall finally get the measure in such shape that practically everyone will be in favour of it.


Mr. BURY:: I am sure that most if not all hon. members are in sympathy with the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for East Hamilton. But I understand that this bill is drafted for the purpose of implementing an undertaking given by Canada in connection with draft conventions approved by the international labour office at Geneva. I understand that the bill on that account conforms in essence with the draft convention. My hon. friend from East Hamilton says: "But why should not this parliament go beyond the minimum requirements of the draft convention and enact a measure which will include more classes and perhaps go even further in respect to the limitation of hours?" I suggest this to him and to the committee: I understand that one of the grounds on which parliament bases its jurisdiction to pass a measure of this kind is that it is an attempt to implement a treaty agreement, and if it were not, whatever ground or basis of jurisdiction we have would be to that extent weakened. For that reason I suggest that the moment we go beyond that ground we are weakening our position in respect of jurisdiction, and that only by keeping within the limits of our treaty obligations are we safe in respect of our right to pass the legislation, so far as such obligations are a ground of our jurisdiction.

Eight Hour Day


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the hon. gentleman state, as clearly as he is now stating his case to the committee, in what respect the draft convention-which by the way was not a labour convention from Geneva but comes under the treaty of Versailles- limits the power of this government to include such categories as restaurant and hotel work?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My answer is that as I understand the situation, one of the grounds of our jurisdiction to pass this legislation is the fact that as a nation we have undertaken to pass legislation of this kind. That, as I understand it, gives to this parliament a jurisdiction which it might not otherwise have. My suggestion is that if that be so, the scope of our jurisdiction will be limited to the scope of our obligations derived from such undertaking. In other words if our jurisdiction depends upon or is derived from our obligation, to that extent, in order to keep within our jurisdiction so derived, we must keep within our obligation.


Edward Joseph Garland: But will the hon. gentleman show me how we are limited? What is the obligation? Wild he read the part that refers to that?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Here is the preamble to the bill:
Whereas the Dominion of Canada is a signatory, as part of the British empire, to the treaty of peace made between the allied and associated powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, on the 28th day of June, 1919; and whereas the said treaty of peace was confirmed by the Treaty of Peace Act 1919; and whereas by article 23 of the said treaty the signatories thereto each agreed that they would endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and by article 427 of the said treaty it was declared that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme importance; and whereas a draft convention respecting hours of work in industrial undertakings was agreed upon at a general conference of the internation labour organization of the League of Nations, in accordance with the relevant articles of the said treaty, which said convention has been ratified by Canada; and whereas it is advisable to enact the necessary legislation to enable Canada to discharge the obligations assumed under the provisions of the said treaty and the said convention, and to provide for the limitation of hours of work in industrial undertakings, in accordance with the general provisions of the said convention, and to assist in the maintenance, on equitable terms of interprovineial and international trade.


William Duff: Will my hon. friend tell me
in a few words what that means?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What I am getting at is that
the whole basis of the present legislation is the treaty obligation into which this country entered, and that in so far as that furnishes the ground of our jurisdiction as a federal parliament to intervene in legislation affecting wages, which in general would come under provincial authority, we must confine our legislation within the general scope of our treaty obligation. We could not go beyond the scope of our treaty obligation without exposing ourselves and exposing this legislation in so far as it goes beyond that scope to the peril of impeachment of our right to pass the legislation at all.


Angus MacInnis: The last speaker said
that the basis of this legislation is our obligation under the treaty of Versailles. What are our obligations under that treaty, according to the preamble of the bill? They are to "endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children." How are we limited in putting that into effect either by the convention of an international labour body or by any other convention or statute? We cannot be limited except by the extent to which we wish to go. That is the only limit, if this parliament has jurisdiction at all. So that there is no ground whatsoever for the argument the hon. member has just made. AVe are not limited as to the scope of this legislation; we can just as easily extend it. We can bring in or leave out. What we are particularly concerned with is not what has been brought into the bill but what has been left out of it.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough made a most extraordinary statement; he said the bill was not necessary because we now have the eight hour day, and if the eight hour day bill was put into effect it would be ruinous. I cannot follow that logic myself. As has already been pointed out by the hon. member for New AVestminster, when legislation of this kind is proposed the argument is always brought forward that if it be put into effect the industries affected will have to close up and quit business. But that has been proved untrue. I ask hon. members how they are going to put back to work some 300,000 heads of families that are now unemployed in this country, and the 20,000 or more who are in camps, if they do not reduce hours of labour? As a matter of fact the people who are working now are supporting those who are not working, and it is only a reasonable suggestion that we should divide the work and let each

Eight Hour Day

one support himself. It is just as well that we should have those who are so ready to protect vested interests come forward now and do their bit, because within a very few weeks or months we shall want to know where they stand anyway.


Mr. McPHEE:: Owing to the total collapse of the Postmaster General will the hon. member for East Edmonton kindly explain what the hon. member for Vancouver South has been saying to the committee?


Mr. SAUVE:: I invite the hon. member
to speak for himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understood the hon
member for East Edmonton to say that there is a treaty obligation and therefore we must do this and that. This afternoon at three o'clock the acting Prime Minister read a lengthy answer to a question put some days ago, and in that answer it is shown very clearly and beyond doubt that there is not the slightest obligation upon Canada to stand by that convention. It is merely a suggestion or an earnest wish on the part of the League of Nations; there is no treaty obligation whatever. It is just an occasion for the government to say "we are bound by that," but whether the government says that in a soft voice or in a very loud voice makes no difference; there is no obligation at all upon Canada to stand by that convention. I need not discuss whether this is good or bad, but I look at it from the coercive point of view. Could the league send an army to force Canada to stand by that convention? It could not. The hon. member for East Edmonton knows very well that the league will never send an army to Canada to enforce that convention, so Canada is not bound by it. That appears very clear from the answer given by the acting Prime Minister. Therefore my contention with regard to this bill -I am not discussing whether or not it is good or bad in principle-is that it makes no difference whether or not such conventions have been suggested by the league; this country, as a member of the league, is not bound by them. As my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) said, the best proof of that is that the question will be discussed anew next June. Therefore there is nothing binding Canada in that regard. This is of the utmost importance, because if this country is not bound by that convention-


William Duff: Have you had your convention in your constituency yet?
[Mr. MacInms.J


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is a nomination without a convention. I wonder why this is called a convention. It is more like a formula, a method of procedure, which you may take or leave alone. My hon. friend from Hochelaga says it is an earnest wish, but it is not even a wish; it is just a suggestion. Some members of the government say we are bound by it; such an eminent lawyer as the hon. member for East Edmonton says it is a treaty obligation, but there is no obligation to it. Either it is good or it is bad. If it is bad we should not bother with it, but if it is good it should be enforced. If it is to be enforced that should be done in the proper way. The only means at our disposal to find out if it can be enforced is to ask the opinion of the supreme court, just as we should do in connection with the unemployment insurance bill. Should we speak at any length when we know in advance that this legislation never will be put into operation? Sir, it is just election bait, and I wonder if many electors in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific will be credulous enough to swallow it. That is all there is to it.
May I suggest that the Minister of Labour and the other members of the government, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the anting Prime Minister, make a decision by themselves in order to show that they are men of good judgment. They are numerous enough to constitute a majority of council, so let them decide that the only way to deal with this matter is to submit the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada now and come to the House of Commons later. If the supreme court says this bill is intra vires I will support it without making any further speeches. If on the other hand the supreme court decide that it is ultra vires of this parliament, then I will respectfully suggest to my hon. friends on the treasury benches that the legislation be dropped. If they take the stand that has been taken by the Prime Minister and the acting Prime Minister we must tell them that they are wasting the time of the house now for Tory propaganda. There are many serious things to consider, such as unemployment relief, and I submit that if they are earnest in their desire for legislation such as this they should have a decision on the matter by the highest tribunal in this country. If they do not do so every member will have the right to say, both inside and outside this house, at any time, that the government are not serious, that they are only trying to fool the people by offering bait of this kind for propaganda purposes.

Eight Hour Day


Mr. COWAN:: Just before this section carries I should like to direct the attention of the minister to one other point in regard to the interpretation clause. If the minister will look at the definition of industrial undertaking he will find that it includes the transport of passengers or goods by road or rail. In reading bill 22, which has to do with the weekly day of rest in industrial undertakings, I find exactly the same words except that in the bill under discussion the words "inland waterway" have been left out. In all other respects the interpretation clause is the same. The inclusion of those words in the bill would mean that the sailors on the great lakes would come under its provisions. If the words were left out in error I submit that the matter should be considered, and in any case I believe these sailors should be included.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the minister not going to give us his opinion on the question we raised, in connection with the canneries? It is a most important matter.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house at the time, but before he spoke on the matter the question was raised by the hon. member ,for Vancouver Centre. I think a cannery falls within the operation of this statute under the interpretation of industrial undertakings. I pointed out, however, that under sections 9 and 10 exceptions could be made and would be made where it was disclosed that an industry was in the position that the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre indicated the cannery industry to be in. I thought I made myself clear and I did not think it necessary to repeat my earlier explanation. I may be charged with discourtesy, but I did not intend it in that way.


Alan Webster Neill: In my opinion that is not a very strong explanation. It has been said that there are six hundred thousand words in the vocabulary of the English language. Can we not get enough of them to have the bill state exactly what is intended? In connection with another act on Friday we had to trust the whole future of an industry to the question of whether or not it came under the measure. Finally we got it down to this point, that they would be eligible to come under the measure if they could prove themselves to be an anomaly. Let us get away from this indirect system; let us say that this does or does not apply to certain cases. Let us not leave it in the air, and tell an industry that if it can be proved to be an anomaly it may perhaps come under the act. Let us get 0'2582-101i
down in black and white whether or not this measure does apply to a particular industry, especially when it concerns matters of such vital importance as those indicated in the wire I read a few moments ago. I have not left the house since three o'clock, so it was not through any negligence on my part that I did not hear the explanation the minister said he gave to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The minister now states that a remedy would be found under sections 9 and 10 of the bill. He has stated that canneries would come under section 2, and would be eligible for the operation of eight hour regulations, but he states further that there is provision in sections 9 and 10 for taking the canneries out from under such legislation. If it is abundantly evident, as I think it must be, that canneries cannot be operated under eight hour legislation, why trust to the indirect method of wriggling them out under some regulation yet to be born, under virtue of sections 9 and 10? Why not state dearly under section 2 that the fishing industry shall not be affected by the eight hour legislation?
We turn to section 9 and we are told that somehow they will be able to wriggle out under the provisions to be made thereunder. Section 9 states:
The governor in council may, in exceptional cases-
There is nothing exceptional about the fishing industry. The condition whereby there is an inability to accept eight-hour shifts is one which exists all the time. However this section states:
The governor in council may, in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the daily limit of hours of work cannot be applied and agreements between workers' and employers' organizations to increase the daily limit have been made, give effect to such agreements and permit in such cases the said daily limit of hours to be exceeded: Provided, however that the average number of hours per week over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight.
The ordinary fish or pilchard plant is not of the type which could readily be brought under the provisions of section 9. There are no organized bodies of cannery employees; they are entirely transient. Certainly they could not make agreements with the employers to which the government could give sanction. The wording of the section could not apply to these workers.
Now we come to section 10, and we find that
it states:
The governor in council may also make regulations permitting

(a) permanent exceptions to the limits of hours of work fixed by this act in case of preparatory or complementary work which must
Eight Hour Day

necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment, ...
We find the expression "outside the limits," and, mark you, the conditions of making permanent exceptions to the limits of hours of work must be cases of "preparatory or complementary work" which must be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment. In other words, there must be something extraordinary, or something which would occur only very intermittently, such as cleaning out boilers of a plant. Operations of this type would have to be done perhaps only once a month, or once a fortnight. But these operations must be carried on "outside the limits laid down." The ordinary limits laid down in the instance I have in mind, or the ordinary work involved, is that of men going out and bringing in perhaps eight tons of fish to-day and eight hundred tons to-morrow. That catch has to be handled before it goes bad. Those are the ordinary conditions which obtain, and I suggest one could not construe the words "preparatory or complementary work" as applying to the ordinary conditions of canning fish. Therefore I believe that argument knocks out the first part of paragraph (a). Then we find the further expression:
Or for certain clases of workers whose work is essentially intermittent.
That might apply to certain people whose work may be that of putting labels on tins only at certain intervals, but I say a person could not go through a cannery and say, "This class shall work under the eight hour day regulations, and these other chaps shall not." One cannot say, "This class must come under the operation of section 2 of the act, and this chap, over here, can get an exemption because his work is intermittent." A cannery must be operated as a complete unit. The general conditions connected with running a fish plant are such that it cannot be operated under eight hour day regulations, and I defy any hon. member in this chamber to say that he would attempt to do so. If I am correct, why have such provisions in the act? Why pile up trouble? Why pile Pelion on Ossa? Why say, "We are going to place you under the operations of the act, but if you can climb out from under by the strained and drastic interpretation of sections 9 and 10 perhaps you will get the relief to which you are undoubtedly entitled?" Either they are, or they are not, entitled to relief. If it is so that certain classes cannot work under the eight hour day regulations, why not say so frankly?

I fully agree with the observations which have been made by hon. members sitting to my left in which they have described the advantages derived from working only eight hours. I know of an instance where a big plant was told that it would be placed under the provisions of legislation passed by a provincial government, that eight hour day legislation was going to be put into effect, and the result was that in that one plant alone nineteen more men were given work. What was the attitude of the employers? They said, "We do not mind, because we get more work in shorter hours." They found they could get better work and that there would be less accidents, as the hon. member for Pictou said, when the men were working only eight hours. How can we help the operation of the act if we compel people to come under its provisions who, nature and common sense tell us, cannot possibly operate under them? Why not leave this section over so that the minister may consider it? Let him get the advice of his friends from British Columbia. A great canning and reducing industry has been developed in that province and surely it is entitled to be heard. Their present Relief is that the wording of section 2 does not bring them within the operation of the measure. If it does,-well, at least tell them so and give them twenty-four hours to make their representations.


Mr. IIANBURY:: May I point out that the legislation in British Columbia provides, in chapter 30, section 11, paragraph 2 (a):
(a) The permanent exceptions that may be allowed in preparatory or complementary work which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an industrial undertaking, or for certain classes of workers whose work is essentially seasonal or intermittent.
And so on. I would indicate to the minister that in this legislation the word "seasonal" appears.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It will be recalled that earlier in the afternoon I informed the committee that I had had sections 9 and 10 under consideration, with a view to having proposed an amendment enabling the governor in council to make regulations which would take care of the various industrial activities to which reference has been made.


Jean-François Pouliot: But this is too much work for the government, and we want to make those regulations ourselves. We want them to be made in the House of Commons so that we may know what they are.

Eight Hour Day


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I accepted the explanation given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that fishermen could claim exemption under sections 9 and 10. Looking through the sections however I find tlxat no applications for exemptions can foe made except in certain ways, namely by organizations of employers or by organizations of employees. If that is the only way in which subsection 2 of section 10 can be dealt with, then1 I say it cannot apply because in many sections of the country there are no such things as organizations of employees and organizations of employers. Something else must be inserted in the clause to give the government the right to act upon the application of parties in the business who do not belong to organizations. I trust the ministry will take that point into consideration, because it is an important one.
If the act is made applicable to the fishing industry let me say to the minister and to hon. members of the committee that despite the views held by the hon. member for East Hamilton, and despite the fact that I may be upbraided by him for my observations, the fishing industry will be ruined. The government of Canada passes certain regulations governing the fishing industry. For instance, they fix the season for lobster canning, for salmon canning, and so on. Those industries are seasonal, and I am wondering if during the canning seasons the government is going to restrict the working hours, because if they are they are going to put the industry out of business. That observation applies not only to canning but to other branches of the fishing industry. For instance, the operations connected with dried salt cod are seasonal. The vessels which go to the cod banks may stay away all week, and upon returning home on Saturday the fishermen have to work at nights, and sometimes on Sundays, to unload their vessels. They have to do that, irrespective of hours, to save their catch and place it where it can be prepared for the market. If this legislation becomes effective they could not do so; they would be confined to certain hours of labour and the progress ,of the industry would be seriously hampered and perhaps destroyed. I would ask the minister if at all possible to give us something definite so far as the fishing industry is concerned. I am entirely in agreement with the principle of the measure. I am for an eight hour day law, but not for an act which will give eight hours a day to a certain class of industry and destroy another industry perhaps more important than the one protected.


Mr. DICKIE:: Coming from British Columbia, I must associate myself to a certain degree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in pointing out that it would be disastrous to the canning industry of British Columbia were an eight hour day to be enforced. There is no one in the house more in favour of an eight hour day than I am. I believe the day is coming when we shall have a five hour day; if we are to put the unemployed to work in Canada'-and the same is true of the United States-we must reduce the hours of labour. I can quite understand however that at the present time we must move slowly, because we do not wish to hamper those who are engaged in manufacturing for export to other countries. It would be suicidal if we were to make any very drastic reduction in the hours of labour below eight hours. In British Columbia eight hours have been considered a day's work, but the British Columbia government wisely exempted the canning industry, the fisheries and ship yards from the eight hour law. AVith the ship yards there are many arguments in favour of exemption, but I see under section 10, where work is considered intermittent, they may be allowed to work longer hours. As regards the canning industry, the canning of salmon, I think we should be able to tell the cannery men definitely that they will not come under the eight hour law. They get a lot of fish one day and work from ten to fifteen hours and then they loaf two or three days before getting another consignment. They are a long way from the labour market, operating on the northern coast of British Columbia, and it would necessitate two crews, which they could not afford. I am satisfied from the minister's promise that he will frame an amendment which will take care of this phase of the question. I leave it at that.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says that he
will put in regulations, or rather he will put in power under which it may be possible to make regulations with respect to the exemption of the fishing industry. But as the hon. member for Nanaimo has pointed out, that is not what we require. What those engaged in the fishing industry are asking for is a definite announcement. A great many people in British Columbia, like the salmon people, have to be financed by the banks, and I doubt whether the bank would finance this industry if they had to trust to its exemption from this legislation under some regulation still to be conceived in the mind of someone not yet appointed. What these people want is an assurance which they can give to the banks, because the bank will not advance money to the industry on any other terms. It is
Eight Hour Day

necessary to make certain preparations, to charter boats, hire fishermen and so on, because you do not start fishing on a sudden impulse, as you play golf some afternoon; it takes months of preparation and the expenditure of thousands of dollars for nets, tins and so on. It is not an idle suggestion that the industry would be much happier in going to the bank if they could assure the bank that there was an exemption definitely provided for in the bill rather than the promise that some regulation not yet framed might be drafted.


Jean-François Pouliot: Subsection (d) reads:
Transport of passengers or goods by road or rail, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves or warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
Let me submit the railway employees' case. They are often on duty when on a return trip. Sometimes they are twelve, fourteen and twenty hours at a time and it counts for the number of hours they are supposed to be working during the month. The minister knows how the time of railway men is calculated. How will he manage to apply this legislation to railway employees when they are on duty on a return trip? May I ask him to answer that question?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The position of railway men raises of course a difficult question. I have given it a good deal of consideration and I believe that an amendment which I shall have to suggest in connection with the regulations under section 10 will take care of the difficulty, which is an obvious one.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, but up to now we have heard several complaints from different corners of the house in regard to this legislation, and if there are so many exemptions that it does not apply to anyone, what is the use of passing it? May I tell the government once more that it is most dangerous to bring in new legislation of this kind when it is half-baked. I do not blame the Minister of Labour, and he knows that. But very often such legislation is brought down in such a condition that it is impossible to know what is behind it, and there are clauses which contradict one another. And even this legislation contradicts regulations with regard to fishing. It renders the understanding of the law more difficult than ever. Everyone is supposed to be familiar with the law, because ignorance of the law is no legal excuse. It is very hard to understand all these provisions. I suggest to the minister that he take time to study this legislation by himself. He is a lawyer of
tMr. Neill.]
considerable experience and he knows much more than the third rate clerks who drafted the legislation. I insist on that. Here is a man who was responsible for the worst piece of legislation, the War Time Elections Act of 1917-something awful-and he was brought into service again for the gerrymander legislation. He is putting his nose and his fingers into this legislation again, spoiling the statute book of this coimtry, wherever we find his fingerprints. I do not want the government to look after that man, who has very badly drafted legislation to his credit, if I may say so, and to call him again to draft this legislation on so-called social order. I would ask the government to let the legislation mature for a time so that it may improve like wine. Wine improves while it matures, and I am very optimistic when I make that suggestion. As it is, it is an awful mess and that is why I oppose it strongly. I am in favour of the principle of it, but I am strongly against the letter, which is so bad. May I suggest to the minister that he kindly take time to study this legislation himself, to see how contradictory it is, and after he discovers this, to clear his conscience by submitting it to the Supreme Court of Canada, who will undoubtedly decide that it is ultra vires of this parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: The question has been asked by an hon. member as to why, since the wording of the convention itself has been followed almost entirely throughout the subsections of section 2, the words "sea and inland waterways" were left out, thereby excluding from the operation of this legislation the workers engaged in these two particular industries. It is particularly significant that they should be excluded, when we remember that there are few nations that carry on so large a business on and derive so large a living from inland waterways as Canada. Can the minister explain why these words are left out?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here we have a minister,
one of the ablest lawyers in this country, who makes that answer. We have not his experience and we want some enlightenment on this bill, which is so badly drafted that even a lawyer of the great experience of the minister is unable to give a satisfactory explanation to the back benchers in this house. We want a satisfactory explanation about it. We have to decide what will be done in accordance with the legislation. If the hon. gentleman who is piloting the bill through the committee does not know the intent of it, how can we vote for it? The

Eight Hour Day
situation is most peculiar; no ope understands anything about the matter. This reminds me of the time when I was in college and our professor said to us: "When you do not understand something I am teaching you of philosophy and if I feel that I do not understand it myself, it is metaphysics." Well, this legislation must be metaphysics to the Minister of Labour. No one in the committee understands anything about the provision; how then can we vote for it? There are several hon. members opposite who all look well informed; they may be well informed about everything but this. They do not understand this provision; they do not know where it leads. Even the minister who is supposed to throw light on the matter says: "Well, stay in the darkness." Let them call O'Connor at once; let them page him and ask him what is behind this provision. I want information; I am not going to vote for this provision unless I understand its meaning and if we do not know, what will the judges decide when they have to interpret the intent of the law maker when the law maker himself has no intent at all except "win the election"- and we give credit to the government for that noble thought. We are the highest court in this country; we have to pass legislation which will apply to hundreds of thousands of people and is of great moment. We ask for light, but there is none; the sun is hiding himself behind the mountain; it is after dusk and the sun has disappeared.
The Minister of Labour has a great sense of humour, and he understands how ridiculous it is for us to have to argue on legislation which cannot be explained by anyone. Can you bell me, Mr. Chairman, what is behind this provision? You do not know any more than I do. Then let us call for Mr. O'Connor at once. Otherwise, what will the judges say? I see the dignified judges sitting on the bench and saying; " What about this? We do not understand." What will happen? If this legislation stands and is voted upon in this way, the House of Commons will be laughed at, not only by the judges but by every citizen who will see the performance before the court when the latter will have to interpret this provision. The situation is most absurd; it is so absurd that it is incredible. It would take Courte-line to describe such a situation. It is incredible that in this house no one knows what a provision of a bill, submitted to the house means. In that case let us drop it; let us turn the page and look for something . else. Until a satisfactory explanation is given, I do not see how we can proceed any further with this abominable legislation.
How will it settle the social evils from which this country at present suffers? No one knows. It is impossible to know. If the Minister of Labour were not such an able lawyer-and I am glad to pay him that tribute-I would say: Well, it has been put into his hands and he does not know. But he is one of the foremost lawyers of this country and he does not know. How then can an ordinary mortal explain the whole matter? All the members of the committee are laughing at the situation. It is ridiculous and I strongly protest against it. I regret the government has hired the services of that man who has put into their hands such awful legislation. I wonder how it will work for election propaganda afterwards. Just a little pin on the balloon and, pouf! nothing is left; it falls to the ground. The minister himself will see that he cannot insist upon the passing of this legislation. I have respect for his experience at the bar, but I see hon. members opposite looking very sad now because the minister cannot explain the legislation. It cannot be explained and they all look so sad. I do not want them to cry, but I do not want them to insist any more upon our passing such ridiculous and incredible legislation.


Edward Joseph Garland: To revert
to paragraph (d) of clause 2: the minister was kind enough a moment ago to tell me that he did not know, nor could he explain, why the words of the convention itself "sea or inland waterways" were let out of that clause. Would he accept the inclusion of the words now since they are part of the original convention?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The exclusion of the words "sea or inland waterways" which appear in the convention may have been brought about for a good reason. So far as I am concerned I overlooked the fact that they were dropped in the clause of the bill, and that fact was not drawn pointedly to my attention. Rather than have them included now without having an opportunity to inform myself whether there is some sound reason for having them deleted from the bill when they appear in the convention, I would prefer to have the clause stand.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think
that would be just as well, and whilst the clause stands, I hope the minister will take into consideration again the possibility of including restaurant and hotel workers and employees in chain stores under the inclusive clauses (a), Ob) or (c). Personally, I believe they can all be brought in under (bl under
Eight Hour Day

the provisions of the convention. I think the convention itself provides a very easy method by which the government could include the industries to which I have referred. He will find that the very last sentence in article I of the convention reads:
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
Therefore this government, having assumed it is the competent authority to . legislate in keeping with the convention, should have no difficulty under its provisions in including such industries as have been mentioned this afternoon. I hope they will be taken into consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: It will stand before the
committee until it falls before the court.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Eight hours in the day, forty-eight in the week.


John Franklin White: Because one points out defects in the bill he is not necessarily opposed to it. I am in favour of it, and for two reasons in particular. I think that in the modem intensively operated factory men can exhaust themselves in eight hours of work. Another reason is that it is generally accepted by working people that this bill if adopted will mean that more people will have work. But I am not sure that the bill has been safeguarded properly. I am afraid its purpose may be defeated by the workmen themselves. It contains no provision limiting the hours a man may work. We had instances during war time when: factories were working twenty-four hours a day in three eight hour shifts, of men working eight hours in one factory and hurrying to another and working there eight hours more. And they did it for some length of time. At this time such outstanding instances as that may not occur, but consider for example carpenters or painters. A carpenter may work eight hours and then take on contract work or odd jobs after the day's work is done. The same thing may be done by painters. I think the bill should have a clause in it providing that men cannot work beyond eight hours 'for hire, gain or pay. Of course it would be impossible and undesirable not to permit men to work on their own property, but it seems to me that

if the full benefit of the bill is to be obtained that feature will have to be dealt with. I should like an expression of opinion from the minister concerning that.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member raises a very important question. At the moment I would not care to express an opinion on it. If the hon. member would like the section to stand I will give it thought to see what can be done.
Section 3 stands.


Edward Joseph Garland: Section 2 also stood.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, it was carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister stated before recess that section 2 would stand.


Robert James Manion: It was carried after eight o'clock.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was to stand for consideration and explanation. The Minister of Railways was here and heard the Minister of Labour state in answer to questions from this side that it should stand.


Robert James Manion: No, I was not here then.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, it was to stand in order that we might have some explanation, notably in regard to the exclusion of certain industries, and also in connection with the leaving out of the words "inland waterways."


Wesley Ashton Gordon: During the dinner hour I looked into the question of the deletion of the words "by sea and inland waterways" from the bill. They appeared in the original convention. I have before me and am reading from the article, where it is stated that:
The provisions relative to transport by sea and on inland waterways shall be determined by a special conference dealing with employment at sea and on inland waterways.
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
With respect to transport by sea and inland waterways, two conferences were held, one in 1920 and one in 1929. At these conferences all the member states were represented and it was found utterly impossible to come to an agreement as to limiting hours of labour in transport by sea or inland waterways. This undoubtedly is the reason why it was omitted from the bill. The convention itself was adopted subject to transport by sea and inland waterways being left open to see if the

Eight Hour Day
member states could come to a unanimous decision, which as yet they have not been able to do.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the [DOT] minister does not suggest that we in Canada must delay action in the application of the eight hour day to any particular industry until we get unanimous consent from other nations. That would be a ridiculous position to take. We have to take our own steps and be responsible for them. These words were in the convention and were agreed to and accepted by Canada, and this legislation is supposed to be based on a convention which was solemnly signed and accepted.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Subject to what I have just said.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask if the minister has given further consideration to the question of the inclusion of restaurant and hotel workers?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes I have, and my view is that by going to the length suggested, and enlarging the convention upon which this bill is based, we would probably strengthen materially the position of those who might seek to have the bill declared ultra vires of this parliament. When we are embarking on legislation of this kind I think we should not adopt a course calculated to destroy the measure itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Exceptional cases.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to sections 9 and 10, I listened to what was said by hon. members with regard to certain industries, and their criticism of section 10 particularly. I would like these two sections to stand until I give them further consideration, to ensure that there shall be authority to except industries which by their nature could not operate- as both employers and employees want them to operate, because it is so easy at times to impede an industry-particularly industries such as those to which reference was made before the dinner hour.
Sections 9 and 10 stand.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is my view that there should be a further section added to the bill. I have not the amendment written out, but it will be a short one, having to do with the date on which the bill shall become operative.
As the bill now reads it will become operative upon receiving the royal assent. In order that industries affected by the measure shall be able to make adjustments, which undoubtedy they will have to make, I think it would be unwise not to give them some period of time before the penal section might apply. I had not given a great deal of thought to the question how long the period should be. Someone suggested six months; I think that is too long. Probably three months would be ample. If any hon. member has any view to express with respect to that point I should like to hear it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Six months would get us past an election.


Humphrey Mitchell: Three months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the minister if it might not be worth his while, now that he is not going to have the penal sections of the act come into force for several months, to consider whether in the interval he might not get an opinion from the supreme court as to whether or not the act itself is intra vires. Advantage might be taken of that interval of time to remove all possibility of doubt as to the competence of this parliament to enact the legislation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think I would care to sponsor the submission of that question even to the Supreme Court of Canada. I entertain the view that in projecting legislation this parliament should not first seek the authority of any judicial tribunal as to whether such legislation is intra vires or ultra vires of the dominion parliament. I may be wrong in that, but I am afraid that if this policy were pursued we would not advance legislation very rapidly through parliament Perhaps we are on sounder ground if we take the position that if anyone seeks to impeach this measure, then upon the issue being raised we can find out the extent to which we acted within our competence in the adoption of the underlying principle and the bill itself.


William Duff: Is the Minister of Labour aware of the fact that certain legislative assemblies are introducing eight hour bills? Has that been drawn to his attention? The other day I noticed that in the speech from the throne at the opening of the legislature of Nova Scotia the lieutenant governor stated that they intended to introduce an eight hour measure. Is it necessary for both the legislatures and this parliament to introduce eight hour legislation, or which has power to do so? Has the minister considered that point?
Eight Hour Day


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am aware that a majority of the provinces have legislation limiting the hours of work, and I think there is no insuperable barrier in the way of the provinces and the dominion, if they work in cooperation, making these measures work side by side, or where one fails the other may be applied without confusion. I know of the legislation in the various provinces.


William Duff: I was wondering, if parliament passes this act, if it would be necessary for the provinces to pass similar legislation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It might not be.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister tell the committee exactly the process by which he expects this act to be enforced? Will there be an inspection by officers appointed by this government, officers of the Department of Labour, or will there be a special staff set up under the regulations?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My view is that the services of some one or more of the present departments of government might well be utilized in the administration of this act. I am very hopeful that we will find a great majority of employers and employees joining to render this act a useful piece of legislation. Of course in all matters of this kind officers have to see to it that the comparatively small number of employers who might do so-I think I am justified in saying so-are not permitted to do violence to this act and that, if they do so, they suffer the consequences contemplated by the act. That is a matter that will have to be given immediate attention in order that the act may be administered with the least possible expense, having regard to efficient administration.


Edward Joseph Garland: But what I am really trying to get at is this. Suppose an infraction of the act is reported. To whom in the first place should it be reported and, after it is reported, who will take the necessary steps to prosecute and punish the employer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Section 13 of the act, the penal section, reads:
Every employer who violates, or fails or omits to comply with any provision of this act or of any regulation made thereunder, shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction-
That of course means that he will be proceeded against under the summary conviction sections of the criminal code. The law may be set in motion by anyone.


Edward Joseph Garland: Anyone?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: By anyone, I should think. Of course it is the duty of every citizen, although everyone does not discharge that duty to the full, if he knows there has been a breach of a law, to set the law in motion. That is the theory, though sometimes the theory does not work out. In this case a great many people will be interested; the employee, his labour organization, the inspectors of the department, whoever they may be, or some officer of one of the departments that may be available to check up, supervise and see to the enforcement of the act-all these will be interested to see that the act is carried out. At the moment it would be impossible for me to say just who would set the law in motion, but any one of those I have enumerated could do so. Of course the government must see that there are those charged with the responsibility of seeing that the law is enforced.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sorry but the minister leaves the whole position even worse than it is under provincial legislation to-day. As the minister knows, there have been violations of all these laws in connection with factory hours, minimum wages and hours of labour in almost every province in which they have been brought into being. The evidence given before the price spreads committee shows the flagrant violations in both Ontario and Quebec in regard to minimum wage legislation, for example, and no one seems to have had the responsibility of taking action against the offending employers. There is no use in saying that it is left to the employee, because in nine oases out of ten the employee is afraid of losing his or her job and will not individually, sometimes not even collectively, take the necessary action. Therefore I strongly suggest to the minister that this act should provide for an official inspector, or you can call him a public prosecutor if you like, to whom infractions of the act should be reported, who should investigate and, upon finding the reports to be correct, should take action on behalf of the employee. I also think the expenses in connection with administration should be borne by the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will this act be administered directly by the Department of Labour?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The bill itself is silent
as to what department of government will administer the act, but I assume it will be administered by the Department of Labour.

Supply-Secretary oj Slate


Angus MacInnis: Will this act supersede
provincial legislation already in force in regard to hours of labour, or will it operate concurrently with such legislation?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think it will operate
concurrently.


Angus MacInnis: Then in that case would the provincial inspectors act under the federal measure as well as under the provincia measure?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They could act for botl
without further instruction or authority.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think this act wil.'
operate as other social legislation operates; where there is an organization it will work and where there is no such organization it will not work. That has been the case in the past. Where there has been some degree of organization among the workers wages have been reasonable and .the minimum wage laws have been enforced; I think that goes for all our social legislation whether provincial or federal. Where there is an organization to look after the welfare of the workers and the enforcement of legislation, it is en forced. After the legislation is on the statute book I think it rests largely upon the individuals themselves to see to it that the terms of the act are carried out. I know that in the locality from which I come we will see that it is carried out.
Progress reported.



SECRETARY OP STATE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Salaries, $289,538; contingencies, $73,655.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the Secretary of State a slip in his pocket which would give us some information to indicate the progress being made in connection with the printing of electoral lists?


Hon. C. H. CAIIAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the answer would properly be given under the items for the printing bureau. However, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that the returns for March 11 showed that of a total of 5,807,577 names on the electoral lists, 4,747,199 were then in type, leaving a balance of 1,060,378 to be put into type. In the ordinary course of operations those names will be put in type at the rate of about 80,000 per day. If we do more night work they could be typed at the rate of 100.000 or 110,000 per day, so that
there is no doubt about all lists being in type by April 1, unless some unexpected accident should intervene.


William Duff: In view of the fact that there is legislation before the house having to do with the weekly day of rest, may I ask the Secretary of State if there is any truth in the statement made in one of the newspapers of Ottawa that the workers in the printing bureau are working on Sundays in the preparation of voters lists? It is said that they work seven days each week, including Sundays. If that condition exists I am sure the minister could not have known about it, because as a member of the church to which I give my allegiance I am sure he would not for one moment permit a condition under which men in the printing bureau worked seven days a week, or more than eight hours a day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman, the
right hon. leader of the opposition and I are members of the same church, and have a due regard for the Sabbath. My information is that in the printing bureau no such work is carried on between twelve o'clock Saturday night and twelve o'clock Sunday night, giving a full twenty-four hours' rest.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
appointment of the commissioner of patents been made?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. The commissioner'of
patents died recently. A bill to be known as the Patent Act was introduced in this chamber, but was subsequently transferred to the Senate. It is now before that body, and before the end of the week I hope it will again be before this chamber. Certainly until that bill has been considered by this house no appointment will be made to fill the. vacancy. Meantime one of the oldest and one of the most experienced officials of the patent office is administering the affairs of the office as acting commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $2,600.
Edward Joseph Garland: May we
have an explanation of the reason for the expenditure? What is done through this vote?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Canada is one of the members of the international union for the protection of industrial property. That is a body for the protection of copyrights, trade marks, patents and designs, and under the convention
Supply-Secretary oj State

to which we are a party we pay a certain proportion of the expense of the international office maintained at Berne in Switzerland. If the hon. member wishes full details I could give them, but may I state briefly that this is an annual vote. The slight decrease of $250 is due to the appreciation of the dollar as compared with the value of the Swiss franc.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was
familiar with the facts the Secretary of State has given, but I should like to know of what value the international office is to Canada. What do we get for the expenditure?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The convention has been
subscribed to and ratified by about forty nations, if my recollection is correct, and from time to time the representatives of the several nations meet at Washington, Rome, or London, England, to discuss changes in the convention for the protection of industrial property. One matter, which will be under a discussion, when the Patent bill is before the house in a few days, is that as Canada is a party to the convention, inventors in Canada have the right to have Canadian patents of invention registered in each of these foreign countries, in which event they obtain the same protection and privileges as were granted upon application for and the grant of such patents in Canada. Similar provisions are in the convention in respect of trade marks. I think it was two years ago that I introduced and there was enacted the Unfair Competition Act dealing with trade marks, which is based on the same convention; and trade marks which are granted in Canada to those doing business and using those trade marks in Canada are by the terms of the convention protected in each of these other countries.


Thomas Reid: Are there any major countries that do not protect patents?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I had in my hand during
the present week and was discussing in another place the patent act. I had a list of these nations which protect patents under the convention and it may be that there are some countries, possibly Abyssinia or some of the South American states, which do not give the same, protection. However, I have not in mind the names of all these countries and therefore cannot state precisely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives, $71,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: The public archives are particularly valuable, and increasingly so. Why the reduction?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are very valuable, but inasmuch as we made very considerable purchases last year we did not intend to spend so large a sum this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-
Secretary of State, $6,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is simply a contingent item.


William Duff: Will the money paid to Peter White come out of this item?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


William Duff: Under what item?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The matter of the suits pending for a return of moneys alleged to have been improperly received in connection with the loss of the Gypsum Queen has not been under the control or direction of the Secretary of State but under the Department of Justice, and I cannot say how the expenses of that litigation are paid. It may be that a supplementary estimate will be required in connection with it, but I have not taken it into account in the preparation of the estimates of my department.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why should there be two separate items, one for National Defence and one under the Secretary of State, in connection with the adjustment of war claims?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At the close of the war the Department of the Secretary of State was vested with jurisdiction in all matters relating to reparations and the sequestration of enemy property, which included certain war claims. Those claims with regard to reparations have been, I think, completely disposed of and Germany, as the house knows, has ceased making the payments which were to be made under the treaty of Versailles. I am putting in this sum simply to cover any possible contingencies that may arise in regard to past inquiries and matters of that kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand that the sum will not necessarily be expended and that there are now no outstanding claims under this vote.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I made a return to the house, to-day I think, showing that there were two or three contingent claims aggregating less than $5,000, which are outstanding and unpaid. I understand that these are claims of sailors who were on ships that were destroyed by German torpedoes or sunk by mines. These sailors made claims-three of four of them- and since the awards have been made we have

Supply-Fisheries
been unable to ascertain the exact addresses of the sailors. It is all however within $5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $985,328.
Thomas Reid: What is the reason for the increase of $93,328?


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: In the first place there is the provision for the restoration of the ten per cent deduction from those receiving less than $1,000, amounting to $15,983. Then, owing to increased pickled fish inspection, it has been necessary to appoint two additional inspectors in the maritimes. Experience has shown the need for increased guardian service and more travelling by inspectors in many districts throughout the country. That accounts for $31,801. During the past few years we have been operating the patrol boat service at the minimum, putting off repairs where possible, and the time has come when this cannot be continued. Increasing efforts at illegal fishing must also be met, and this will involve the use of several boats for longer periods. That accounts for $45,544. This makes us the total.


Thomas Reid: Was there any airplane service last year for spotting illegal fishing, and. if so, will the department carry that on this year?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $240,000.
Thomas Reid: When is it expected that the
report in connection with the propagation of sockeye and other salmon will be published? I understand an investigation into the hatcheries has been going on for the past number of years. Is the minister prepared to make any statement on the matter, or can he tell the committee when the report is likely to be published ?


Grote Stirling: The report to which my
hon. friend refers is expected this summer.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps it is a little out
of order to discuss under this item the question to which I wish to refer, but I see no other item under which it may come. I have on the order paper a notice of motion which in substance is that the farm loan act shall apply to fishermen. I am not going to discuss
the motion. I am drawing the attention of the minister to it, and I wish that he would take into consideration what it contains. May I say, without discussing the motion itself, that the fishermen under present conditions, especially those which have prevailed during the last four or five years, are unable to renew their craft when and where necessary. If the farm loan act could be so amended that by availing themselves of its provisions they could renew their obsolete craft and be able to carry on to greater advantage the industry in which they are engaged, it would be a godsend to them and would save the fishing industry. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in discussing the pros and cons of the question. I merely wish to ask the minister to consider the matter and see what can be done under the circumstances before the end of the session.


Grote Stirling: My recollection is that
the Natural Products Marketing Act does cover the products of the sea, the lake and the river.


Mr. YENIOT:: The minister has misunderstood me. I am not referring to the marketing of the product. I am speaking of the lending of money to the fishermen on the same conditions and terms as it is lent to the farmers, so that they may replenish their craft which now in many cases are becoming obsolete.


Grote Stirling: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. Certainly I shall be very glad to give consideration to the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Oyster culture, $10,000.
Thomas Reid: Does that oyster culture take
place on the two coasts or just on the Atlantic?


Grote Stirling: The expenditure of $10,000 is required to cover the expenses of the administration of the leasing and experimental farming to develop and demonstrate oyster cultural methods. The cost of administration includes the examination of areas for which applications for leases have been received; to ensure that they are suitable for oyster culture before approval is given, as well as supervision of the development work after leasing. Investigations have proceeded so far as to enable a good lead to be given in oyster farming, which has now become well established and promises to be one of the important industries of Prince Edward Island. So far seventy-nine leases comprising nearly 344 acres
Supply-Fisheries

have been issued, and 110 additional applications for leases are receiving attention. Ground was offered for leasing in 1931, and in 1933 a start was made in production, ninety-two barrels having been taken and sold from the several areas.


Thomas Reid: Is the reserve for oysters that vas placed in the Serpentine and Nicomekl .avers three years ago still there?


Grote Stirling: The reserve still exists.


Charles A. Stewart: How many
oysters do we market in Canada in a year?


Grote Stirling: Approximately 8,000
barrels in the previous season.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Perhaps the minister
could give us some more details of the work that is being carried on under this appropriation. I think he stated that seventy-nine leases were granted. Is that correct?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Were they all in the
Richmond bay area?


Grote Stirling: No. The seventy-nine
leases are divided over ten districts.


Edward Joseph Garland: IIow much are oysters worth a barrel?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Can the minister give
us the number of barrels taken off the government ground last season?


Grote Stirling: There were taken and
sold from the department's reserved areas 421^ barrels of marketable oysters and 23311 barrels of seed oysters, the latter being sold to the local lessees.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Can the minister give us
the price that was obtained for the oysters that were sold off the government area, and how they were sold? Were they advertised for sale by public tender, or were tenders invited only from some interested parties?


Grote Stirling: They were advertised
for sale by public tender, and the amounts
were as follows:
Quantity-	Price
64%o	barrels	
$8	00105%	barrels	
5	00251%	barrels	
4	00233%	barrels	
2	00
722 cardboard cartons with spat
attached	 0 15


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Could the minister give
us the number of permits that were given to those who took private leases for the (Mr. Stirling.]
picking of oysters? Those oysters, I understand, were picked off the public areas, and permits were granted to the holders of leases. How many permits were granted?


Grote Stirling: Two permits were
granted to each of the lessees.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Only two?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That does not seem to
agree with the information we have down east, namely, that not only the lessee himself but all of his family who may be interested can obtain permits. I would like to know from the minister if that is correct.


Grote Stirling: The information I have
at my disposal at the moment is that only two permits are granted to each lessee. The matter can very easily be verified; we can look it up. I have not the information in more detail now.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I may have been wrongly informed, but I understand that not only can the holder of the lease obtain two permits, but all those working for him or members of his family can also obtain permits, so that all one has to do is to have an application for a lease and then one can get permits to pick all the oysters he likes off the public ground. I think this is something that should be looked into very carefully, because I know it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction. The public fishermen feel that public oyster areas should be developed by the department for public fishing, but the department has undertaken to lease those public areas to private individuals. Since the Richmond bay area was known for its famous oysters the public were always allowed to fish off the public beds there. Now the department has started on this policy of leasing, and the greatest difficulty we find is that areas which are producing oysters at the present time are being leased, or, if not, the oyster picked off for private holders. I know the department will deny this, but the fishermen have asked for a royal commission; they have even petitioned the governor general in council to have a commission or someone appointed to go down there and make a thorough investigation of the whole situation. This has been refused by the department. The fishermen are deprived of fishing privileges which they formerly enjoyed. I have on my desk a petition which has been presented in which they say that if the department is going to spend money to bring back the areas for private individuals it is only fair to spend some money

Supply-Fisheries
to bring back some areas for public fishing. The fishermen would not object much if the department would go out into the deeper bays and rivers where oysters are not coming back satisfactorily and there build up fishing areas for those who obtain private leases, but they do object to leasing the inshore waters in the small rivers and bays and he-ads of creeks where the oysters are coming bade naturally and where they could fish with very little trouble. If the department wants to experiment there are thousands of acres out in the big bays and rivers where they can spend all the money they like in bringing back the beds for the private lessee. But the claim is made, and I think fairly, that the fishermen have an inherent right, handed down from .past generations, to fish on the public areas. I know the minister will say: Well, the industry was wiped out and we had to come and reestablish it. The industry was wiped out; now it is coming back naturally at the heads of the rivers and bays, and what we object to is the leasing of those areas where the industry shows signs of natural recovery. We all know that at tire present time fishermen are hard pressed, not only in our province but in other provinces where fishing is carried on. In this industry men were formerly able to go out and make a fair day's pay with very little expense. About $10 or $15 will fit out a fisherman for gathering oysters, whereas if he is going into the lobster industry, for instance, he has to spend hundreds of' dollars for equipment. The fishermen feel that this privilege has been taken away from them. They have petitioned, the department; they have done everything they could to get some attention, to have someone go there and make an independent survey and see if their claims are well founded.
I had to bring up this matter last year. I do not want to be blocking the work of the department, but I think in all fairness to the fishermen of that community the department should have someone go and make a thorough examination on the spot. I know the department will say that they are not leasing areas that are already productive, but the fishermen have the opposite view. They say that no one applying for a private lease will take a piece of ground unless he is pretty sure that there are some oysters on that ground. If he finds there are, then he is willing to take a lease. They also complain that the public areas that would naturally come back are being robbed by private lessees who are given permits to pick oysters off the public grounds to put on their private grounds. So in effect the fishermen are not allowed to fish
at all unless they have a lease. This is a revolutionary step on the part of the department and is so entirely at variance with the conditions that formerly obtained that the fishermen are up in arms about it. I would like to put on record a great many statements that have been forwarded to me, and also this petition, but I have submitted a similar one to the minister, and all without avail. I am a voice crying in the wilderness; I get no support from the department or from other hon. members from our province or from the acting Minister of Fisheries, and fail to make any impression on the department on behalf of the large number of fishermen whom I represent in this house. But I submit that their demand is fair and just and that the new minister who is now in this responsible position should give the matter very careful consideration and see that justice is done to these fishermen who are not here to speak for themselves and who have been unable through petition or otherwise to make any impression on the department or the minister.


Mr. MYERS:: You perhaps will remember, Mr. Chairman, that last session the same annual complaint was made by my hon. friend from Prince. The hon. member has a monopoly on this subject; there does not seem to be anyone else here sufficiently interested in oyster culture to make a study of the matter so as to be able to answer him. I rise on this occasion with more than usual diffidence because I have not forgotten the severe castigation I received at the hands of the hon. member for Prince last session when this same item was before the committee. On that occasion I was told that I was an inlander, that I did not know anything about fish, and above all about oysters, and I was advised to confine my activities to the growing of potatoes. I can assure the committee that my hon. friend's advice was not lost on your humble servant, and I do not intend to-night to advance any of my own ideas along this line for fear of receiving again the same admonition from my hon. friend. I do not wish to detam the committee more than a few minutes. I only want to say that in my humble opinion as an onlooker from the outside, seeing what the Department of Fisheries has done during the past few years for the oyster industry in Prince Edward Island, I cannot help but raise my voice in commendation of the acting Minister of Fisheries and especially of his able deputy minister for the efficient efforts
Supply-Fisheries

they have put forth on behalf of the oyster industry of Prince Edward Island. In order that I may be quite clear on this matter I have on this occasion armed myself with a report of a speech that was delivered by a man who-even the hon. member for Prince will not deny it-is one of the leading fishery experts in Prince Edward Island. We have in Charlottetown a very active board of trade. No item affecting the public good escapes their attention-agriculture, business, fisheries, tourist traffic, everything of that kind comes under their purview. They are always very active in finding out what is being done along these lines. In order to inform themselves thoroughly on this subject, to get the best information they could, they invited W. F. Tidmarsh to speak to them, which he did on January 10 last. By the way, let me state a fact well known to the hon. member for Prince. In addition to being an expert in connection with fisheries and everything pertaining to the fishing industry in Prince Edward Island, having been engaged in that industry all his life, Mr. W. F. Tidmarsh is also one of the leading Liberals in our province, a fact which must carry great weight with my hon. friend. At the present time his son is president of the Liberal Association of Queens county, and I believe the father is just as active as ever on that side of politics. I would not be too sure of that, however; he may have had a change of heart since January 10, when the Prime Minister came out with his reform program. Mr. Tidmarsh, along with many other Liberals of Prince Edward Island, may have had a change of heart since then, so it would not surprise me to find him lined up behind the Prime Minister, myself and my colleague when the next election comes along. But without wearying the committee further I should like to quote briefly what Mr. Tidmarsh said to the Charlottetown board of trade on January 10 last:
Commends Department Effort
The effort of the fishery department to restore the oyster fishery is well worthy of favourable commendation.
Those are the words of the leading Liberal of Prince Edward Island.
It has worked in a thoroughly scientific manner. It has erected and operated' at Bideford river a small biological laboratory, equipped with necessary equipment, and in it has placed men of scientific and practical knowledge

And now the hon. gentleman wants somebody to go down there from Ottawa, when right in his own bailiwick they have this biological

laboratory containing the necessary equipment, with men of scientific and practical knowledge in charge. Is that not enough for him?
-who are applying themselves solely to experimentation in oyster culture, to demonstrate that oysters may be cultivated on a commercially economic basis.
Several sections of barren bottoms-
That is barren enough for anything.

were selected in Richmond and Malpeque bays, where the famous Malpeque oyster once thrived. Each bed contains about four and a half acres. These beds were seeded with small oysters. The results have been highly satisfactory.
At the opening of the fishing season this fall it was estimated that approximately each acre had produced eight hundred bushels of marketable oysters. I am informed that the product of these beds is sold on the open market, and the proceeds credited to the beds, so that the commercial value may be ascertained.
Just notice this next paragraph:
Leasing System Beneficial
Areas of five and a half acres of barren bottom may be leased from the fishery department for a period of twenty years, at $1 per acre, per annum, for the first period, and for the second period at a rental to be agreed upon. The lessee agrees to seed the areas within a reasonable time.
This method should meet with general approval.
I believe the word "general" would include even the hon. member for Prince.
It assures a wide distribution of oyster farming throughout the province, keeps the industry in the hands of our fishermen-
I hope the hon. member for Prince will note that.
-encourages competition, stimulates enterprise, and ensures a wide distribution of the monetary returns when the areas become productive.
This industry lends itself to cooperation of the primary producer. Fishermen should be encouraged to form cooperative companies. The combined efforts of a small company of young, energetic fishermen, should in a few years create an industry, under their own control, that would give them remunerative employment for the rest of their lives.
Over-production need not be feared. Epicures through the ages' have sought this succulent bivalve and will continue to do so in the future....
I see no reason to doubt that the oyster fishery will, in process of time, become the most important fishing industry in this province.
I have not touched on the technique of oyster culture. Prospective cultivators can get that information by applying to the biological station at Bideford-
Just imagine; they can get all the information with reference to oyster culture at this biological station at Bideford, in the riding of my hon. friend who is objecting to the whole development.

Supply-Fisheries
-or by consulting a book entitled Oyster Farming on the Atlantic Coast of Canada, published by the Department of Fisheries.
I have no further remarks to make. Hon. gentlemen will notice that for fear of a second castigation at the hands of my hon. friend 1 have sheltered myself behind the words of a Prince Edward Island gentleman who has forgotten more about oysters and the fishing industry than the hon. member for Prince and myself together know.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that I am perfectly willing to give him all the latitude he requires, because the more latitude he takes the deeper he gets in. My hon. friend has said that Mr. Tidmarsh satisfactorily explained this matter to the board of trade. I have known Mr. Tidmarsh for a great many years. I have known him as a lobster packer of outstanding ability; I have known him to be interested in the processing and marketing of other kinds of fish, but this is the first intimation I have had that Mr. Tidmarsh is an authority on oysters or oyster culture, and I thank my hon. friend from Queens for that illuminating fact. My hon. friend suggested that Mr. Tidmarsh might have changed his politics following the radio addresses of the Prime Minister. I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait for some time for that. I think oysters will be growing under the potato vines in his fields before that happens.
The difficulty in this whole situation is that people like my good friend, who would like to know all about the industry but has never taken the trouble to make himself thoroughly acquainted with it, are always butting in and giving advice to the department. As I have said before, some people step in where angels fear to tread. The situation, nevertheless, is as I have stated. I do not wish to discuss this matter from a political point of view, but I want my hon. friend from Queens to understand that it was at the request of myself and others that the biological station was started at Bideford under the Liberal administration. The Liberal policy, however, was to bring back the oyster industry for the public fishermen of that community; we never intended to give a private monopoly to any other class of men, and we stand by that policy to-day. I believe that I am voicing the opinion of hon. members of this house and of the majority of the fishermen of our province when I say that the rights of our fishermen are being taken away under this leasing policy.
With regard to the biological station, the men located there are doing work that has been assigned to them, that is, studying the habits and the propagation of oysters, and
oyster culture. They have made certain progress along that line, but I am not here to-night to discuss whether or not the biological station has been of service to the fishermen or the industry; I am here to discuss the right of the fishermen to fish in the public waters around their own shores. If the department wants to lease ground there are thousands of acres, as I have said and as my hon. friend from Queens knows, that can be leased if they want to experiment with building up productive beds of barren bottoms. I will tell my hon. friend, however, that you cannot get a lessee there to spend one dollar in an effort to bring back those bottoms. Hon. gentlemen opposite have always taken the ground that we were endeavouring to make political capital out of this question. On different occasions I have said that I have just as many friends on one side of this question as on the other. The barren grounds are there; if the government want to develop them we have no objection to the leasing of those grounds. If they want to try to build up productive areas there they are perfectly at liberty to do so, but when the department attempts to take the good producing areas and lease them to private individuals, that is where we step in and say something should be done on behalf of the fishermen. My hon. friend says there is no need to have anyone go down to Prince Edward Island and make an investigation because the biological station is carrying on that work now. That is not the case. They are operating under the Department of Fisheries. They may say that they operate under the biological board, but the gentleman who is there is working under the director of the Department of Fisheries, and carrying out the plans they suggest. In all fairness I say a commission should be appointed in accordance with the request of the fishermen. Let them bring in a report, and if they say that the fishermen are wrong in their contention, then I am willing to abide by their decision. If on the other hand they say that the department is leasing productive areas to private individuals, then I say that practice should be stopped, and the barren areas should be leased. Will the minister tell the committee if it is the policy of his department to continue leasing those splendid productive areas to private individuals?


Grote Stirling: On application being
received, the policy hitherto has been to give consideration to whom the lease should be granted. It seems to me reasonable that the applicant first to be considered should be the one nearest to the area in question, next the people living behind it, and third the people

Supply-Fisheries

of the province generally. In that way the areas pass into the hands of those who can most easily and most economically work them. The hon. member should bear in mind that this work was begun and is being carried on in close cooperation with the government of Prince Edward Island, and the investigation under Doctor Needier, who is working for the biological board, is being and will be carried on. I should be glad to give careful consideration to the views expressed by the hon. member. It may be that as time goes on reconsideration should be given to the policy hitherto adopted.


Thomas Cantley: I should like to call
attention to the fact that there are other oyster fishing grounds in the maritime provinces than those in Prince Edward Island. When I was a boy there was a considerable amount of oyster fishing in the three rivers running into Pictou harbour. We also had oyster fishing at Merigomish bay, Wallace, Caribou, Pugwash and Antigonish bay. However, for some reason which I am not prepared to explain, that fishing has been practically abandoned, and I should like the minister to make some investigations with regard to the waters I have named. If those waters were restocked I can see no reason why we should not again have oyster fishing as profitable as we had forty or fifty years ago. I hope the minister will be good enough to give some assurance that something will be done in this connection.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps the hon. member has forgotten that we cannot proceed in this matter except by agreement with the province. The bottoms are under the control of the provinces. In the case of Prince Edward Island cooperation resulted in these investigational works being carried out. As Nova Scotia has not come into agreement with the dominion, so far as oyster fisheries are concerned, the dominion cannot carry out such works there.


Thomas Cantley: Surely the minister could ask the government of Nova Scotia to cooperate. It would not take long to do that.


Mr. McLURE:: The oyster fishermen of
Queens county are in accord with what the department has done in connection with oyster farming. More each year are anxious to obtain leases on the barren areas, and from time to time they request that additional surveys of harbours and bays be made. For instance, at the present time demands are being made to have surveys made of Alexandra bay, Pownal bay, Vernon river, Orwell bay

and Pinnette bay, with a view to obtaining leases. I believe last year a statement was made by an hon. member to the effect that these leases were taking away the rights of the fishermen. May I say that there is no branch of the Department of Fisheries which at the present time has such possibilities of development as has the oyster fishing branch. To-day production in Canada is very much limited; we are not able to supply the domestic demand. Oyster farming is carried on on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but the production last year amounted to only 24,659 barrels. This amount was made up of 8,273 barrels from New Brunswick, 10,160 from Prince Edward Island, 3,120 from British Columbia and 3,106 from Nova Scotia. That is not sufficient for the demand in Canada alone, consequently many importations were made. For the information of hon. members I shall indicate the points from which importations came. From the United States 1,094 barrels of oysters imported in the shell were valued at 86,938. From the same country 104,882 gallons of shelled oysters valued at $161,540 were imported. Again from the United States we received 106,1,17 pint cans valued at $11,145 and 4.701 quart cans valued at $1,896. Prepared or dried oysters were shipped in from China and Japan to the value of about $10,000. The total importations from outside sources were valued at $200,000.
I should like to see the department continue the development of oyster farming, and particularly the development of many of the barren areas in our bays and rivers. Some time ago the control of these bays and rivers was discussed before the privy council, and the decision was made giving the control of the waters to the federal government. Following that the federal government and the legislature of Prince Edward Island entered into a contract by which leases were granted to fishermen throughout the province. I would impress upon the acting Minister of Fisheries the necessity for further investigations, and would urge that further services be given so that our fishermen may engage in this most profitable branch of the fishing industry.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have in my hand a petition signed by the fishermen's committee, the following names appearing:	William
McKinnon, president; Charles McFadyen, Richard Murphy, Norman Thompson, and Elisworth Gillis, secretary. I shall pass the petition on to the minister, because upon handing it to the clerk of petitions he indicated that because it asked for a grant of

Supply-Fisheries
public money it was out of order. The committee is now witness to the fact that the petition has been presented to the minister, and I trust that some action will be taken.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Following up the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou may I say that I was surprised to learn that no information had come from the government of .Nova Scotia because in correspondence with the premier of that province I gathered he was ready and willing to consider the matter of cultivating oyster beds on Bras D'Or lakes and East bay. Considerable fishing is now done at those points, and I believe the ground is fertile. I would ask the minister to give some attention to the matter, because I feel sure that Nova Scotia is ready and willing to cooperate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for an investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut by an international fisheries commission appointed under the Pacific halibut treaty of the 2nd March, 1923, $25,000.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Would the minister explain how the money was expended last year, and how long the sum of $25,000 has been paid?


Grote Stirling: I have not the actual figures for last year, but perhaps it will satisfy the hon. member if I give the estimated expenditure of the same amount this year. Half the cost of the work of the commission is paid by the United States and half by Canada, and that is divided as follows: Salaries, $33,114; vessel operations, 89,286; travel and subsistence, $2,400; office supplies, $1,000; telegrams, postage, freight and expressage, laboratory supplies and equipment, $700; printing reports, $2,400; redemption o'f tax, $600; expenses of conferences with fishermen, $500. That makes up the $50,000.


Olof Hanson: The Canadian fishermen have complained that in this investigation American boats were hired and American supplies purchased, and that Canadian fishermen did not have a chance to tender or to share in the benefits so far as the money was concerned. Has this investigation 'been done absolutely by American officers on American boats?


Grote Stirling: Wherever the work can be done by Canadian boats it is so done, but there are waters off the Alaska coast where larger boats are required than those we can obtain in Canada, and then United States boats are hired.


Olof Hanson: Have any Canadian boats been hired?


Grote Stirling: I have not the actual number of boats hired but undoubtedly Canadian boats have been hired to do the work.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Has any demand been received from fishermen in regard to the late season on the north shore of Prince Edward Island, asking that the season start on August 1 instead of August 15 as at present?


Grote Stirling: We have received such requests, as well as requests in the opposite direction, and after all the information that can be collected has been considered the department makes the decision with regard to the date.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Has any decision been made with regard to these requests?


Grote Stirling: Not yet.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The matter is under consideration now?


Grote Stirling: Yes.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Marine Biological Board of Canada, $186,000.
Thomas Reid: What is the reason for the increase of SI 1,000?


Grote Stirling: The increase is made up as follows: Salmon investigations on Atlantic coast, $2,000; investigation on Nicomekl and Serpentine rivers, British Columbia, $1,000; Investigation on Okanagan lakes, $1,000; mackerel investigations on the Atlantic $200; general survey of lakes and rivers, 81,800; investigation of scallop fishery, bay of Fundy, $1,000; deep sea investigation of conditions affecting movement of haddock and. cod, $2,000; extension of courses of instruction to fishermen, both coasts, $2,000. That makes up the total. My hon. friend is aware that the biological board is really a separate organization made up of representatives of the universities doing biological -work, but to a large extent it is the scientific division closely connected with the department.


Thomas Reid: We appreciate the vote of 91.000 for work on the Nicomekl and Serpentine rivers. These two rivers were once heavily stocked with fish, but they are close to the boundary line and we have had many visitors who have fished in these rivers. The fish have disappeared and I am glad that there is this item of $1,000 for purposes of investigation.
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Can the minister give
me some information in regard to the biological station which we were told would be opened on the Gaspe coast? Last year or the year before when this matter was before the house the then Minister of Fisheries, now Minister of Marine, led us to believe that a biological station would be instituted in that locality.


Grote Stirling: My hon. friend is referring to the proposal to build a station at Gaspe?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Grote Stirling: No official decision has
been reached with regard to it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Since the minister has
been in charge of the department has he received any request from the government of Quebec regarding this matter?


Grote Stirling: I do not recollect having received such a request from the provincial government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is the matter still under consideration or has the idea been altogether abandoned?


Grote Stirling: It has by no means
been completely abandoned; it is one of the measures that are being considered and the coat is being cut everywhere according to the cloth.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What progress has been made since this matter was first taken into consideration by the minister's predecessor, and what has been the progress smce the minister himself has been in charge ?


Grote Stirling: No recommendation has
reached me, so far as my memory goes, from the provincial government, and I have not gone into the matter in detail since I have been acting minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This question was under consideration two years ago-since 1932-and on one occasion it was openly stated by the present Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) that the station would be established in that locality for the benefit of all fishennen in the district, and as well for the fishermen of the north shore. Now' we are g'ven to understand that it will be started as soon as possible. When I made inquiries on the first occasion the minister said that nothing had been done but that the matter was under consideration. That was the year before last, and again last year it was under consideration; this year we receive the same reply. I want to put the facts before the
[Mr. Reid 1
committee. Although the station has been promised by the federal government, through the Minister of Fisheries, and although the matter has been under consideration for some time now, the minister at that time having [DOT]ed us to believe that he was in constant mmmunication with the provincial government, there having been recommendations from them and from his officials, nothing has been done in this matter. For the last three years we have been asking for this station and although it was promised it is not forthcoming; it is still in the offing with nothing practical in sight.


Peter John Veniot: Have any steps been taken by the biological board in the matter of research in the bay of Chaleur for the development of scallop beds in that section of the province?


Grote Stirling: Information is not being
sought by the biological board at the present time, but of course, as the hon. member will recall, investigational work has been done in the past by the department in that area, and the results of that investigation were then published.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for a grant to the United Maritime Fishermen, $4,060.
Alan Webster Neill: This vote is for a very worthy purpose. Last year when it was being discussed the then acting minister promised me, in answer to a question, that he would grant a similar vote to the fishermen of British Columbia if we recommended a suitable association qualifying in the same way as this one does. Two weeks ago I presented such an application to the minister. I do not think I had a reply but I trust he will consider the matter and possibly put an item in the supplementary estimates. The association I recommended was the largest one in British Columbia, one of long existence and considerable reputation. You have only to look up Hansard to see that the minister defintely said that if we put forward a claim of that kind it would be favourably considered.


Thomas Reid: If the minister is considering grants to associations they should all be taken care of. One is not more important than another. Far be it from me to raise any sectional or constitutional cry, but the Pacific coast has been rather neglected as regards assistance to fishermen's associations. I do not need to point out any difference in importance as between British Columbia and the maritimes; one is as important as the

Supply-In tenor
other. But if grants are to be given to one, all fishermen's organizations, provided they are functioning legitimately and in good condition, should have their applications for grants favourably considered. I have in mind the fishermen's protective association on the Fraser river at two points, one above and one below the bridge. I believe the active membership is over one thousand, and I ask the minister to give consideration to that association also.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister give us some information on this point?


Grote Stirling: The hon. member will probably realize that in the maritimes there is one fishermen's association which can speak with one voice for the fishermen there. A practical difficulty occurs to me that on the Pacific coast there is a considerable number of fishermen's associations, and if an application came in from one of them, applications from all the rest should certainly be considered at the same time. This might add to the government's difficulties in making a decision. Of course the door is never closed to the consideration of applications that may come in, but I cannot go further than to say that consideration will be given.


Alan Webster Neill: Possibly the minister has answered himself. The reason why there is only one association in the maritimes is the grant given; it has amalgamated them into one and it was used for that purpose. At one time there were scores of these petty associations, and the very fact that such a grant was forthcoming and that by their coming together in one united body they could obtain it, encouraged them to cooperate. As regards any difficulty as to which society or association in British Columbia should get the grant, I do not think the minister would find us petty in that connection. I would suggest giving it for this year at any rate to the largest one, and as the one I recommended happens to be not only the largest but the oldest in that province, dating back I think some twenty years and having a good record as the deputy minister knows, I do not think any of the smaller associations would take exception to that or put up a demand to be considered at the same time. Probably this would result in the formation, as has been spoken of by the minister, of one large association for the whole province; but as the hon. member for New Westminster says, we are not being treated fairly when no recognition of that kind is being extended to British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Government of the Yukon territory-
Salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory, including surveys, $42,000.
Grant to Yukon council for local purposes, the construction and maintenance of roads and such other expenditures as the commissioner is authorized to expend by and with the advice and consent of the council or any committee thereof; and the accounts with respect to such expenditure shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General as provided by section 22, chapter 215, revised statutes 1927, $60,000.
John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister give us an indication of the roads on which this amount is to be expended?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: The item of $60,000 is a grant to the Yukon council for local purposes for the construction and maintenance of roads and such other expenditures as the commissioner authorizes by and with the advice and consent of the local council. They are local roads in the Yukon which are maintained by the local council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion lands, parks, etc.-
Dominion lands, seed grain, mining lands and ordnance, admiralty and public lands, salaries and expenses, etc., $90,797.96.
Advancement of forest conservation; national inventory of forest resources; investigation of forest conditions and rates of growth, and development of scientific management methods; forest protection studies, technical and economic investigations of forest industries; the operation of forest experiment stations, demonstration forests; and forest products laboratories; cooperative undertakings in forestry and forest products, etc., $250,900.
Grant to Canadian Forestry Association, $1,620.
Investigation of water and power resources and of international waterway problems, the dominion hydrometric survey and for the administration of the Dominion Water Power and Irrigation Acts, etc., $165,100.
Amount required to meet expenses of Lake of the Woods Control Board, $7,000.
To provide for the expenses connected with the national parks of Canada, historic sites, oare of indigents in the parks, the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in the parks and the payment of their remuneration, $1,105,188.
Administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, $35,500.
Costs of litigation and legal expenses, $4,000.
Amount to provide for expenses in connection with determination of location and boundaries of ordnance and admiralty lands in the province of British Columbia, $3,000.
Amount required to cover the payment of retiring leave to officials other than those on civil government, $7,350.
Salaries of revenue staff, $8,856.
Supply-Interior
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the amount of road that remains to be constructed in the national parks area to link up with the British Columbia section?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the Big Bend road?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: On the eastern section of the road, that is the section lying between Donald and Canoe river, there are some sixteen miles to complete, including the bridge over the Canoe river. On that stretch a certain amount of work has been done comprising rock cut and a certain amount of grading, but the road from Donald to Canoe river, that is the eastern leg, has been completely graded and surfaced with the exception of some sixteen miles at the northern end. On the western leg the road has been partly completed to a distance of some fifty-eight and a half miles. It is not completed in the sense that it has all been graded and gravelled, but it is in a passable condition. There remain on that section approximately thirty-five miles which require new construction, in other words on which no work has been done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present rate of progress how long will it take to complete the entire gap in the Big Bend?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The eastern leg, that is the leg for which the dominion government is responsible, could, if funds were made available, be completed this year; but the western leg, which is a responsibility of the province of British Columbia, would it is estimated take practically two years to complete, that is if all' the available crews which could advantageously be used were employed.


Charles A. Stewart: Are any of the construction crews, that is in the unemployment camps, being used on the British Columbia end of this particular piece of road?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, last season under the Department of National Defence certain camps were in operation on that road. There are none at the present time, I understand. The work which they were doing consisted in putting that portion of the road constructed by the province into fairly passable shape, clearing out landslides and doing a certain amount of grading. The work on the eastern leg was carried on under the Public Works Construction Act.


Angus MacInnis: Could the minister give an estimate of the value of the work done by the men in the camps?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have not the figures; that would have to be given by the Department of National Defence.


Jean-François Pouliot: As this item includes historic sites, I take this opportunity to thank the minister for the cairn which has been erected at Cabano, in Temiscouata county, in remembrance of Vieux Chemin du Lac and Fort Ingall. And now, sir, may I make a suggestion to the minister? At St. Patrick, Sir John A. Macdonald, a former prime minister of Canada, used to spend his summers. The house is still there. May I ask the minister to see that a memorial tablet is put on that house? It is quite forgotten now, and it should be brought to the attention of passersby.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member for
Temiscouata is a very astute gentleman, and I could not find it in my heart to refuse the appeal which he has made. I shall be very glad to take it into consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. I can tell
the hon. gentleman why I ask that. It is because it has been promised for eight years by the provincial government, but we have nothing yet; therefore I appeal to the minister.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Under the forestry
item I notice there is a slight increase in the expenditure contemplated. May I ask if the department contemplates extending the policy of forest experiment and demonstration stations, establishing new stations or extending their activities? I ask this particularly in view of discussions that have been carried on in connection with the drought problem and the possibility of helping to cope with that problem through forestation.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, we have endeavoured in the past four years to extend our field experimental stations, and during the past year we brought a new one into being at Kananaskis in Alberta, in which station woods indigenous to that area can be studied in the field. I think the hon. gentleman has reference more to the service that the forestry department can render in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture in restoring to fertility the drought areas in the west. We have been in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and are at present working in close cooperation with them both from a forestry and from a water power standpoint.


Alfred Speakman: Has the department
any experience in the attempt to grow trees in drought areas? There is a great deal of

Supply-Interior
discussion about that at the present time both here and in the United States, and naturally many of us are very much interested I am asking this because of what I have been observing in the drier areas, and because there is some doubt in my mind as to the possibility of growing trees where drought conditions have become bad. I have seen a good many shelter belts and plantations where trees which had been growing for some twenty years and had become well rooted have died out because of the drought. In view of this I was wondering whether experiments have been carried on in attempting to grow trees as part of the battle against drought, and if so what the results have been. Possibly the experience has been so limited that the department has not been able to form any definite conclusions, but it is a topic of much interest in parts of western Canada.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: So far the forestry department have conducted no experiments along the line indicated. It may be that certain experiments have been carried on at the tree stations at Indian Head or Sutherland in Saskatchewan, but as those two stations are now administered by the Department of Agriculture I am unable to speak as to the results. The Department of the Interior has not carried on any experiments of the kind mentioned.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the reason for taking the forestry station at Indian Head from the control of the Department of the Interior and handing it over to the Department of Agriculture, especially as the Department of the Interior has a forestry branch? I have never been able to understand why that change was made. Did it result in any saving?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am unable to state
whether any saving of money has been made. This change took place I think in 1931. The Department of Agriculture have I believe an experimental farm in that area, and as the activities of the forestry branch of the department were greatly curtailed owing to the transfer of the natural resources, when it was necessary to curtail the personnel and the activities of that branch of the Department of the Interior it was decided after fully canvassing the situation that these two stations could with advantage to the public interest be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. I believe they have been carried on since that time without any lessening of the activities or services to the people of western Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: It seems
strange that the work of tree planting and tree production, which should be entirely under the control of the forestry branch, a branch that remains under the Department of the Interior, should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Clearly the latter department was not performing that service at all prior to that time, and it has not been extended since. Probably the minister is aware that it was the intention to establish a nursery farm in Alberta, but that has not been done. I did not realize just how much curtailment had taken place in connection with this activity until I made application this year to the provincial department in Alberta for some trees, and they informed me that they were giving out trees only for public parks and grounds around public buildings. To separate this particular branch from the forestry branch seems to me a retrograde step. I cannot see what special qualification either the minister or the officials of the Department of Agriculture have for the carrying on of that work that is not possessed by officials of the department in which this branch had up to that time been located. I think the change was a serious mistake.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: If I understood the hon.
gentleman correctly he said there had been a cessation of activity in regard to the distribution of trees from these stations. To the best of my knowledge, and I think I am correct, there has been no cessation of the work. It has been carried on since 1930 as extensively as before that time, the only difference being that it is now administered by the Department of Agriculture instead of the Department of the Interior. The employees at both these stations, Indian Head and Sutherland, have been retained. One reason which induced the change was that after the transfer of resources our field staff was practically non-existent, whereas the Department of Agriculture had inspectors whose duties took them over all areas in the three western provinces. That was practically the deciding factor in making the transfer. These men could carry out the necessary inspections and obtain the necessary information along with their other work, so it was thought that they were in a better position to administer these stations.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: If I may intervene, my recollection is that the government in 1931, in their very proper desire to economize-so long of course as it was true economy-had decided to close the forestry farms at both Sutherland and Indian Head. The minister will correct me if I am wrong.
Supply-Interior

I remember that the staff at Indian Head were all notified that their services would not be required after a certain day, I think June 1, 1931. Then a great agitation spread over the land. My hon. friend will remember that was one of our very worst and driest and windiest springs, yet when the country was almost blowing away the government was deciding to close the forestry station from which in the past trees had been obtained for planting. It was such an extraordinary move for the government to make that great public indignation arose, which was made manifest in so many ways that the government had to do something rather than just make an about face, so they decided to transfer these farms from the Interior department to the Department of Agriculture. I think that is about t'he way it happened. Then no extra vote was inserted in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture; these forestry farms were tied up to the experimental farms vote, with a smaller vote than the experimental farms received previously. If that sort of thing can be done without prejudice to the service, my hon. friend deserves a leather medal or something better. That is a feat of which I never heard before, but apparently it is being done, after a fashion at all events. If I am wrong in my recital I would consider it a friendly act if the minister would put me right, but my recollection of what happened in this respect in 1931 is pretty acute.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is true that following
the transfer of the resources to the western provinces in 1930 the activities which had been carried on in the Department of the Interior came under review, and it fell to my lot to scrutinize carefully every activity which might be continued by the department. It is true, as the hon. member has stated, that certain employees of these stations received notice that their services might be terminated as of a certain day, but not all the employees of those two stations were so notified. I may say quite frankly that it never was definitely decided that those stations should be closed, but rather that all services were studied in order to ascertain those that should continue to be performed by the Department of the Interior, having regard to the public interest, and what services should be performed by the provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: We could not
expect the minister to put it just as I did, but at any rate that was the effect of the whole business. If all those who were notified had been let out, these forestry farms could
.
not have been carried on. However, the old saying is true; all's well that ends well. I was never particular whether these forestry farms were administered by the Interior department or by the Department of Agriculture, so long as they had the staff and the money with which to do the work. Time has shown that there is just as much demand for the services of these farms as there ever was, and if financial circumstances permitted the people to make more use of them I think there would be a greater demand now because of the devastating winds we have had since 1930.


Thomas Reid: I wonder if the minister has
the information before him with regard to the quantity of seed produced at the coniferous seed plant in New Westminster to what countries that seed is sent, and if any reports as to the results from that seed have been received from the countries to which the seed went. Further, is any of the seed produced or extracted at that plant used in Canada?
Mr. MURPHY':	The total seed collected
to the end of 1934 amounted to 46,785 pounds, of which the British forestry commission received 28,259 pounds, New Zealand 17,183 pounds, Australia 677 pounds, the Irish Free State 52 pounds, Northern Ireland 140 pounds, while certain small surpluses above the requirements of these countries were disposed of to dealers in Canada, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Denmark and other countries. I have no report as to the success the various countries had with these seeds, but as they are taking them year after year I judge that the results must be successful.


Thomas Reid: Are we using any of that
seed in this country?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The dominion government is not engaged in reforestation, that being a responsibility of the various provinces. I believe we do use small quantities, but they are so small as to be almost negligible.


Mr. GERSHAW:: There happen to be
in my constituency two national parks, which come under this department, and I find that there have been a great many complaints about the way those in charge of the parks manage them. They are supposed to be antelope reserves, but those in charge appear to have large herds of cattle and large bands of horses inside the reserves; consequently the grass is all eaten down. The neighbouring ranchers are very short of grazing areas, and they find themselves at

Supply-Interior
a great disadvantage as compared with the managers of the parks. Have these managers the sole grazing privileges in the parks?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I understand that the
parks to which the hon. member refers are Wawaskesy and Nemiskam?


Frederick William Gershaw: Yes.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Nemiskam is purely an
antelope park in which the dominion government have impounded the pronghomed antelope, which I believe is the only herd of its kind so confined in Canada, if not in North America. This area is fenced, and I do not think the cattle of settlers could enter that park because of the very high strong wire fence surrounding it. Wawaskesy, on the other hand, is an open range, and certain settlers have the privilege of pasturing a certain number of cattle on it. The park is now in charge of a caretaker who has the responsibility of issuing the permits and seeing that the area is not overgrazed.


Frederick William Gershaw: The complaint seems to be particularly in regard to the last named park; it is said that the caretaker uses all the territory for his own stock. However, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to have an open season this year for the shooting of antelojpe.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: This matter was drawn to my attention some time ago and we have arranged to have the inspector of the soldier settlement board investigate the charges and communicate with the municipal authorities in that area, who I believe made the complaint in the first instance. The report has not come in as yet, but when it does I shall take such steps as are necessary under the circumstances. In reply to the last question I may say that no permission to shoot antelope will be given at least for this season.


Alfred Speakman: Just what are the functions of these forest experiment stations? Are they purely experimental or do they include a certain amount of distribution?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: They are purely experimental, carrying on studies of the rates of growth of the various species and in fact the whole science of silviculture.
iMr. SPEAKMAN: Any distribution of forest products, then, that is carried on in those branches is under the Department of Agriculture?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, that is correct. We make no distribution from our experimental stations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister received any representations in the last year in regard to the taking over of Garibaldi park in British Columbia, and what is the policy of the department in that regard?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, representations have been received this year, as in other years, in regard to the taking over by the dominion of Garibaldi park in British Columbia. If my memory serves me correctly the hon. member placed a question on the order paper which the Prime Minister answered. The answer at that time was in the negative; and the same answer applies now.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is it the intention of the government to establish a national park in the province of Nova Scotia, and if so, when and where?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Representations have
been made by the province of Nova Scotia over a period of some months. Following those representations and an exchange of correspondence a survey of the different areas in Nova Scotia was made by an officer of the Department of the Interior, but so far no decision has been made and the matter is still under consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could the minister state what sites are under consideration?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Northern Cape Breton, Yarmouth county and Blomidon peninsula.


William Duff: It is quite evident that the minister or his officials do not know the beauty spots of Nova Scotia. I can understand, of course, that Yarmouth county, and Blomidon, which is in the constituency of the hon. member for Hants-Kings, would come under review, but I must observe that there is a most beautiful situation in the county of Guysborough which forms a natural park. Before the minister makes a final decision I would suggest that he send his officials to that county. In fact if he is serious about the matter I am surprised he has not sent his officials to the county of Guysborough before this, because I may say to him there is no part of Nova Scotia where the beauties are so natural as they are in the particular part which I have the honour to represent.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: From what little I have seen of the province of Nova Scotia I am sure it must contain many beauty spots, and I am certain, too, that the inhabitants of that beautiful province would consider that any area within its borders would be suitable for a national park. May I say however
Supply-Interior

that before a park can be established it is necessary for the province in which the park is to be located to donate the park area to the dominion government. Instructions were issued to our official to inspect the areas the provincial authorities had signified a willingness to donate to the dominion as a national park. If the hon. member feels special attention should be given to the area he has the honour to represent I would suggest that in the first instance he make his representations to the government of Nova Scotia. Then if they are so minded they will make proper representations to the dominion, at which time we could make our inspection. Until that action is taken, however, I am afraid no inspection will be made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That did not work in British Columbia.


William Duff: Does the minister mean to say that the province of Nova Scotia made representations to him in which they named three points at which national parks could be established, namely in Yarmouth, Blomidon and Cape Breton? I cannot understand that. I have no influence with the government of Nova Scotia; in fact to be quite candid I am opposed to a national park in that province. It seems to me the minister would be well advised to forget the whole business. We have no need of a national park. We will cut our trees down and sell them under the British empire trade agreements, the marketing act, or some other agreements. We need all the money we can get, and instead of making a playground we want to get work for the people. We do not want parks into which the automobile drivers may drive their cars, have picnics and set fire to the woods of the province. Of course if there is going to be a national park I would suggest that my constituency is the most beautiful in the province, but may I add that my advice would be that the minister forget all about it.


Finlay MacDonald: I think there must be some misapprehension in this matter. I am informed on good authority that the provincial government have already expressed their willingness to grant the site necessary for a national park. There is but one site in the whole province of Nova Scotia suitable for such a park and that is to be found on the island of Cape Breton. For the benefit of the hon. member who has just spoken may I say that the whole county of Antigonish coupled with the neighbouring county of Guysborough would not be hall large enough for a national park. The hon 
member seems to be under the impression that all that is required is a kitchen garden. The area required for a national park can be found only in the adjoining counties of Pictou and Inverness, where we could have a national park with all the grandeur and beauty appropriate to such purposes. I cannot say that I am any greater admirer of the local government than is the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough; in fact I do not think either of us thinks very favourably of it. I understand however that they have given the assurance to the originator of the national parks idea that they are ready to grant a site as soon as a selection is made by an official of this department. We hope to have that done this summer.


William Duff: It is interesting to hear
the hon. member for Cape Breton South, especially when the hon. member for Inverness is sitting by his side, state that the only place for a park would be in the county of Inverness. The least he might have done would have been to wait until his colleague and deskmate, the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria, was in his seat, because I think that hon. member would have liked to say something. So far as the hon. member who has just spoken is concerned may I say that all he represents is a hole in the ground. Every time a person steps out of a door in South Cape Breton he is scared to death he will fall in the Atlantic ocean. It is surprising to me that the hon. member would come to this chamber and suggest a national park in the part of Cape Breton he represents. It is quite true that my constituency is not as large as I should like to have it, but last year there were some people in this chamber who wanted to make it much larger. For some reason or other however it was left as it has been for the last ten years. Whether or not the government of Nova Scotia is anxious to grant a site, I believe I am speaking correctly when I state that the people of Nova Scotia do not want a national park. We can do very well without it. If the government is going to spend money, let it help the fishermen, the lumbermen or the farmers; let the minister help these people, as the minister who piloted his bill for $90,000,000 through the house only a few days ago is trying to do. Of course, a national parks program is all right when a Liberal government is in power, because in such times we have an overflowing treasury, business is good, we are able to pay off $258,000,000 of the public debt and have a surplus of $85,000,000. In those times we can build post offices in the hon. member's constituency; we can build public buildings in

Supply-Interior
New Waterford, and at such times it is quite all right to talk about expenditures for national parks. It seems to me the hon. member should hang his head in shame when he asks the Minister of the Interior to spend money for national parks in Nova Scotia, particularly when he must know about the deplorable and distressing conditions existing not only in Nova Scotia but throughout the country.


Finlay MacDonald: Such a statement as that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, even if it be made by an hon. member as irresponsible as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough-and I do not use the term invidiously. Nova Scotia is not the worst province in the dominion; it is the best. Not only is Nova Scotia the best province, but the county of Cape Breton is the best county. Apparently the hon. member does not appreciate the importance of having a national park; he does not seem to realize the benefits the fishermen would derive from it. I am sure if he did, having in mind the deep and abiding love he has for fishermen, he would withdraw his opposition to the creation of a park. I should be only too happy if the hon. member would find a place in the counties of Antigonish and Guysborough for a national park, but it is ridiculous to think that because he cannot have a park in his constituency he would go the length of preventing any other part of the province from having one.


William Duff: I thank the hon. member for
South Cape Breton for those kind words.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Now that we have
listened to a discussion of maritime rights there is another matter I should like to discuss with the minister, and as I gave him notice of my intention undoubtedly 'he will have the information before him. I note that in addition to providing for national parks the vote provides for expenditures in connection with historic sites. In the town of Battleford, which is one of the oldest towns west of the great lakes and was at one time the capital of the northwest territories, away back in the early days when the Royal Northwest Mounted Police was first established, a barracks was built and attached thereto was seventy-five acres of land. About 1924 or 1925 the mounted police found it expedient to discontinue the occupancy of that barracks. The site of the northwest mounted police barracks is situated about one mile from the old town of Battleford and was at that time within the precincts of the corporation. An application was made to the then Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) on March 24, 1927.
Prior to this application it was understood that Bishop Lloyd contemplated asking the government to lease this property to him. In a letter addressed to the superintendent, ordnance, admiralty and railway lands branch of the Department of the Interior, dated March 24, 1927, the town clerk states:
Dear Sir:
It is understood that Bishop Lloyd has decided to abandon the idea of leasing the former Royal Northwest Mounted Police barracks here, and if there is no other scheme of making use of the property, the council asks your consideration of a request that the buildings and surveyed area within the townsite be turned over to the town.
That was March 24, 1927. On July 4, 1927 we received a communication from the same department-there was a letter between the one of March 24 and that of July 4-as follows:
With reference to your letter of the 7th ultimo, I beg to advise you that the application of the town of Battleford to acquire the above mentioned property has been given careful consideration and it has been decided to permit the corporation of the town of Battleford to lease the said property, as recreational grounds, for a period of twenty-one years at the nominal rental of $1 per annum.
That arrangement continued until quite recently, then we find a notice from the present Minister of the Interior, dated August
4.	1934, in which he states:
I hereby give you notice in accordance with the proviso contained in the lease or agreement dated the twenty-ninth day of March, 1928, made between His Majesty the King, represented therein by the Minister of the Interior of Canada, of the first part, and yourself, of the second part, that I, Thomas Gerow Murphy, of the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, Minister of the Interior, intend to determine the said lease on the fourth day of October, 1934, and I require you on or before that date to deliver up possession of the premises, namely, that portion of the town plot of Battleford in the province of Saskatchewan, in the Dominion of Canada, particularly described in the aforementioned lease.
Dated at Ottawra, Ontario, this fourth day of August, 1934.
Will the minister explain to the committee why he found it necessary to cancel that agreement entered into in March, 1928? I should like to know further what is being done with the property. Who now occupies the buildings, and for what purpose?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As the hon. member has stated, this property was leased to the town of Battleford under the authority of an order in council, P.C. 2380, dated December 20, 1927. This lease was given for an area comprising about seventy-five acres, together with several buildings thereon, and it was
Sn,pply-Interior

issued to the town for recreational purposes for the term of twenty-one years, from February 1, 1928, at a nominal rental of $1 per annum. The conditions of the lease were briefly these:
1.	The lessee to pay the rent as set forth and pay all charges, taxes, rates and assessments during the continuance of the lease.
2.	The lessee not to sublet or assign without consent.
3.	The lessor to have the right to enter upon the premises for inspection at any time.
4.	That the said lands shall be used for the purposes aforesaid, that is, recreational purposes and for no other purpose.
5.	The lessee within a reasonable time to repair and keep in repair buildings designated by an inspecting officer to be retained.
6.	The lessor may cancel by notice in writing if rental unpaid for thirty days, or for contravention of the conditions of the lease.
7.	Manner of notification of cancellation.
The town of Battleford violated the second and fourth conditions of the lease. The second condition was that the lessee was not to sublet or assign without consent, and the other condition was that the lands were to be used for recreational purposes and for no other purpose. The town allowed the iate Constable John Guthrie to occupy one of the houses as caretaker and later allowed H. S. Stewart to use the barracks building to keep cattle, horses and pigs for fattening purposes, and also for housing some of his men. The hon. member must bear in mind that this property was to be used only for recreational purposes. Certain information came to the department in regard to the manner in which the town was allowing this property to be used, and we requested the Indian agent, Mr. S. L. Macdonald, to make an inspection and to report, and this was done. I have before me the details of his report. At a later date the Indian agent was asked to make a further report, which he did, and this report I have also before me. In answer to the last question, as to what is being done with the property at the present time, I may say that the lease has been formally cancelled and there is 'in charge a caretaker in the person of George W. French. The buildings, which have been occupied by certain people to whom permission was given by the town of Battleford, are I believe still in the possession of these people, but notice has been given them to vacate at a certain date.


John Vallance: I do not think that anything has been done, which would constitute a violation of the agreement, that was not submitted to the department and approved. I have here a letter dated May 21, 1S34, but before I go on to read it I think 
that there is an explanation due me if not this committee as to who George W. French is. I think the minister knows a little more about him than I do. Who is he and why is he there?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am sorry I cannot give any personal information as regards George W. French. All I can say is that I believe he is a resident of the district and he is at present caretaker of the property.


John Vallance: If the minister does not know who he is, will he tell us who it was that recommended him to take charge of this property?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The recommendation was made to me by responsible parties in that district.


John Vallance: It is all very well for
the minister to say that the recommendation came from responsible parties, but this committee has the right to know who these responsible parties are. There was nothing in the whole transaction, from the beginning until the time the minister took action against the town, that was not aboveboard. There was not a suggestion of change or of a breaking of the lease that was not first submitted to the department and agreed to. The minister speaks of responsible parties. Did the town of Battleford suggest that George W. French be the caretaker?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As regards the statement
that complaints were not made by the town of Battleford in regard to breaking the terms of the agreement, of course they would not be made by the town. That is obvious.


John Vallance: I did not say that.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: But they certainly did
violate the terms of the lease, and I am informed by my officials that the violations of the terms of the lease were made without the knowledge or consent of the department. As responsible minister in charge of the department, when information was received to the effect that the terms of the lease were being violated, I deemed it my duty to have an investigation made, and this was done. As we had no officer in the Department of the Interior to carry out the investigation we requested the nearest Indian agent, Mr. Macdonald, to make the investigation, and this he did. The action followed.


John Vallance: There is no use in the minister and me fencing about who George W. French is. If I am wrongly informed, I

Supply-Interior
want the minister to correct me. I have no objection to Mr. French being a Tory, but he is also a relative of the minister.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Mr. George W. French
is not a relative of mine.


John Vallance: Then let us go back
to the agreement. I hold in my hand a letter dated May 21, 1934, addressed to the department, as follows:
Re File No. 80980-5
Former Mounted Police Reserve- Battleford, Saskatchewan
In reply to your letter of the 27th April I am instructed to say that the buildings have been kept in as good repair as possible, and those marked to be demolished' were sold and the proceeds $644 placed to the credit of a fund from which repairs were paid for as required from time to time. There is now the sum of $238.68 to the credit of the account.
So that the committee may be acquainted with just what happened, may I say that there was a large block of buildings in the [DOT]old northwest mounted police barracks. At one time there were about seventy-five mounted police stationed there. There were the usual quartermaster's stores, barracks, dormitories and so forth. The agreement entered into by the town with the department was that certain buildings should be [DOT]demolished and that the lumber from them should be used in repairing the buildings that had to be kept for historic purposes. The letter goes on to say:
It is true that the building known as the *concert hall was sold to Mr. Quehl and the material removed, the proceeds of the sale being placed to the credit of the fund referred to. The other buildings which have disappeared were treated in the same manner.
The council's reason for this policy was that the material would probably be made away with -the property being so far from town, and much of it was not suitable for repair work.
It is also true that there are some pigs in the large stable, and some cattle in the adjoining shed. These pigs and cattle are owned by Mr. H. S. Stewart whose application to lease the buildings was forwarded to you-
That is to the department.
-on 5th February last and acknowledged for [DOT]consideration 15th February. Mr. Stewart farms 300 acres of the town lands adjoining the barracks property.
It is also true that Mr. John Guthrie, a former constable of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police is occupying the house formerly used by the superintendent, as caretaker-rent free.
I think the minister will admit that it was agreed when the agreement was entered into with the department that someone -should be caretaker. Mr. Guthrie, an old
Royal Northwest Mounted Police man, was given the position as caretaker by the town. The letter continues:
As caretaker he receives no pay. I regret to say that he is very ill at the present time and is not expected to recover. He is over seventy years of age and like all the old mounted policemen has served the west well.
May I refer you to a report-
To which the minister also referred.
-on these premises made by Indian Agent S. L. Macdonald, March 12/34, File No. 389-126. This report was made on the instructions of H. W. McGill, Esquire, Department of Indian Affairs at the request of the Minister of the Interior, and deals fully with all matters referred to except the funding of the money for the buildings disposed of and demolished. Copy of this statement is attached.
As the member representing South Battle-ford in which is situated the old town of Battleford, I merely wish again to raise my voice in condemning, if you like, the Department of the Interior for the action they have taken in this matter. There is no greater historic site in Saskatchewan to-day than the old Royal Northwest Mounted Police barracks, and there is no individual or group of individuals in a better position to take care of those old barracks than is the corporation or council of the town of Battleford. I hope the minister, before he leaves office, will reconsider the stand he has taken on this matter and restore to the old town of Battleford the agreement that was entered into by the late government in 1928. I think the minister himself will admit that it will be just too bad if we are going to allow a property like this to be used as a political football, and I will tell him, whether he likes it or not, that if he does not restore the agreement, every effort of mine will, as soon as the election is over, be used to reestablish the rights of the old town of Battleford in the possession of this property.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I think the hon. member has very well answered himself. He quoted to the committee a statement that certain of the buildings might be demolished, which demolition was carried out, and that the proceeds were to be used for the repair of the other buildings; that certain of the material was sold and that there was a balance remaining of $238.68, which was not used for the purpose of repairing buildings, which has not been turned over to the Department of the Interior, and which remains unpaid until the present moment. Further-and this is what I wish to draw to the attention of the committee-the hon. member has made a plea that this site should remain with the town of Battleford, because it is an historic site and the Battleford council are the best
Supply-Interior

people to administer it. They were given the administration of that area for one purpose only, namely, that it was to be used solely for recreational purposes. They did not so use it; the hon. member admits that himself. Certain of those buildings were used by Mr. Stewart to house cattle, sheep, pigs; stacks of feed were placed on the ground, and of course the grounds would be covered with the litter from the stables in which the various animals were housed. In developing his theme, the hon. member stated that this was an historic site and that the town was therefore the best instrument to be used to perpetuate its memory. I have related to the committee how those grounds were used. I put this question to the committee: Is that a proper and fitting way to use an old historic site-to utilize the buildings for the housing of animals and to have the grounds covered with litter, especially in view of the terms of the lease that the area was to be used for recreational purposes only. I have before me the detailed evidence, the report of the agent as to the condition of those buildings. I do not make any apology for the action taken, and were the matter to be dealt with to-morrow, I would take the same action with the town of Battleford or any other community which had violated, in the manner in which this was done, the terms of an agreement entered into.


John Vallance: There are two questions I would like the minister to answer. When I read the letter dated May 21, 1934, addressed to the commissioner of Dominion lands, it contains this paragraph, just as the minister has stated:
It is also true that there are some pigs in the large stable, and some cattle in the adjoining shed. These pigs and cattle are owned by Mr. H. S. Stewart whose application to lease the buildings was forwarded to you on 5th February last.
Did the minister receive that application, and did he refuse it or what became of it?
I would like the minister to read the letter if he has it-and I think he has-in reply to this letter sent from Battleford on May 21, 1934.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That application never
came before me. It may have been sent to the department, but to the best of my knowledge or recollection I did not see it. It may have been sent to the town; the town may have approved it in the first instance and it may have been sent to the department, but I have no recollection of that

application ever coming before me, and I am assured by the officials that consent was never given, although apparently Mr. Stewart was in occupation of that building at the time and had been for some time previously.


John Vallance: The minister has
already stated that it was because of the occupation of Mr. Stewart of the buildings that he cancelled the agreement. Now he says that the application never came before him.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is not what I said.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 12, 1935