1938-05-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 120, to incorporate The Workers Benevolent Society of Canada.-Mr. Thorson.

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

Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	How many Canadian nickels have been minted in Canada during the years 1933 to 1937 inclusive?
2.	Are they entirely processed in Canada?
3.	If not, to what extent, giving details?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	1933, 2,597,867 pieces; 1934, 3,832,483 pieces; 1935, 3,891,151 pieces; 1936, 4,400,450 pieces; 1937, 4,593,263 pieces.
2.	No.
3.	During the years 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1937, the coin blanks were manufactured in
England from copper-nickel matte shipped from Canada. During the year 1936 the coin blanks were manufactured in Norway from copper-nickel matte shipped from Canada.


LORNE MCDONELL
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Is Lome MeDonell, of Kingston, in the employ of any department of the government?
2.	If so, when did he enter the government service?
3.	What position does he hold?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	What compensation does he receive?
6.	On whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Lome MeDonell is in the employ of the Department of Labour, unemployment relief branch.
2,	3, 4, 5, and 6. George W. Rayner, appointed by P. C. 1948, July 12, 1935, as representative of the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour to supervise inspectors in Ontario in connection with the carrying out of relief works to which the dominion government contributed was authorized by P.C. 1949, of July 12th, to appoint inspectors not exceeding twenty in number. Mr. Lome McDonell's appointment dating from November 15, 1935, was made by Mr. Rayner under this authority at a salary of S200 per month. By order in council P.C. 1709, of July 9, 1936, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Lome MeDonell was appointed dominion representative succeeding Mr. George Rayner above referred to, effective from July 1, 1936, at a salary of $300 per month.


MONTREAL BOTANICAL GARDENS
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rose-mount) :: 1.	What contribution, if any, was made by the dominion government to works performed at the botanical gardens in Montreal?
2.	When will the said works be completed?
3.	Was the government requested to continue its contribution this year? If so, to what amount?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The agreement respecting relief works entered into with the province of Quebec under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, provided among other things for dominion contribution to the following project:-
Questions

Project No. 14
Botanical garden, including necessary buildings in Maisonneuve park and correlative works, Dominion contribution not to exceed, $164,600.
Accounts rendered by the province and paid by the dominion with respect to this project aggregate, $135,404.38.
The agreement respecting relief works entered into with the province of Quebec under the provisions of The Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, contained provision for Dominion contribution towards the cost of certain projects included in which was the following:-
Project No. 7.
City of Montreal-building botanical garden in Maisonneuve park including construction of necessary buildings and correlative works, Dominion contribution not to exceed, $337,500.
Accounts rendered by the province and paid by the dominion with respect to this project aggregate, $337,500.
2.	No information.
3.	No.


STATION CKGW, TORONTO
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Has the radio licence for station CKGW at Toronto been cancelled or renewal thereof refused?
2.	In whose name was the licence for station CKGW previously issued?
3.	Has the wave length occupied by CKGW been assigned to any, other station, and if so, to whom?
4.	If the licence of station CKGW has been cancelled, what are the reasons therefor?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Station CKGW has not been licensed since 1933. From 1933 to 1938 licence for station CRCT, using the apparatus of CKGW, has been issued in the name of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, and later the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
2.	Previous to 1933 the licence for station CKGW was issued to Gooderham and Worts, Toronto.
3.	Yes, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's station CBL, at Hornby, Ontario.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


QUEBEC CITT POST OFFICE STAFF
Mr. TREMBLAY:: 1.	How many employees are there at the post office in Quebec city:	(a) male; (b)
female ?

2.	How many of such employees are: (a) 65 years of age; (b) over 65 years?
3.	What are their names and occupations?
4.	How many of these employees:	(a) are
under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission; (b) how many are not?
5.	What are their names and occupations in each case?
6.	In the case of such employees who are not under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, by whom was each recommended?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) 279 full time, 3 part time; (b) 3.
2.	(a) 1; (b) 3.
3.	Name-Rank-Date of birth: A. Cooper, letter carrier, September 27, 1872; J. S. E. Nadeau, senior postal clerk, May 6, 1872; J. Alex Morin, postal clerk, March 18, 1872; xC. F. Rioux, mail porter, April 11, 1871.
xMr. Rioux has been on leave of absence with pay prior to retirement as from the 11th of April, 1938.
4.	(a) 4; (b) none.
5.	See answer to No. 3.
6.	All the above mentioned employees are occupying civil service positions and come under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government lay on the table of the house copies of the varies orders in council under the Public Enquiries Act appointing the commission presided over by the Honourable Justice Rowell, known as the Rowell commission, and now holding sessions throughout Canada?
2.	Also a copy of any instructions as to their duties, and the scope of their authority as a fact finding commission?
3.	Has any limit been placed on the completion of the report?
4.	Was power given the said commission to investigate: (a) tariff; (b) municipal institutions; (c) taxation; (d) other extraneous matters?
5.	Have any objections been received by the government as to the unnecessary breadth and scope of the inquiry, or are any restrictions being imposed?
6.	Has the attention of the government been called to the dicta and opinions expressed on many matters by the commissioners during the hearings throughout Canada, and on controversial questions?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Return tabled.

Unemployed Men in Vancouver


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, and other documents, dated from January 1, 1937, to date, relating to the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways for the joint operation of the uew Canadian National Railways hotel in Vancouver.


POTASSIUM BROMATE
Mr. MacNEIL:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams, instructions, laboratory tests and other documents, dated during the past year, relating to the use of potassium bromate as an improver or adulterant in flour or bleached flour or in compounds employed by bakers.


MONT LAURIER-SENNETERRE HIGHWAY
Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of the province of Quebec and any provincial officials, and the dominion Department of Labour and any officials thereof, dated from February 1, 1937, to date, respecting the federal contribution to the Mont Laurier-Senneterre highway.


WATERLOO, QUE., MAH, SERVICE
Mr. LECLERC:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents, dated from September 1, 1933, to March 1, 1934, exchanged between the Post Office Department or any officer thereof, and any other person in connection with the carrying of mail between the post office at Waterloo, Quebec, and the railway stations.


RACINE-FOSTER STATION, QUE., MAIL SERVICE
Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents, dated from November 1, 1932, to March 1, 1933, exchanged between the Post Office Department or any officer thereof, and any other persons in connection with the carrying of mail between the post office at Racine, Quebec, and Foster station.


HARRINGTON EAST, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. HEON:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and other documents, in the possession of the Post Office Department, concerning the dismissal of Mrs. J. McRae as postmistress at Harrington Bast, county of Argenteuil, and the appointment of Mr. Roderick McTavish as her successor.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) inform
the house when the budget will be likely to be brought down and whether we may expect it before the Saskatchewan election?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): The Saskatchewan election, of course, has nothing to do with the budget, but negotiations which have been proceeding for some time in Washington, looking to the conclusion of a trade treaty, have everything to do with it. The government has thought it would be desirable, if possible, to include the results of those negotiations in the budget, and while it is as yet uncertain whether that can be accomplished, the government does desire to give as much time as possible to permit it to be done. I shall certainly endeavour to give sufficient advance information as to the date of the budget.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): In this morning's newspaper I find that aldermen of the city of Vancouver have paid $500 to a group of unemployed men who had taken possession, practically speaking, of the hotel Georgia in Vancouver. The hotel Georgia is the second largest hotel in Vancouver, and I think that everyone will appreciate just what this action on the part of the men will mean to the business of that establishment. Everything was conducted in very orderly fashion. These men were in the hotel for practically twenty-seven hours and there was neither riot nor disturbance, but I should like to know what is being done to prevent a recurrence of this incident, because it might very well result in riot and bloodshed.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): In answer to the question just put by the hon. member for Kamloops, I may say that it is within the knowledge of the house that during the past few days some
1,500	single, unemployed men have been demonstrating in the city of Vancouver. The occupation of the hotel Georgia and of the post office and the art gallery was apparently a part of that planned demonstration. We are informed this morning that the hotel Georgia has been vacated by the men in an orderly manner, as stated by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill). I understand that the post office and the art gallery are still being occupied by these single unemployed men.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployed Men in Vancouver
So far as the maintenance of law and order is concerned, that is a matter for the police authorities; and as regards the present situation I have already informed the house that the Minister of Labour in British Columbia stated on Tuesday, May 17, that in the opinion of the provincial government it would be possible to deal with the single unemployed who were properly resident in the province. The Minister of Labour of British Columbia was of the opinion that employment could be found in due course for these men. He stated at the same time that some
1,500	men had come into British Columbia and into the forestry camps which were maintained by the dominion and the province during the winter months, and that British Columbia was not prepared to find employment for these men during the coming summer. In that situation he stated that the province was willing to assist these men from outside the province of British Columbia in returning to their homes, and that policy appeared to be a sensible method of dealing with the immediate situation.
The demonstration conducted by the relief project workers' union in the city of Vancouver has clearly as its object the provision of work for these men. I should like to say simply in that connection that in so far as there are unallotted items for works in the supplementary estimates which were tabled on Friday these will be apportioned in accordance with the actual unemployment situation in the various provinces, having due regard to particular situations which may exist in certain provinces. I should like to make it equally clear, however, that in such apportionment of unallotted items for unemployment works, this government will not be influenced in the slightest degree by threats or by any form of mass demonstration either in British Columbia or in any other province of Canada.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Would the minister answer a supplementary question? Over the weekend I have received a number of communications from Vancouver in this regard and I had intended to take the matter up on another occasion. I should like to know, because of the importance of the question, whether the government will arrange a time for discussion of this matter, because it is one in which the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia are vitally concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, there is always opportunity to discuss any of

these matters when the house moves into committee of supply. It is the intention of the government to continue supply during the present week. We may be expecting it each day so that my hon. friend will have an opportunity then to bring the matter up if he so desires.


Angus MacInnis: I was afraid I might be prevented on such an occasion because of its being raised now.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Angus MacInnis: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in connection with the matter raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Kamloops, (Mr. O'Neill) and replied to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers): For some weeks past a serious situation has been growing in British Columbia and particularly in the city of Vancouver. On several occasions during the past month the matter has been brought to the attention of the government by other members from British Columbia as well as by myself.
It is all very well for the minister to say that the government will not be influenced in the slightest by any demonstrations of the kind that are now taking place in the city of Vancouver, but that does not solve Vancouver's problem. It does not provide for these people who are unemployed, and until we make some satisfactory provision for the unemployed, we shall inevitably have difficulties of this kind. As a matter of fact the situation to-day reminds me very much of the condition that prevailed in the spring of 1935, which culminated in the riots at Regina on the first of July of that year. Surely this government with the experience before it which the previous government had, is not going to let matters drift until real trouble develops as in 1935. That is what we must avoid, and if drastic steps must be taken, then let that be done. But first we should make sure that there is no other way by which we can find a solution for our difficulties. I

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
do not believe we have made sure that there are not other ways by which we can deal with this question.
Yesterday I received the following wire from Vancouver:
That 1,500 single unemployed including a large non-residence proportion are occupying the Hotel Georgia, the post office and the art gallery as means of drawing their plight to public attention. We feel that assurance of work from the government upon a government plan or any assurance of work will meet situation. Otherwise fear serious consequences will ensue. Urge immediate action.
This telegram is signed not merely by one individual but by fourteen people prominent in the civic life of Vancouver and in the legislature of British Columbia. It is signed by six out of the eight aldermen in Vancouver, and by seven members of the provincial legislature, including Liberals, Conservatives, and members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, also by one British Columbia cabinet minister, as well as by the chief of police, W. W. Foster, of the city of Vancouver.
I submit that the statement made in the house to-day by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is not a satisfactory reply in relation to the problem which to-day confronts Vancouver. If it was not the intention that these men should establish domicile in British Columbia they should not have been given employment in the first place; since they were employed for the whole or part of the winter on the forestry projects in that province, I do not think it is a satisfactory way of dealing with them now to say that they shall not get relief and shall not be given government employment in British Columbia.
When we were debating the unemployment relief and agricultural assistance bill the member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black) made a striking appeal to the members of the house to be sympathetic and to go easy with the Minister of Labour. I did not say anything after the member for the Yukon had spoken, although I thought a great deal; and contrasted the position of the Minister of Labour with that of thousands of young men in this dominion. It is true that the minister works very hard, but it is equally true that he has many compensations for his hard work.


Mr. ROGERS:: I have made no complaints.


Angus MacInnis: Certainly not, and I think the minister will also agree that the discussion that took place and the hammering he received, such as it was, was not directed at him personally; it was done simply because 51952-198
many of us felt that it was a duty we owed to our constituents to bring their difficulties to the attention of the minister and of the government.
Let us look at the situation as far as these men are concerned. Young men, after four and five and in some cases six years of unemployment, are now facing the same hopeless conditions. Here they are in the spring of the year, when all nature is bursting into life, when people ordinarily should feel the stirrings of new life in their being, compelled to look forward to another hopeless summer and an equally hopeless fall and winter, and possibly nothing better next year. Let me say again that the minister's statement is not a satisfactory reply.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
permit a question, would he be inclined to alter what he has just said if he accepted the truth of my statement, which comes from the Minister of Labour of British Columbia, that of the men who were in the forestry camps last year some 2,500 did not return this year, the obvious inference being that they had either returned to their homes or found employment elsewhere in the interval. I do not think it is proper, in other words, to suggest that all these men have not other means of finding employment or shelter.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know that the minister's remarks have altered the situation in any way whatsoever. If these 2,500 men who did not return to the forestry camps this year after working there last year found work somewhere else, of course, that is all to the good, but what avails it? Others have taken their place. I have not the figures before me at the moment showing the numbers unemployed in 1937 and in 1938. Nevertheless the fact is that we have about an equal number, possibly more, possibly less, and we are still confronted with the same conditions. If we do not do something the authorities in British Columbia and in Vancouver will have to take some action, and it is just possible that the dominion government will be drawn in. Would it not be far better for this government to take action now while the men, if in a determined mood, are yet in a mood for conciliation and settlement? I do hope that we shall get from the government something more satisfactory to the people of Vancouver than the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Labour.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I do so



Unemployed Men in Vancouver
because of communications I have received from responsible citizens of Vancouver, and also because, as the minister is aware, I had very close contact with the negotiations in connection with similar situations which have arisen in previous years.
I am disappointed in the statement made by the minister. The information that reaches me shows that the situation to-day is almost an exact repetition of those which have occurred in previous years. If we have learned anything from the most distressing experiences of previous years it is the necessity of dealing promptly and in a satisfactory way with this problem which is peculiar to the city of Vancouver.
May I point out to the minister that this is not an organized concentration of unemployed transients in the city of Vancouver. He must be well aware that this is a very natural gathering of men who, under the policies of the government-not only this particular government but because of economic conditions that exist in Canada-in their effort to secure casual employment find that city the terminus of their drifting as transients. They find casual work in other portions of the province and drift along, but at various times there is a gathering or concentration of men, due to economic and employment conditions in British Columbia and the adjacent provinces. It is hardly fair for the minister to reply to-day and say he is depending on the assurances of the Minister of Labour in British Columbia; for, as I am well aware from experience in the past, the Minister of Labour in British Columbia and the civic authorities cannot act, cannot devise a satisfactory plan, until they receive a very definite assurance from the dominion government of some form of cooperation, some disposition to share the responsibilities which are not properly those of the city of Vancouver or the province of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) brought this matter to the attention of the minister earlier in the session, but again may I remind the minister that when I was called upon to interview him at the hotel Vancouver shortly after his return from Geneva, on behalf of the men, for week after week the social service agencies of Vancouver, by dint of strenuous effort-and possibly gambling on some support from unknown sources- had looked after the men who were without food and shelter, in order to prevent any open disorder. The moment the minister announced the agreement with the provincial Minister of Labour and informed the delegation representing the men that they could

register to receive temporary food and shelter, at that moment the disorder or any suggestion of disorder ended. The men quietly registered and accepted the plan devised, but during those weeks of delay riots did occur. Men were sent to gaol; some three hundred were sent to Oakalla, and two men were sent to the British Columbia penitentiary. I submit that these men would not have been sentenced and that this disorder would not have occurred if action had been taken earlier, and I think the same may be said of the situation which arose during the previous year.
At this time, because of our experience on past occasions, I earnestly implore that the minister lay aside some of the usual constitutional objections with regard to negotiations, admit that a very definite problem exists there that may result in serious disorder, and recognize all the facts and circumstances. There are men in Vancouver at this moment without food and shelter; otherwise the city of Vancouver would not have permitted a tag day the other day, nor would the citizens of Vancouver have supported that tag day so generously. The plain, ugly fact is that men are without food and shelter, and naturally if they cannot successfully negotiate in their own interests they may resort to methods which to-day the minister says he cannot countenance.
The transportation plan is equally unsatisfactory. As the minister is well aware, by reason of economic and employment conditions a large majority of those men have sacrificed their right of domicile at other points. If they returned to any points designated, they would be denied any form of relief or employment. Coupled with that situation, as the minister tacitly admitted, there has been a break-down of the Employment Service of Canada. No satisfactory provision has been made for the dovetailing of seasonal employment, and certainly if employment is available at other points in British Columbia in my opinion there are no adequate facilities for providing transportation to such points. I also direct the attention of the minister to the fact that I have received a telegram from the provincial president of the Canadian Legion in British Columbia, who says that included among these unemployed is a large number of ex-service men. I think the minister, in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) should give some consideration to that aspect of the situation. Surely those men cannot be held to have sacrificed their domicile and be denied relief because they

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
naturally seek employment in a climate where they will not be unduly handicapped by their disabilities.
I do urge the minister to drop the usual official attitude and not be unduly harsh in dealing with this situation. Open up channels of negotiation with the men immediately with respect to all deserving cases, that is, men without food and shelter who cannot establish domicile and secure relief or employment at other points; and, I urge that some temporary provision be made until satisfactory employment projects are worked out in consultation with the provincial authorities.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Before the minister deals with the question I should like to make one or two observations. A moment ago the minister said that the government would not be influenced by demonstrations. As a matter of fact during the last four or five years the history of this unemployment problem has shown that the government has been influenced by demonstrations. It was not until after a considerable demonstration last autumn that there was a reopening of the camps and some forestry work supplied. Then we had the very tragic case of the Regina riots. I think it was in 1935 that there were riots in Vancouver, when five thousand men marched through the Hudson's Bay store and did considerable damage, though much less than one probably would expect under the circumstances. But it has been as a result of demonstrations of this kind that action has been taken.
As a matter of fact we are training these men to demonstrate; that is the unfortunate part of it. We have known, the minister has known, the province of British Columbia has known, and the country generally has known, that these men began to congregate in Vancouver after the camps were closed on May 1, a matter of two or three weeks ago. The time to have anticipated this trouble was a couple of weeks ago, but now that the men have taken possession of a large hotel-and it is a large hotel-and of the post office, it becomes a pretty serious matter. The strange part of the whole thing is that where these men have demonstrated, either in these circumstances or at other times, comparatively speaking the demonstration has been orderly. These men are learning that it is better to do it in that way, but the long and short of it is that all they want is a job.
A moment ago the minister said-and I ask him to correct me if I am wrong, because I noted his observation-that some 2,500 men had gone out of the camps and many of them
51952-198i
apparently had found work. He cited that, to use his own words, as an indication that these men have other means of finding work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said employment or shelter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they have not; that has been demonstrated clearly. We know that not only in this instance but at other times in the past men of this class-in this case some 1,500, last fall a couple of thousand and numbers running on other occasions into several thousands-had no shelter and no food until citizens, and very responsible citizens, acted on their behalf. Steps were taken by boards of trade and others; on two or three occasions the clergy of the city of Vancouver sent forward urgent appeals, and it was not until after appeals by organized groups of citizens, apart from the men themselves, that action was taken and food and shelter supplied. Then we had the tin canners, as we called them-men standing on street corners holding tin cans trying to get enough money for food. I stated in the house, I think last session, that I had personally investigated a number of these cases. I talked to the men and inquired into their circumstances, where they came from, and so forth, and as far as I could judge-and I am a fair judge of men of this type-I did not find a case where the man was not entitled to the opportunity to work. In other words he was not what we commonly call, in crude language, a " bum " or a vagrant. He was a man out of work, though wanting work and willing to work. I will not say they are all that way, because we know there is always a certain type which will enter into a demonstration of that kind. But I would say that ninety per cent of them, and probably more, are simply men who want jobs.
Another observation of the minister which I think cannot be allowed to pass without some measure of challenge was to the effect that the maintenance of order is the duty of the police. Technically and constitutionally speaking that is true. But what are the police of a city like Vancouver to do when one or two thousand men gather together in a body to make a demonstration? The only crime they are committing is that they are hungry and have no shelter. I submit that the police, who after all are human beings with human feelings, know that these fellows are not criminals. They know these unemployed men are not trying to break the law. Naturally the police stand by. Certainly they stand by until something in the nature of a riot happens. But what a terrible thing a riot is! I suppose most hon. members have had some experience with them. Unfortunately in the last number of years we have had several in Vancouver.

Unemployed, Men in Vancouver
Riots occurred when men reached the point where their anger got the better of them; all restraint was gone and we had angry mobs.
I do not know of anything more terrifying than an angry mob.
We do not want these men to be reduced to a condition where the police will have to use their batons to maintain order or to oust them from some shelter. No one will justify their taking possession of a hotel. But I suppose the obvious answer would be: Where can we go? The local people say, "We are willing to take care of our share of the unemployed." The provincial authorities say, "We are willing to take care of our people." But a census has been taken and it is shown -I understand the minister has the precise figures-that at least 1,500 are men who have domiciles elsewhere, who do not belong to British Columbia at all, and have no real claim upon that province. But they are there. They have been in the camps all winter, and it is not fair simply to say to the police of Vancouver, "Your duty is to maintain order." They know that. And it is not fair to say to the government of British Columbia, "It is your task to take care of these unemployed."
The minister said a moment ago that he had made certain provision by items in the estimates; I suppose he meant the supplementary estimates-in fact he said he meant the supplementary estimates. Let us look at those items; let us see where he is going to provide for this emergency which is immediately before us. The first item is "To provide for commitments under relief settlement agreements with provincial governments." That item cannot be drawn on.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I correct the hon. member?-because I know he wishes to get at the truth. I referred to the supplementary estimates in general. As he knows, there are expenditures under various departments including a number of larger items which are not assigned to particular projects or areas. So that in whatever the hon. member is doing obviously he should not confine himself to the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That of course has some force. I was looking at the minister's own estimates.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; I was referring to the supplementary estimates generally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That rather amuses me, because I have had experience for a great many years with estimates, both in putting them through and in criticizing others who have been trying to put them through. I have

read over these estimates; I believe they convey about as much to me as they do to any other hon. member, and I imagine one can look closely and with microscopic care without finding very much in them which would meet the present situation. I find page after page containing votes for wharves, buildings, and this, that and the other thing, distributing moneys very wisely, or with a great deal of skill-I shall put it that way-to the different constituencies. I imagine a number of members will feel more or less pleased when they see the contributions made to their ridings in these estimates. But if we were to say to the 1,500 hungry men in the city of Vancouver that somewhere hidden away among these pages there is an estimate in which some money can be found to deal with their case, I imagine they would not be satisfied. The minister has failed to meet the emergency; not only has he failed, but he has repudiated responsibility. The position which I mentioned earlier in the session is the one which has been taken right along. I am not fastening this particularly on the minister, because I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) takes and the former government took the same position, namely, that the responsibility rests upon the provinces and municipalities. That is the constitutional position, and I am not disputing it. But when you come to an emergency of this kind it is of little value to say to 1,500 hungry, destitute and homeless men that "the constitution does not permit us to do anything."
We cannot wait for the Rowell commission. Representations have been pouring in to the commission from every province in Canada, from almost every city the commission has visited-some of them on this very point, namely, the inability of municipalities and provinces to carry the burden of relief. They have not the resources. We might as well face the issue.
But the thing which disappointed me to-day was the stand taken by the minister. He takes a defeatist attitude, an attitude which does not recognize the fact that we have not yet approached a solution of the problem. We have not seriously attacked the problem or thought out a solution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does he believe that to create a preferred condition for transients with respect to works in British Columbia

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
would help the transients problem in that province? I should like to have an answer to the question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer it, very readily and without hesitancy. The first thing that must be done is to see that these men do not go hungry and are not deprived of the ordinary shelter required by human beings. That is the first thing. I recognize the fact that behind all this there are great economic problems facing this and other countries. My complaint and my quarrel, if I may say so, with the government-with parliament, if you like-is that we of the parliament are not tackling the underlying problem. Until we attack the underlying problem and move steadily towards a permanent solution, then obviously we must take the responsibility for the emergencies which face us while we delay doing so. That is the position I take. I say to the minister that we cannot and we dare not in this instance, and in similar instances which first thing we know will arise elsewhere, disregard these things. I deplore leaving the matter until men get desperate and see fit to occupy a hotel. I was shocked when I learned what had happened. It seemed to me that even at desperate local cost an effort should have been made to head off action of that kind. But it has occurred.
I remember a couple of winters ago many of these men used to walk into restaurants, eat their food and then say, "We have no money; what are you going to do about it?" Of course arrests were made, men were sent to prison, and all that sort of thing. But, Mr. Speaker, that is neither allaying the trouble and lessening the discord and bitterness nor finding a solution. I would urge upon the government that it should not try too much the patience of these unfortunate men.
I know what will be said. Some will say that this is really stirring them up. But frankly we have to face the facts in the house. We must be realistic. Where it is known and admitted that there is a body of men who have no just domicile in the city, those men should not be left on the doorstep of the city for maintenance and care. It is not inconsistent with what parliament has done for eight years, namely, to recognize that there is a national emergency in connection with the unemployment problem, and to take up the slack. We have done it, but, as I said a moment ago, the trouble is that we have usually waited until an emergency arose and some violence was shown before stepping in.
That is only encouraging men to indulge in these things. While I am all with the minister that we should not be dragooned into action, if we precipitate action by our negligence and refusal to recognize a situation, then we as the parliament of Canada must take more responsibility than the men themselves.
As one of the hon. members who spoke before me said, the minister should notify the local authorities in British Columbia at once that the federal government will take up the slack in this case immediately and that they have in mind some solution of the problem. It has to be done. These men cannot starve. I can remember in the old days men used to drift off and scatter around the country and get something to do. But those days have passed; men cannot go out now and pick up a job here or there. Our whole economic structure has changed, and these conditions that some people treat somewhat lightly are really more severe than seems to be realized. The great bulk of these men are unable to get work, but they are willing to work and I do not think parliament can sit here and quietly pass over the matter with a disclaimer of constitutional authority.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at once that there has been no disclaimer on the ground of constitutional authority. That phrase has never been used by me in relation to this matter. As I have stated before to the house, the men who are the subject of this discussion were given employment during the winter months in dominion-provincial forestry conservation projects. They were not paid merely a sustenance allowance; they received thirty cents an hour during t he time they were in the camp,


Mr. LAWSON:: How many months would they be there?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The camps were opened about the middle of October and were closed on April 30. This has been the practice followed in previous years. This project was designed rather as a winter relief project for single homeless men. Some portion of the pay of these men was deferred and made payable to them in the form of post office vouchers after their employment in the camps had ended. Some 4,700 men were sheltered in the camps during the past winter months, which is somewhat less than the number sheltered in similar camps during the previous year. While the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was speaking I indicated that the Department of Labour in British Columbia had kept an accurate record of the

Unemployed, Men in Vancouver
men who had passed through these forestry camps. It is a matter of some significance that 2,500 of the men who were in the camps in the previous year did not return this year. Clearly they have either found employment in British Columbia or returned to their homes in other parts of Canada.
I should like to make this point clear. Nothing has been said here this afternoon which would suggest in any way that this government has been indifferent to this special problem. As a matter of fact I am quite sure that I can convince hon. members on all sides of this house that we have dealt with this special problem in a sound and constructive wray. Some time ago we had these large concentrations of single unemployed men in all the cities across this country. You do not find that to-day. During the past year it was only necessary to establish special projects to deal with this problem in the prairie provinces and in British Columbia. In the prairie provinces we used a farm employment plan under which some 45,000 men were placed during the winter months. I have not the actual figures before me, but I want to say that a gratifying proportion of these men have been enabled to remain in farm employment after the government bonus was withdrawn. Some little while ago the mayor of Regina stated that it was apparent that many of these men were remaining with the farmers who had employed them upon the basis of their receiving wages from the crop expected this autumn. The special payments to these men and to the farmers ceased on April 30. Only the other day I received a statement from the Minister of Labour of Manitoba to the effect that just under 3,000 of the young men who had been placed with farmers during the winter months had made wage contracts with those farmers and are to remain in their employ. Our information, which is based upon authoritative grounds, is that the problem of the single unemployed men in the cities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is less acute this year than it has been for many years.
Under the plan which gave single men employment in forestry conservation camps in British Columbia we created what might be termed preferred conditions in that province. I am not quarrelling with what was done, but the fact is that we paid the prevailing rates of wages, which was much more than was received by the men working under the farm employment plan in the prairie provinces. In the very nature of things this became known throughout the
I Mr. Rogers.]
prairie provinces and we had a certain movement, particularly from the drought areas and the cities of western Canada, to British Columbia in order that the higher wages might be received in the forestry camps. As I have said, we closed the camps this year in substantially the same manner as they had been closed in other years. They were not continued through the summer months in other years. When the camps were closed the men had deferred vouchers coming to them for a period of weeks.


James Earl Lawson: Approximately what percentage of the wages was deferred?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the actual
percentage. A man paid seventy-five cents a day for board, and I believe about half of what was coming to him was held back in the form of post office vouchers.


James Earl Lawson: Surely it would not have
been possible for a man to spend half of what he earned between May 1 and May 23.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The men were not all
continuously employed during the entire period the camps were operated. There was a rotation of the men, but when they left the camps they had some resources in the form of these post office vouchers. We have found from previous experience that this was the best method of dealing with this particular situation. The same thing was done in connection with the closing of the relief camps and the special maintenance work on the railways. I do not think there is any doubt that these men were induced to remain in Vancouver in order that through the strength of numbers and the influence which numbers might bring to bear upon governments, either the forestry camps would be reopened or some special project would be created for their employment. That suggestion is supported by circumstantial evidence. I am not implying that there is anything criminal in that action, in so far as it merely expresses the desire of those men that they should have these special projects provided for them.
As to the question whether or not this government has sought in any way to escape its responsibility for dealing with this question, I should like to make it clear that from the beginning of this month we have been keping closely in touch with the situation. But I am sure it must appeal to the reason of everyone here that those who are actually face to face with the situation- the provincial government, for example, and its officials-who have to deal with this transiency problem from year to year in that

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
province, are in a better position to advise as to the course of policy than we who are three thousand miles away. Mr. Pearson, the Minister of Labour of British Columbia, made a public statement on Tuesday, May 17, with respect to this question. I propose to place this statement on Hansard. It is brief; on the other hand, it is put in very definite, unequivocal terms:
During the winter season of 1937-38 the provincial government in cooperation with the dominion government, have provided relief through our forest development plan to 1,800 single homeless men who were recent arrivals from other provinces and in the province before November 1, 1937.
We believe that during the summer months it is possible for these single men who are our own residents to find sufficient work to provide for themselves during the summer and in many cases also during the winter, but the added burden of the accumulation from other provinces makes it difficult for our own residents to get the work that is available.
The province of British Columbia does not intend to make provincial forest development projects available to those from outside the province next winter, nor to provide any other form of assistance for them.
We feel that it is desirable that the 1,800 men who have been supported in this province during the past winter in forest development projects should return to the province from which they came as rapidly as possible.
In order to make this possible the provincial government will assist those men to return to the province of previous residence, and it is requested that these men make application to 581 Homer street, Vancouver, for such assistance.
That was the statement made by the Minister of Labour of British Columbia. There is nothing in it that is provocative; there is nothing in it that is callous; there is merely the statement that in the view of the government of British Columbia the most sensible way to deal with this situation was to afford transportation to their homes to the former members of the forest conservation camps who had come from other provinces.
I had occasion some time after that statement was made to say that it appeared to be a reasonable way of dealing with the camp situation and that it had my full support as Minister of Labour of the dominion government. I believe that upon reflection one must acknowledge that what we have here to deal with is the problem of transiency. Do you want to take action which is going to increase transiency, or do you want to take action which is going to decrease transiency? If you adopt a certain policy with relation to this matter, if you put transients in a preferred position, or if you place the province of British Columbia with reference
to these men in a preferred position, can anyone urge reasonably that this is going to correct the transiency situation in British Columbia? On the contrary, is it not obvious that to create preferred conditions of that kind in British Columbia will attract transients to that province from other provinces and in the long run you will have an aggravation and not an improvement of the situation? That is why in the opinion of the province of British Columbia the best way to deal with this situation was to afford these men the opportunity to return to their homes so that British Columbia could deal with its own residents, even as other provinces are dealing with their own residents.
I should like to express satisfaction that in the discussion of this question so far there has been no evidence of bitterness or of undue indignation. We have discussed it in a temperate and moderate way. Surely that is the manner in which these questions ought to be discussed. But may I suggest that one does not solve these problems by sudden concessions to immediate demands. You may by such concessions create more difficult problems than those you seek to solve. And if one follows this whole question through, I believe it cannot but be admitted that the proposal made by the Minister of Labour of British Columbia was a sensible proposal in the circumstances, and I feel that those who have urged these men from other provinces to remain in Vancouver under existing conditions have not given good advice.
Before I close I should like to remove any doubt in the mind of any hon. member, particularly of those from the city of Vancouver who have spoken, that there is any lack of sympathetic understanding of this problem upon the part of this government. What I said with reference to our not being influenced with respect to the apportionment of estimates in this or that area or to this or that project because of mass demonstrations or intimidation is a statement which no one can question. A government that surrenders to threats what it cannot concede to reason has already abdicated. That is abundantly clear. We will at all times seek to deal with this question upon a basis of consultation and cooperation with the provincial governments. And we believe that up to this time the measures proposed by the provincial government have been measures which deserve the support of those immediately affected.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister permit a question before he completes his statement? In the first place, do his reports indicate

Unemployed. Men in Vancouver
whether or not a large percentage of these men are without relief vouchers which would supply them with food and shelter? Secondly, is it not true that a large number of them cannot designate any home; that they are actually without homes and cannot return to any particular area where they will receive aid in the way either of employment or of relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point I have the assurance of the provincial government that when these men entered forestry camps a record was taken of the place from which each one came, and there is every reason to believe that on the basis of those records their transportation can be effected in a way which will safeguard them and the communities concerned. As to the other question, that of relief to be afforded to them in the meantime, that is a question in the nature of things which has to be decided at the instance of the provincial government. As I understand it, the provincial government have made it clear that they are able to deal with those transients, former members of these forestry conservation camps, who were resident within the province, but they have stated at the same time that the non-residents ought to accept the offer of transportation to their homes. When that is done and these men do return to their homes the provinces concerned will be in a position to decide the manner in which they will deal with individual cases.


James Earl Lawson: Would the minister permit another question? I have to ask it now because it may be that under the rules the minister will not have an opportunity to speak again if someone else gets the floor. There must be data available in the minister's department which would indicate to hon. members who are sincerely seeking information in connection with this situation the average amount of money in deferred pay which these
1,500	men would receive or should have received or have received between the first and the twenty-third of May, if the camps closed on April 30. I would ask the minister to make available to the house any information that his department has of that kind. One factor in our consideration of the degree of sympathy which should be extended to these men would be some indication as to whether their being without food and shelter by the twenty-third of May was justified by circumstances beyond their control.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: While the treatment I have received from the departments of immigration and fisheries would make me feel like taking advantage of any opportunity to throw bricks at the govern-

ment, yet a saving sense of fairness leads me to say a few words in support of the attitude of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) although he appears to be abundantly able to take care of himself. It is easy for us here to find fault with the Minister of Labour. He is here, he is before us, and he is at one end of a 3,000 mile string; and we are not in as good a position to know what is going on at the other end as we might be. But I ask myself this question: Does no blame attach to the officials in British Columbia? The minister has been kept informed of what has happened, yes. We can all do that; the newspapers will inform us. But was he not entitled to what I might call "advance information"? People who are paid to be in the position of the Minister of Labour and those under him are supposed to keep their fingers on the pulse of public sentiment whether it be on the street or in labour camps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would certainly not wish to do any injustice to the officials of the Department of Labour in British Columbia. I did inform the house that I had been kept advised of developments in Vancouver through the Minister of Labour of British Columbia. I have been in communication with him by telephone on several occasions and I was aware of the statement he made on Tuesday, May 17, which I have placed on the records of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. That was made on the eve of a provincial by-election. I was not referring to a statement of what was happening but rather to what was going to happen. Was the minister advised that action of the kind indicated was anticipated?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The action set forth in this statement? Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg your pardon?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I say, I was advised that action of the kind set forth in this statement was anticipated. I had no preknowledge of later events that have occurred in the last three days.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not talking about what action the minister would take, but what the men were likely to do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I had no foreknowledge of that.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Norman McLeod Rogers: The lay-offs were staggered through March and April.


Alan Webster Neill: -and then advised to go to their homes, with such assistance as might have been given them. But no attempt was made to handle the situation along these lines.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The departure from the
camps was staggered through the months of March and April. The men began to leave the camps early in March and the final number left at the middle of April.


Alan Webster Neill: Had any considerable proportion left before the end of the month?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I have not the actual figures, but the movement out began in March.


Alan Webster Neill: But the final disruption took place in one day, on the 30th of April, and then the men congregated in Vancouver, where they produced the situation which is now before us. If the matter had been handled in the manner I have suggested the minister would have found, as he will still find, that a certain proportion of the men-and they are probably the men most open to suggestion from agitators and others of that sort-have no homes to go to. They have been travelling around as transients so long that neither Regina nor the province of Saskatchewan will recognize them and they will be repudiated there, so that they will certainly have to be taken care of in the province of British Columbia. However, we are faced with the situation and something must be done about it, and I am going to make a suggestion which I think might be considered.
These men have been excellently trained in bush work, logging and so on, a training that is of no use to them in the prairies. But there is plenty of work of that kind under government auspices that could be initiated at this moment, and I would mention one in particular. A number of years ago a lighthouse and wireless station was established at a place called Estevan Point. The coast is rocky and it is difficult to land supplies, so
Unemployed, Men in Vancouver

that lighthouse tenders were delayed on many occasions. It was decided to establish a better landing at a greater distance. The suggestion was made that, naturally, they would need communication in order to get oil, coal and other supplies, and against my strong recommendation it was decided not to 'build a light steel railway as had been already done for a shorter distance, but to make a road. I do not think it is unfair to say that this work was carried out in the worst possible manner. The road was carelessly located in the wrong place where it was foredoomed to failure and liable to be washed out. The result was that after a while we had to patch it up, and we are now patching up road that we first put down. As a matter of fact, we have not yet done the whole road. I drove over it in a Ford truck some time ago and covered the five miles in an hour and a quarter in low gear. That will give you an idea of the sort of road it is. I took the matter up with the department and in the course of time they recognized the mistake they had made. They had their engineers report on it and it was agreed to locate the road over a new site on a higher level; where for an expenditure of $30,000 originally a real road could have been made, a road that would cost almost nothing to maintain. As a matter of fact, we spent $15,000 to begin with and have been spending $3,000 every year for ten or fifteen years, and have nothing to show for that expenditure except a very bad road, indeed the burlesque of a road. The department concerned put an item of $30,000 in the estimates, but it does not appear in the supplementaries so I presume it fell by the wayside in that mysterious place known as the treasury board. That is money that could have been spent, not just to make work, but to make money for the government because once spent they would not have had to meet this annual maintenance charge. This is the season of the year that the work should be done, early summer coming on and the best of labour conditions. It is no good doing the work in the winter, with the perpetual wet that prevails there. You have these men idle in Vancouver, and probably half of them would be willing to go back to their homes, Those who have no homes but have this technical training in such work could be put to road building, which is exactly the work they have been trained for, and that would meet the emergent situation.
As the members from Vancouver have said, the situation is there and you have to deal with it now; it is no good theorizing about it. If that $30,000 had been set aside, or to

use the minister's words that amount of unallocated funds had been used to go on with the building of this road, the province of British Columbia has road-building machinery available and the money would have been spent with the best posible benefit, and with a very big return from the $30,000 expenditure, and it would meet the situation in Vancouver today. But if you go on simply talking about it and passing resolutions and saying what ought to have been done, what is going to be the situation in Vancouver? What damages will be collected from some government for the damage done to the hotel owing to its occupation by these men? I understand that the member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) said that the aldermen united and gave $500 to get these men out. Who is going to pay the damages to the hotel? And who is going to get the men out of the post office? These questions are urgent and are here to-day. There is that road waiting to be built. It is not a political thing at all; it is intended to be done, and there are the men able and willing to do it and urgently needing the work. I suggest that the minister should consider it. It need be only a matter of hours before the work could be started. There is a report in the department by a competent engineer laying out where the route should be and its advantages over the present site.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I need offer no apology for my courteously sympathetic words to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) the other evening. In fact, I can quite imagine myself at times feeling sorry for the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) for perhaps a different reason. But we have on the coast, in Vancouver, a sore that is fast degenerating into a running sore. It is worse than a double nettle, and we have got to make up our minds to get rid of it. Undoubtedly many of these men who left the camps after a winter there had a little money, but I know from experience that men coming in from logging camps, where many of them have been working for high wages, spend practically every cent they have with them in a week or ten days or less than a month, and then they come to the agency begging for an advance on the work they are going to do next season. Youth is hot and adventurous and spends money freely on what we perhaps of the older generation call nonsense and foolishness.
I feel that I can speak fairly plainly now because the boy of mine who went over a year ago used frequently to visit the camps

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
of the unemployed under the previous government, and speaking in confidence to his mother he said, "Mother, the men in these camps are far better off than the privates in the army. They get money. They have the camps. They can come and go as they please. They are under no discipline. The privates in the army are in camps but they are under a very severe discipline." And he said, "My idea"-and it is my own idea now- "is that these men should either be put in camps to work constantly or join the army." We are begging men to join our army because we may need them some day. Why should we do that when we are taking care of men who are doing nothing? Far 'be it from me to advocate a Hitler or a Mussolini in this country. But when I hear young children to-day telling their mothers to "shut up"- "I hate you"- "I won't do it"-I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what we are breeding and what we are going to have in this and the coming generation? As I said the other day, boys in Vancouver, in British Columbia, from twelve to twenty years of age, are disobeying the law and being sent to the gaol and the penitentiary. Why? Because in the first place they have not been brought up properly at home. I am not ashamed to say now that when I was seventeen years old I spoke most disrespectfully to my mother, and my father knocked me down. When I gathered myself up he said, "Go to your room. Never let me hear you speak to your mother again in that manner." It was pretty hard discipline for a young girl, but I look back now and I thank God that I had such a father to discipline me, and he disciplined us all. If the children of to-day were disciplined as the children of that day were, we would have a better race. They are in some families.
On the coast of British Columbia, in Vancouver, we have a climate far better than any other climate in Canada, and naturally people tend to migrate there. I don't believe at all in saying, because you come from Saskatchewan, I in Alberta am not going to give you a mouthful; or, because you come from Nova Scotia, I here in Ontario will see you starve. Because, after all, we are all people of Canada. It is a federal matter. People should not be allowed to starve as long as they are willing to work. I do not care who the minister is, I do not care who the man or the woman is, whether it be prince or pauper; I can offer my sympathy to them when they are in personal sorrow or when they are labouring under great mental stress. A mother's heart perhaps is a little softer than the heart of an ordinary member
unmarried or one who has no children. She may be foolishly sentimental, according to others, but at the same time we can see far into the future. This is a marvellous land. From east to west there is everything to make the country desirable. We have unlimited resources, we have members from both sides of the house talking about the development of these resources, but they can be developed only by our hands. It is up to our younger people to have the opportunity to develop these resources, and surely the minister and the government will evolve a way of developing them.
I thought when relief was given in the first place, many years ago, that it was a mistake. I have never had anything for nothing; I have always had to work for it. I think all ablebodied men and women and children should have to work for all they get. It is a different matter with men who are not well and with women who are unable because of family duties to go outside and work, and we should have a paternal attitude towards them. But just as sure as there is a heaven overhead, if we are not going to go a little deeper into this matter of unemployment, some day we are going to have a revolution. I am not so much afraid of a revolution in this country as in a country where people have more of the Gallic or high-strung temperament. We shall be slow, but eventually we must look out for our unemployed or there will be trouble.
In British Columbia there is always more or less crime. The police of the neighbouring state of Washington shove their undesirables over to us, and in turn we shove our undesirables over to them, so I can well imagine that many of these unemployed men may not come from Ontario or Saskatchewan. They may come from the other side of the line; it is difficult to tell. But surely we cannot allow men to go in and take possession of a federal building. After all, that is ours, yours and mine; it is not the property of the people of Vancouver alone. Surely we cannot allow that to happen. We must not have riots, with broken heads, broken hearts and perhaps men killed now and then. We must think; we must work hard, and I have enough faith in the government of to-day to believe that they are doing the very best they possibly can, if not for the sake of the unemployed, if not for the sake of the individuals, at least for the sake of their own reputations. I cannot look at one side of the house and think those men are all the best that God put on earth, any more than I can look at the other side of the house and think those men are all the worst. I think

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
perhaps when hon. members criticize me and other hon. members of this house, in their hearts they may have the idea that they know what is right, or that they could solve the problem. I have no such idea. I do not know, and I feel sorry for those who have that burden to bear, but it is a burden they must assume. They have accepted these positions and they must bring us out of the mire of despond in which we now find ourselves.
Many of these unemployed men went to Vancouver with money in. their pockets. With care that money might have lasted two, three or four weeks, or perhaps two months. But, as I have said, young blood is hot, and the money goes quickly. Then they are led away by agitators, of whom, alas, there are far too many, not only on the prairies or in British Columbia, but all over Canada. Somebody with a glib tongue comes along to stir up those who are less glib or those not so well balanced.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): In asking my question to-day I seem to have stirred up a field day at the expense of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I assure him I had not that intention, but in this discussion I have noticed something that I think should be mentioned at this time. The supplementary estimates have been just brought down, providing quite a large sum of money that will be used principally to relieve the unemployment situation. But it is now almost June 1. A good deal of that money is for public buildings, and after these estimates have been approved by the house plans must be prepared, tenders must be called for, and in all about three months will elapse before construction is actually started. By that time unfavourable weather conditions will have set in, and either the projects will have to be abandoned until next year or men will have to work under very adverse conditions and at much greater cost to the government than would be the case if we were ready to start work now.
I am not particularly directing these observations against the present government, because this sort of thing has gone on in this country for years and years. I do not know whether or not it is because of the fact that we have the fiscal year ending at the wrong time; I do not know whether that has anything to do with it. Personally I do not see why there should be any difference between the end of the calendar year and the end of the fiscal year, but certainly we should be starting work on these projects now instead of possibly the first of September. I know we

cannot correct that situation this year, but I think it is something every hon. member should take into consideration, to see if there is not some way of overcoming the difficulty so that work may be started in the spring of the year rather than in the fall.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I think there is a good deal of force to the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. O'Neill) but in considering the difficulty to which the hon. member has referred it may be helpful if I point out that with respect to the supplementary estimates now before the house I know that many departments have their plans well advanced in order to enable quick action to be taken with respect to many of the projects contemplated under the supplementary estimates. In order still further to facilitate action along that line I hope to ask the house either to-day or to-morrow for interim supply on the main estimates-this being necessary, of course, because of the near approach of the end of May, which is the limit of our present authority in that regard-and also for a proportion of the amounts involved in the supplementary estimates, in order that work may be provided as quickly as possible in connection with projects as to which the preliminary work has been done by the departments concerned.
The criticism of my hon. friend is quite proper and does apply to government work generally. You cannot proceed until you get your authorization; and even in asking for interim supply of course it must be a condition that the granting of such supply does not debar criticism or consideration of any individual item. That is the usual condition, but I just wanted to assure my hon. friend that every effort will be made by the departments concerned to get under way immediately with projects for which definite plans exist; and they do exist with respect to quite a number of matters contemplated by the various departments.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: When we consider this question of unemployment, which has been brought up on the motion to go into supply by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), supported by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), answered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and dealt with by the various other hon. members who have spoken this afternoon. including the only lady member in the house to-day, the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black), I think it well that our attention should not be directed only to the three or four provinces west of Ontario. I think we

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
should have a thought also for the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the maritime provinces as well.
I well remember walking out of this house after prorogation last year with my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I was afraid that the closing of the camp at Halifax, on Citadel Hill, might be a mistake, that the expectations of the Minister of Labour might not be realized, and as we walked along I said to the Minister of National Defence, "Close it if you will, but keep it in such condition that if it is necessary to reopen it there will not be a single man forced to walk the streets, and there will be no crimes committed," such as we have heard mentioned this afternoon as having been committed in Vancouver. The minister did not make a positive reply, but what was said made me think, "Well, Citadel Hill, that great promontory in the city of Halifax, no longer will be used for this purpose even if we find that unemployment is inevitable," and unemployment apparently has become inevitable, not only in the city of Halifax. It has come to us through our fishermen along the shores of Halifax county. From Ecum Seeum for a distance of one hundred and fifteen miles to Dartmouth, and from Halifax city to Hubbard's Cove and the indented bays there has been this relentless enemy which has been ever at the door. I do not say this government has been wholly responsible, but I have read scrupulously the order in council passed by the late administration under the leadership of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in reference to trawlers. The Minister of Fisheries of that time was the Hon. E. N. Rhodes who, I regret to say, is ill. He stood tenaciously to protect the interests of the fishermen as against those of capitalists who had been responsible for the sores and the hurts in the minds and hearts of the fishermen along the shore. There came a day, there came an hour, and there came a moment when the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) came to a decision. His decision was absolutely against the fishermen and in favour of the privileged interests, in favour of the capitalists, and particularly the National Fish Company and the Maritime Fish Company organizations which have grown prosperous in the city of Halifax.
The fishermen were left where? They were left where they are at the present moment, with starvation in some of their own homes, with their boats and fishing gear swept away by the southeast gales. Some of them lost their lives, never to return to their homes. In
this connection, I believe I can give one of the best illustrations possible of description by the human mind or heart. In a little fishing village on the west coast of Halifax, a place which was once prosperous but is prosperous no more, a fisherman had lost everything, and had not the money wherewith to repair his humble little fishing home. During the late war a building had been erected in that small village, and when he wrote me the building was uninhabited, unoccupied and not being used in any way. This man told me that it was impossible to repair his home so as to make it habitable, that he had a wife and eight children and wanted to know if it would be possible to buy that building or to have some charitable person buy it for him so that he and his family might live in quiet comfort, and not be put out in the cold. When I received the letter I wrote to the minister I thought would be in charge, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). He replied properly and correctly that the matter came under the jurisdiction of the military gentleman who was responsible for salvaging, and that the building would have to be put up to tender. That was done, and the man in question bid S42. He was met by a bid of $44 from another person, a man who did not need it. That man got the building, and the man who needed it did not get it.
Has everything the government has done been done by contract? Has that been done in all departments? "Necessity knows no law," and when it comes to a case of necessity I will get what I need to subsist on. There should be no need in this Canada of ours, a country with great prospects, expansive areas and a great future. When I think of our relations with the country to the south of us, a country smaller in area than Canada, but with a population of 130,000,000 people as against our 11,000,000. What is our future? We think of those who have lived in past days and who were the great builders in this great confederation. We think of the ideals of Sir John A. Macdonald, the ideals of Hon. Joseph Howe, the ideals of our great leader who has departed, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the man who envisioned the building of the Transcontinental railway so as to gather the maritime provinces under the wing of Canada and to bring them nearer the great Canadian centres in order that those eastern provinces might participate in the great Canada of the future. One need only read the schedule to this act respecting the Transcontinental railway to realize what happened. In that schedule it is stated in no uncertain words, in words that are true, that unless otherwise specifically

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
routed by the consignor, all goods shipped from Canada shall travel through Canada to Canadian ports. The development of Canada was to come through that. What has happened? He who runs may read.
I was deeply interested when a few days ago in the house a discussion arose between the Minister of Transport and an hon. member, and at that time I was reminded that in my belief the unmaking of Canada is that we own that stretch of the Grand Trunk running between Chicago and Detroit. If one studies the statistics respecting trade through Canadian ports he will find one thing and one only, namely that the stretch of railway between Chicago and Detroit helps the port of Montreal and American ports.. I am not opposed to that port. We realize that while our railway is within the confines of that country, and until we pass Windsor, at which time we come within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, we are subject to the interstate law of the United States. Their law is their law, and not ours. Notwithstanding the judgment of Mr. Fairweather, notwithstanding the judgment of the president of the Canadian National Railways system, I say it would be far better to sell that stretch of railway in the United States, to get what it is worth, and to have Canadian owned railways in Canadian territory, managed by Canadians and subject to the supreme will of Canada. Unless we do that, we will have a misnomer in the life of the future Canada we shall not live to see. Some of the younger hon. members may live to'see that day; I hope they will.
When I look across the floor of the house I am reminded that when I attended La Salle Academy in Halifax there was an oratorical contest for the gold medal donated by the then Archbishop O'Brien. One of the judges was the present member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), the late Secretary of State. Later, when I came to parliament again in 1935, I was walking out of the house one day during the first session, and the hon. gentleman said to me that he recalled the incident and said, "I made up my mind then that some day you would be in the parliament of Canada, but I never thought I would live to be here with you." He had thought he might- have gone to that great bourne from which no traveller returns. But to-day he sits there, with his years, lovely and beautiful, in the knowledge that he has tried to do his best for Canada and for the little province of Nova Scotia, down by the sounding sea,

in which he was born. He has tried to make it the finest and best of that galaxy of provinces which make up our great dominion.
There is one thing I would urge upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). There is no hon. member of the government who is more assiduous in his duties, there is no one who applies himself more directly and effectively to the great problems that confront Canada in connection with labour and unemployment than the Minister of Labour. That work is his love. When the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) called upon him to enter his cabinet he left the great university where he was teaching to come to teach all those in Canada that there is a broader field to greater knowledge. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that unemployment is ever existent. At times it has been characterized as a sore. I do not call it a sore, I consider it the inevitable aftermath of war. After the great war of 1914-18 we had a survival in business, but then came the great depression of 1929. We are now in the midst of what a very able exponent of peace, an hon. gentleman who guides the destinies of young Canada to-day, only a few days ago said, that it might be the dust of Canada that would turn the scales from peace to war.
In Great Britain we have that aJble, astute Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. He is uncompromising and what is more necessary, he is unbending. He will not yield to the foe, although he is always ready to give consideration to the different views of all parts of the British Empire. He should not be too trustful of those who might attack us behind our backs to-morrow. As Cassius said to Brutus:
There is my dagger,
And here my naked breast; within, a heart
Dearer than Plutus' mine, richer than gold:
If that thou be'st a Roman, take it forth;
I, that denied thee gold, will give my heart;
Strike, as thou didst at Caesar; for, I know,
When thou didst hate him worst, thou lovedst him better
Than ever thou lovedst Cassius.
I differ with the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black), and I think in retrospect she will agree with what I am about to say. I understood her to say that a man who could not give value deserved to be idle.


Martha Louise Black: If he was in good health.


Robert Emmett Finn: If he was in good health.
Speaking for my own province, and particularly for the city and county of Halifax, I may say that there are many people there who are in good health and who would like

Unemployed, Men in Vancouver
to have employment. I have always taken the stand that no man owes anything to any government, be it Liberal, Conservative or a government made up of some particular groups, as may happen sometimes. When a man is willing to work, then the nation owes him a living. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated a short time ago that it was the intention of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of (Public Works (Mr. Cardin) to put the unemployed of Canada to work by means of the main and supplementary estimates. I was pleased to see that the supplementary estimates contained the means for providing employment throughout all the provinces of Canada, both according to the needs of the individual and according to the requirements that should be lived up to in connection with public works.
The glorious duty of every hon. member who sits here is to serve his country. We who sit here have the confidence of the people. We should address ourselves to the problems of our constituents and endeavour to get at what might be called the foundations of unemployment. I can remember one Sunday evening a week before that grand old man, the leader of Liberalism, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, died. I was sitting with him in Laurier House and he said something to me that I shall never forget. He said, "My dear Finn, hold on to British institutions. They are the finest and the best; they give us constitutional liberty and the finest thoughts that a Canadian could have as a member of the British Empire." That great man was misunderstood at times, and I know that if those words could have been spoken to someone who was not his friend, politically, he would have been even more admired before he died. But he has never been forgotten by those who loved him and many of whom pass daily by his monument which looks out on the city of Ottawa. Monuments are wonderful things, but the joyousness of doing something is within the power of the government, the Minister of Labour and the members of this house.
There are many homes in this country where all are sad when the father who has been looking for work comes home and says he has been unable to find it. There is hunger in these homes, not only of the stomach but of the heart. This is what is happening in the city of Halifax and in the county of Halifax. Yet the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) dealt a tremendous blow to the fishermen along our coast when he granted trawler licences to the great interests in the
city. Not only did he do that, but he placed on a pedestal my colleague (Mr. Isnor), who turned from the fishermen to the capitalist with the excuse that there was $1,400,000 invested which he would have to look after. He was not interested in the fisherman. But there is always a day of reckoning; there is always a reply. I thank God that in my public life of nearly twentydive years I have always stood for the underdog without being unfair to the upper dog; and as the leopard cannot change his spots, no more can I. I wish there was a right of recall in this country. There is not, but I say sincerely that if my course in this house is not one that meets with the approval of the people who sent me here, let them make it known to me, and, Mr. Speaker, within the twinkling of an eye I will tender you my resignation, but there will be attached to it one principle conforming with a high standard of public life. I will hand back to my constituents the confidence they gave to me, but I will say when I am resigning that I think it would be proper, real and honourable that he who is elected with me, who was my helpmate by my side during the campaign, should also tender his resignation, and we would both go back to the people who sent us here. If he does not come back then he is wrong; if I do not come back I am wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are both wrong.


Robert Emmett Finn: But there will be a sense of responsibility.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will both come back,


Robert Emmett Finn: We shall both come back? I want to say that if that is so, I don't want to come back. Open confession is good for the soul. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." You must either stand for a principle or you must be against it. That was the great thought of Him who died for us all; they could not be for Him and against Him. Therefore there is the great dividing line, as there is on this green carpet, a dividing line between ourselves and the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, but there is not sufficient room on this side of the house for all who think as we do, therefore some have to sit opposite and cast their lovely shadows on those who are doing their duty as members of the opposition and of the various groups who are intelligently giving themselves to their arduous tasks in the hours when parliament is dealing with these tremendous questions.
Supply-Agriculture

The thought I should like the Minister of Labour to convey to the Prime Minister and to that sturdy, wonderful man who comes from the province of Quebec, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), is that, the steady tide of criticism notwithstanding, his shrewdness, his boldness, are not begotten of something which is not within himself; God and nature endowed him with one thing-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: Do not speak to me, Mr. Speaker, when I am speaking about God. God and nature endowed him with one lovely quality, and that is justice, as Minister of Justice-justice to all, fairness to everybody, and kindness to the whole of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration-further amount required, $7,350.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: On Friday evening I asked the Minister of Finance what the business for to-day would be, and his reply was:
On Monday we might he prepared to take any bills on the order paper, and supply, Fisheries, Pensions and National Health, National Revenue and Finance.
Mr. Neill: In that order?
Mr. Dunning: If possible, in that order, but I am not sure about some of the ministers.
Now apparently it is proposed to take up a department which is not named here- agriculture. The situation is this, that some of the hon. members on this side of the house who are responsible for intelligently discussing these estimates and getting them through in the shortest space of time because of the knowledge they have of the subject, are not here to-day. I suggest to the minister that we should probably make more rapid progress if we took some of the departments which he mentioned. I know that as regards some of these agriculture items there are hon. members who are not here to-day who desire to discuss them at some length.


Mr. DUNNING:: I really cannot complain of the criticism of my hon. friend opposite. I remember that on Friday night I was pretty tired and was somewhat embarrassed to answer the usual question with respect to what items would be taken up, and I did not mention agriculture. As a matter of honour, when one does not indicate a department in supply on the previous evening it should not be taken up if there is objection from the other side. Would there

be any objection to going on with agriculture this evening? Possibly some of the hon. members to whom my hon. friend is referring will be here on the afternoon train. We should like to make progress on some of these more important supplementaries having to do with works which it is intended to get under way as speedily as possible, and perhaps this evening we could take up agriculture. At any rate I ask my hon. friend to give consideration to the matter between now and then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We wish to facilitate as far as possible, of course, the transaction of the business of the house, and certainly I shall give the matter consideration. But if the government proposes to go into supply again to-morrow I think we should be in a better position to facilitate the passing of these estimates then and would probably make just as much progress.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is some doubt
about going into supply to-morrow.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If there are any items
which are not controversial, perhaps they could be dealt with.


Mr. GARDINER:: If it would be satisfactory to go on to-night and there are any items in the agriculture estimates which it is desired to have held over, I would be quite prepared to let those particular items stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be pleased to
look into the situation in the light of what the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture have said and see what we can do to facilitate the work of the house.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OP FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries inspection, including fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,000,000.
Alan Webster Neill: When this estimate was before the committee on the last occasion there was some discussion of fish traps in British Columbia, and I would refer again briefly to that matter. I do not propose to rehash the whole subject. It would take hours and the matter would be unsuitable for a committee of this size. That is why a special committee was instituted for the discussion of all such matters. To-day I simply want, so to speak, to begin where the committee left off. The committee submitted a report, the first recommendation of which reads:
That no more trap licences be granted in British Columbia waters except in the so called Sooke area, and concerning which we are unable to come to a decision as to whether they should be continued or not, without the opportunity of securing further information.

Supply-Fisheries
There were some other recommendations, and the last one indicates that a check should be made on fish caught and the details carefully collected. I maintain that the report in its essence, although the word was not used, was an interim report. It was so regarded by the committee. It stated that the committee were unable to come to a decision as to whether the whole matter referred to them should be decided or not without opportunity of securing further information, and they recommended that the department should secure that additional information. Some of that information has been obtained and I have it here now. Speaking on this subject, the minister made a statement which I wish to quote. I asked that the data which the committee had recommended should be collected, and which had been collected, should be referred to the committee, and the minister made this statement:
Mr. Michaud:	That is a matter which my
hon. friend should refer either to the house or to the committee. As far as the department is concerned, the recommendations made last year by the committee were carried out. I feel that is all that should be expected of the minister or the department.
Dealing with the first sentence, I would point out that it was impossible for me to refer the matter to the committee because a private member cannot refer a matter to a committee without the consent of the minister concerned, and that was lacking. I had written and asked him whether he would refer it to the committee and he refused. To say that I can refer it to the house means that I can bring it up only now when conditions are not favourable for a detailed debate. I would call attention especially to the remarkable sentence in which the minister says that all that can be expected of the minister of a department is to carry out the recommendations made. That, to my mind, illustrates a distinct failure to appreciate the purpose of the investigation, which was to decide whether we should continue the use of fish traps in British Columbia, and we decided in our wisdom that we could not make that decision for lack of further information. The minister now proposes to rest on his oars and say that he has done all that he was asked to do and will not do any more. At page 2297 of Hansard it will be seen that I sent the minister a letter asking him whether he would refer the matter to the committee or stop the traps, and he replied that he would do neither. I think it is very much up to the minister to inform this committee to-day why he refused to comply with the terms of a numerously signed petition presented to the house, or, 51952-199
failing that, if he deemed that the matter was not thoroughly threshed out, why he did not refer it again to the committee. Why did he refuse to have the matter referred to the committee and in that way close it out entirely from further debate? I would ask him for an explanation.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: There are two aspects of this question in which my hon. friend is interested. The first is the question of the petitions which he laid on the table of the house shortly after the opening of parliament, and the second is the report of the special committee which sat during last session. The reason why the department did not take the initiative and refer again to the committee the whole question of the advisability of discontinuing the issuing of licences for fish traps in the Sooke area of British Columbia, and the matter of the petitions, is that since last session no new facts have been brought to my attention, no new evidence which would have justified me in asking for the committee to sit again this year to consider the matter. It is true that we had petitions; but in those petitions there were no new facts disclosed which had not been brought to the attention of the department some years ago and which have not, from year to year since, been submitted to us. The facts which were gathered by the department during the recess, at the request of the committee, were brought to my notice, and I did not think they disclosed anything different from what had been submitted to the committee last year and had been discussed for a considerable time, forming the basis of the committee's report. So that if the hon. member was in possession of some new evidence, I think it was up to him either to bring it to the attention of the house or to ask that the committee be called together


Alan Webster Neill: I did.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: and the matter brought before the committee. My hon. friend says he did. If I remember rightly, he asked me in a letter whether the petitions which were submitted by him to the house would be referred to a committee, and I replied that in view of the fact that the petitions disclosed no new facts I did not think it my business to call the committee again to deal with a matter that had been dealt with last year.
As to the data collected by the department during the recess, I never understood that my hon. friend asked me to refer it to the fisheries committee, and this is the first time that I understand he intended to have this

Supply-Fisheries

data, passed on to him at his own request, referred to the committee, because, as I said before, in my opinion it did not seem to disclose any new facts upon which the committee would be justified in changing the recommendations they made last year.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says that he did not refer the matter to the committee because there was not new evidence which in his opinion justified its being referred to them. But I humbly submit that there was new evidence, and I have it under my hand. One of the main questions brought up in the committee was as to the number of fish caught, the varieties and so on. The contention on both sides centred repeatedly on that point- exactly what was caught in those traps-and we recommended that information should be obtained as to what was caught, And that information was obtained, because I have it before me, and in my humble opinion it constitutes new evidence if anything could be called new evidence, because it was something that was not before the committee previously. The minister says that no new evidence was disclosed-in his opinion. But the matter has gone beyond the question of his opinion. A committee was appointed to consider the matter, and that committee was entitled to go on and conclude it. The minister says that I did not ask that the matter be referred.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I did not make that
statement. I said that I did not understand my hon. friend to request that this particular evidence should be referred to the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Not this particular evidence, but all of it. I have here the letter I wrote, and I have what the minister said. He guards himself by a general statement-he is not sure. Well, he knew that the estimates were coming down to-day and that the matter would be brought up. I venture to say that my letter is before him at this moment. Then he makes statements that give a wrong impression of my letter. This is my letter, dated February 28-long enough ago: Honourable J. E. Michaud,
Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Michaud:
With reference to the question of fish traps at Sooke, _ you will recall that the report of the committee last year stated that we leave the question of traps at Sooke open for further consideration.
Since then, I presented a petition the other day containing nearly 10,000 names, and I still have petitions coming in asking for their abolition.
Might I inquire what your policy in the matter is? Are you disposed to give them notice-

That is, the trap owners.
-that they will not be allowed any for or beyond this year, or do you propose to refer it again to the fisheries committee of the house?
The minister replied that he was not going to do either one or the other. How I could have put it more plainly I cannot conceive, or how he could have stated more definitely that he was not going to do it. The fact remains that the minister has not allowed the matter to go to the committee. There was new evidence, evidence that was not before us before. Did we have any evidence before- I ask any member of the committee-that whales had been caught in the traps last year or ratfish or porpoises? We had this new information, and the totals of salmon caught, and it should have been submitted to the committee. There the matter ends so far as I am concerned at the moment. I am not going to prolong this debate indefinitely, and the committee would not be interested. But I charge the Department of Fisheries with straight neglect of duty in this matter, and there I leave it, for the issue to go before a higher tribunal, perhaps.
There is another matter in connection with fish traps which is more important and which touches to a certain degree the honour of this house. My information is not simply something I have heard, but what the minister himself says. Speaking in the house on April 26 last, he referred to these petitions about which I spoke, and then he said, as reported at page 2296 of Hansard :
Some petitions containing the same heading were forwarded to my office, I suppose inadvertently. These contained the post office addresses and occupations of the people who signed them and I found that they contained the signatures of more chicken farmers than fishermen.
And I replied:
Certainly.
The reason is that the population of British Columbia was much greater than that of the fishermen, and the people who would sign the petition would naturally be more numerous than the numbers of the fishermen because the petition was signed by the residents of British Columbia. The point I draw to the attention of the committee is this, and I would draw it to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is leading the government. The hon. Minister of Fisheries admitted the receipt of some of the petitions with the same heading. I have the petition here. It is addressed, "To the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament Assembled." That is, it is addressed to only one body, and that is the body sitting here.

S upply-Fishe ries
It is the law, is it not, Mr. Chairman, that when letters are inadvertently delivered to the wrong person they shall be immediately handed over to the person to whom they were addressed? There are three members of this house with names very similar: O'Neill, Mac-Neil and Neill, and in the course of time, perhaps through the carelessness of clerks or because of the letters being wrongly directed, we get each other's mail. But I would be astonished if anyone suggested that we did not, all three of us, immediately turn such letters over to the person for whom they were intended and who owned them. Postal rule 244, I think it is, lays down that a letter once posted is the property of the person to whom it is addressed. The minister says himself that he got a number of these petitions. I do not know how many but I did have a kind of sneaking suspicion that something of that kind had happened because copies of some of the petitions I had sent out seemed to be missing. The matter was brought to his attention evidently, because he investigated and inquired into the occupation of the signatories. This is the point, and I think I shall raise it as a matter of privilege in the house:	What did he
do with these petitions which were addressed to the House of Commons, which came into his possession, and which he did not deliver to the House of Commons? The situation is very simple, and he is self-condemned. I ask for an explanation. The dignity of the house is concerned. What did he do with these petitions?
I immediately asked in the house for a return to be brought down that would indicate the facts. I asked for the return on May 2, and it was simply a matter of bringing down these papers which were entirely within the bounds of the Department of Fisheries. There was no going around to other departments to collect information. That was on May 2; this is May 23, and the return has not been brought down yet. Therefore I do not know how many petitions there were or how many signatories, and the house does not know what has become of its property, which is its property because the petitions were addressed to the house. I suppose the return will not be brought down until the day after this estimate has gone through. I asked the minister how many petitions he received, how many signatories were on them, and just what he did with the petitions.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Mr. Chairman, first regarding the advisability of turning over to the fisheries committee the facts that had been gathered by the Department of Fisheries, I must repeat that I did not consider it worth 51952-1991
while to turn over to the committee these facts, which did not disclose anything new beyond what had been brought to the attention of the committee last year. It is true that this statement shows that during the recess there was one whale caught in the fish traps which was later sent to a museum, but I did not think it a matter of such vital importance that it should be drawn to the attention of the fisheries committee. There might have been some facts disclosed in this statement; there may have been facts brought to the attention of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that would have warranted the sending of this statement and these facts-to the committee. But the hon. member had the right and the privilege, if he was not satisfied with my attitude, to call the matter to the attention of the chairman of that committee and to some of the members of it, and to have the committee called together, or he could have brought my attention to the fact that he wanted this information disclosed to the committee. The committee would then have been summoned, and he would have had every chance to bring before the committee facts which he thought of importance. But he did not do that. He simply wrote me a letter. I replied to him, but he did not show me any facts which, in his opinion, were of sufficient importance or vital enough to be brought to the attention of the committee.
As to these petitions which were received by me, and possibly inadvertently forwarded to me by some of the people to whom they had been sent for signature by the hon. member, I recall that there were two or three of these printed sheets of paper, with the heading printed on, on which names had been signed. They were put on my desk some time prior to the time I addressed the house, because I mentioned the matter. I looked at them and they were addressed to the house. They were filed away in the office, and when I had occasion again to refer to that file I saw them and immediately forwarded them to the clerk of the house, to whom they were addressed.


Alan Webster Neill: When?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Some time after the matter was mentioned in the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Have they been received?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; an official of the house told me he had received them; he came to my office to tell me. There is nothing mysterious or secret about the matter. These *were three of the many sheets that were sent out by the hon. gentleman to be signed by
Supply-Fisheries

people in British Columbia. They were sent back to me, and I read them; that was how I knew what was in them. I saw the names and occupations of the persons who had signed them, and after my hon. friend had referred to the matter in the house I returned to the office and called for the file having to do with that matter. I found them on top of the file.


Alan Webster Neill: They are still there.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, no; I immediately sent them where they should have gone in the first place. There was no reason for keeping them; there were hundreds of them forwarded to the house and laid on the table. I sent these sheets to the clerk of the house, or asked that they be sent to him, because that is what should have been done with them when they were first received. Inadvertently they were kept in the office; but they were sent to the clerk at that time, and they must be on file somewhere, because I was told by an official of the house that they had been received.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister spoke a true word when he said they must be somewhere. Dealing first with the question of going to the committee, the minister is perfectly aware that neither I nor any other private member has the right to call a committee together. Eurther, the minister knows very well that under the rules no special committee deals with anything that has not been referred to it by the house. The procedure is for the minister or someone acting with his consent to rise in his place and ask that the matter be referred. That is the only way in which any committee can deal with a matter. The minister is just as well aware of that as I am. Let that go; I do not think the situation has been improved by piling on these contradictions which are so obviously unfounded.
With regard to these petitions, the minister says they are on file somewhere. They are not on file here, or I should have noticed them. They remained in the minister's office for four months, and I suggest that there was never the slightest intention of sending them where they should have been presented, where they would have had some weight and effect, where they would have added to the number of petitions presented, until the matter was brought up in the house and I challenged the minister about it. Then he goes to his office, finds them on the file, and tells a clerk to send them somewhere. Apparently they have not been sent to the clerk of the house. If they had been sent to him they would have been presented, and if they had been presented they would have
fMr. Michaud.]
appeared in the votes and proceedings. I suggest that this is a very serious matter, having to do with the honour, reputation and privileges of this house. I would ask that this item stand over until that return is brought down, so that we may see just how many petitions there are. The minister has a vague idea that there were two or three, or some number. There may have been thirty sheets on which there were certain signatures. I am so dissatisfied with the statements the minister has already made in connection with this matter that I would be much easier in mind if I saw the petitions. Having asked for the return a month ago-or, to be exact, twenty-one days ago-I think I am entitled to have it before this matter is discussed. I think the house is entitled to have it, in order to learn what has been done. This is a petition addressed to the house, and the best explanation the minister can give is that it is on the files somewhere.
I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, or in the alternative I appeal to the Minister of Finance whether this item should not stand until we get the information indicated in the return for which I asked on May 2, which covers the whole situation; or, perhaps, until we get the petitions presented to the house. Apparently they are in some stage in between heaven and hell; the minister says they are not in the department; and they are not in the house. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that it is a very serious matter, and that the situation can be best dealt with by merely adjourning the debate on this item until a later occasion.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend seems to me to be dramatizing what would appear to be a very simple matter. If petitions do reach a department through being addressed in some unusual manner, it would not surprise me a bit to find a mail clerk putting them on the file in the department. I do not think there is anything to be so wrought up about in that situation. As to transferring these petitions to the proper place, wherever that may be, the minister states he did so as soon as the matter was brought to his attention by the hon. member. That being so, they must now be in possession of the clerk of the house, and therefore should be available to my hon. friend. With respect to the return I understand that the minister has already forwarded to the Secretary of State the material required from his department by the return. The minister stated that to the hon. member, and the minister cannot say more.


Alan Webster Neill: He did not tell me that.

Supply-Fisheries
Mr.	DUNNING:	I	certainly	understood
him to say so, but he can speak for himself.
Mr.	NEILL: He	did	not.Mr.	MICHAUD:	I	am answering now;
the hon. member did not give me the chance to say it before.


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Finance is putting the words in his mouth.
Mr.	MICHAUD:	The return	moved for
by the hon. member on May 2 is a voluminous document, as I think the hon. member knows.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Well, the hon. member must know; he should know. It has been forwarded through the proper channel from our department to the Secretary of State, and we no longer have any control over it. I remember that last Saturday, in the office, it was brought to my attention that the return was ready, and I gave instructions that it be forwarded immediately. I am informed that it was sent to the Secretary of State, which I understand is the proper procedure to follow. The return will be laid on the table in due course by the Secretary of State, and I have no further control over it.


Alan Webster Neill: I have just one last question to ask the Minister of Finance. I wonder what he would do if he accidentally received a letter addressed to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: Addressed to my hon.
friend personally?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no doubt what I would do; I would return it to the post office.


Alan Webster Neill: Or to the person to whom it was addressed?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I would not presume to forward it to the person to whom apparently it was addressed. It is the function of the post office, not mine, to find the party.


Alan Webster Neill: After the letter is opened?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; after the letter was opened.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think it would hurt to allow this item to stand. I understand that there is always one item left for further discussion, and if we leave this matter over until we get these petitions, possibly the situation will present itself in a less dangerous light than I have been suggesting. The minister says it is a trivial matter, but I do not think it is. If it turns out to be a matter
of only a few names on a sheet of paper, it may be all right, but I want to see those petitions and I shall not be satisfied until they are presented to the house.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I hope the hon. gentleman does not intend, or does not want, to convey the impression that the petitions, which were in printed form and intended for the house, were opened by me when they were not addressed to me. They were addressed to me by the senders, and after they were opened in due course they were placed on my desk by the clerks of the department. I found that they were for the attention of the house; that they were in exactly the same form as those presented by the hon. gentleman some time ago, and they should have been forwarded to the house immediately.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: But inadvertently they were placed on the file in the department, and it was only when I had occasion to refer to that file that I found them. I immediately ordered the clerk to send them to the clerk of the house, and I know that was done because an official of the staff of this house came to me and said he had received them. I did not follow the messenger who had taken those three sheets of paper to the clerk, to find out whether or not he would deposit them; but I do know they were taken.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister indicate the date when this occurred?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was shortly after the hon. member called my attention to the matter by mentioning it in the house. It would be after the first or second of May; I am not quite sure of the exact Hate. It was on the evening of the day on which the hon. member spoke in the house; I am sure of that. The next morning I referred to the file to find these things and immediately gave instructions that they be forwarded to the clerk of the house, because they were addressed to the clerk of the house. I have now sent a message to get the files, to ascertain whether or not they are on the files.


Alan Webster Neill: It is unfortunate that they have not turned up. because if they have not they have fallen by the wayside. Everything addressed to the House of Commons is presented next day.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not know whether they were presented or not.


Alan Webster Neill: No; they were not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In any event they must be on file somewhere in the office; we shall get them.
Supply-Fish cries


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the minister's promise, and I hope he will implement it.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have given all the information that I have. It was unfortunate that this happened.


Alan Webster Neill: To deal more particularly with item No. 78, may I say that there is an increase of $70,000 in the amount to be voted. Ordinarily, being interested in the fisheries, I am glad to see further attention given to them, and under ordinary circumstances I would be glad to see that substantial increase. But my pleasure is to some extent modified when I find the purposes for which the increase is to be devoted. Details of the item are to be found at page S3 of the estimates, and according to those details I find that the great bulk of the $70,000 is to be spent not in the field of practical work, and in the conserving of the fisheries, but in adding to the ever increasing army of permanent, paid officials. The officials have increased from 127 to 139, or by twelve. Of the total of $70,000 it is indicated that the amount for guardians has risen by about $11,000, while paid salaries have increased by about $17,000. Apparently it takes $17,000 for paid officials in the offices to look after expenditures of $11,000 on the ground.
I have always and ever maintained that the proper plan of spending money on fishing is not to spend it in the offices in the Hunter block, or in Vancouver-and particularly in Vancouver-but to spend it on the grounds in preventing poaching; because one can go in at night and in a few hours undo the good the department has done in three or four years. A man may put a net across the mouth of a little river or creek and clean it out. The result is that next year, instead of the fish going up by thousands they go up by scores, and it takes four or five years to regain the run. Therefore I say it does not pay to preserve a fish run for three or four years and then, through lack of a guardian at a particular point, to allow a poacher to come in and destroy what has been done. I say that because people will poach, and it is inevitable that if they are given the opportunity they will clean up the river. So I say as long as the money is spent on fish guardians, more power to them, because they are doing real good. It is not a question of wanting to get jobs for my friends, but rather a question of having the fish protected. The money can be spent, as well as on guardians, on the sea plane patrol, which is doing a very useful work. While it is expensive, I believe it has done good work.
[Mr. Mirhaud.l
I have received from the hand of Providence-I do not know what other hand put it here-three copies of the petition we have been talking about. There are three signed sheets.


Charles Avery Dunning: In view of what the hon. member said regarding the minister, I suggest he might tell us where they came from.


Alan Webster Neill: They appear to have floated down upon my desk. They were just placed here a moment ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they were apparently in the hands of the clerk, where they ought to have been, and the messenger who went for them found them there.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that where they were?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member should tell us that.


Alan Webster Neill: Why were they not presented to the house?


Charles Avery Dunning: Dear, dear, dear! At least the minister did tell the truth, and there was no great crime attached to what he did, as the hon. member's language would seem to indicate.


Alan Webster Neill: We shall deal with the statements the minister made. He said, "I have this petition; I have looked it over, and I find that they are chicken farmers, and not fishermen." I shall read them. I shall not bother with the names, but I shall give the facts on which the minister must have based his statement that the petition was signed by chicken farmers rather than fishermen. I find that they are listed as poultryman, postmaster, clerk-the next is unintelligible-clerk, poultryman, clerk, egg grader, photographer, carpenter, clerk, clerk, logger, mechanic, logger, farmer, stenographer-


Charles Avery Dunning: Everything but fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: Game warden, carpenter,
farmer, logger, builder, fisherman, fisherman, fisherman, fisherman, fisherman and logger. There are only two poultrymen.


Charles Avery Dunning: How many fishermen?


Alan Webster Neill: I have read them all. I have read out every name. There were one or two concerning whom the occupations were not indicated. Tor instance, I find Ganges; that is not an occupation, it is an address.


Charles Avery Dunning: But there are very few fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Joseph Enoil Michaud: The increase at Ottawa is not an increase in the number of officials, although the statement appearing at pages 83 and 84 of the estimates would lead one to believe that there has been an increase by twelve. There was a change made by the civil service commission. The persons involved were temporary employees of the department who have been made permanent. Although they were temporary they occupied permanent positions. Under the provisions of the Civil Service Act I understand that in due course they had to be made permanent. They have been made permanent, and now appear on the list of permanent officials. Last year they were classified as temporary.


Alan Webster Neill: But the expenditures increase by $17,000.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; I shall come to that. The increase of $70,000 in the branch is due, first, to the annual statutory increase amounting to $2,760. There is the restoration of the five per cent deduction, amounting to $17,827. Then, there are salary increases, in addition to the annual increases, amounting to $7,390.


Alan Webster Neill: Salary increases?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Annual increases?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; these are in addition. They apply to temporary employees who are receiving higher wages. Then, there is an increase of $2,000 for equipment. This involves new radio equipment on the Malaspina.


Alan Webster Neill: But that is not under this item?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; it comes under this item.


Alan Webster Neill: Would we find details of the equipment under the heading of fisheries inspection?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Under the vote for fisheries inspection would be included the cost of running the boats used in the service as well
as the pay of the employees. A new hull is being provided for the Elkhorn at a cost of $5,000. That is protection service. A new engine is being supplied for the Clupea, a patrol boat on the Pacific coast, at a cost of $5,000. Increases in the administrative and boat services generally amount to $30,023. Those would be for protection and patroi services, and make up the total of $70,000.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has given me particulars of increases in connection with boats. Where would they show under this item? Would they appear under temporaries? I thought there was a special item for these boats.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Alan Webster Neill: There used to be.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Item No. 78 reads:
Fisheries inspection, including fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services.


Alan Webster Neill: Where are the details shown on page 83?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They are shown under the details of the items.


Alan Webster Neill: These details must be shown on either page 83 or 84. They must be included in some bigger item if they are not shown in detail.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: On page 83 we have, " fisheries inspection, including fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services." Then on page 84-


Alan Webster Neill: Stenographers, watchmen and master mechanics. I think we had better call it six o'clock so that the minister may look over the book to see on what pages they are.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suggest to my hon. friend that he must give the minister an opportunity to make his statement. The minister is not a criminal being cross-examined by a criminal lawyer. Surely he should have an opportunity to make a statement.


Alan Webster Neill: I was trying to help him by giving him a little leisure. He does not .seem to be able to indicate the place and it must be somewhere.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will give him the ordinary courtesy which ought to be accorded to members of the house, he will probably be able to find it with the assistance of his officer.


Alan Webster Neill: I was simply trying to be
courteous.
Supply-Fisheries


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It does not look like it. The boat does not appear in the book, but the salaries of those working on the boat and the expenses incurred for repairs would appear in the book. You cannot put the boat in the book.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not mean the boat itself, I mean the expenses connected with the boat. The minister says they do not appear in the book. They must appear somewhere, and that is why I suggest we call it six o'clock.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: On page 84 the hon. member will see an item, " total salaries, $629,508."' That item would include the salaries of temporary and permanent employees. If the hon. member wants any information as to any branch of the service, I can give it to him. This item refers to employees on the boats and in the offices. The whole item refers to the protection service and includes the salaries of those who are employed on the boats or who have any connection with the protection service.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister does me less
than justice. Just a few minutes ago I asked him if the expenses connected with these boats were included under temporary assistance, where apparently they are included, but he said no. I then asked if they would appear under the item dealing with total salaries.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend said
he said it and it must be true.


Alan Webster Neill: It is in Hansard.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I did not understand
the hon. member and he probably did not get the answer he expected.


Alan Webster Neill: We probably did not understand each other. Will the minister now tell me if these items of $5,000, $6,000 and $7,000 come under the heading, total salaries?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Where do they come?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We have an item for
sundries, $224,815.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has stated there has been no increase in the staff; that the increase in the amount of the vote is due to the circumstances which he has related. I notice on page 83 that provision is made for seventy-four fisheries inspectors this year, whereas last year there were only sixty-nine. Are these fisheries inspectors not permanent employees appointed under the Civil Service Act? They are not temporaries who have been converted into permanents?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think that is what
happened.


Alan Webster Neill: Temporary fisheries inspectors?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: When a man is appointed by the civil service commission, he is appointed as a temporary for six months or a year. He remains a temporary until he receives a certificate of permanency. I understand that is what happened last year. A number of new appointees were appointed as temporaries for the year and were then transferred to the permanent staff.


Alan Webster Neill: I am quite willing to accept
that statement as a plausible and reasonable one.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is the fact; I cannot
change it.


Alan Webster Neill: I am quite willing to accept
it as a plausible and reasonable statement. Can the minister give us any assurance that some of this extra $70,000 will be used for that practical work on the Atlantic and the Pacific which is so dear to my heart? Will there be something extra available for guardians and airplane patrols?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the amount be considerably larger?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The amount for both
coasts is a little over $30,000.


Alan Webster Neill: Together?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Together. I can give
my hon. friend the details of what we expect to expend in each district.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: Item No. 78.


Charles Avery Dunning: We understood that we should go ahead with agriculture to-night. This item was pretty well discussed, I should like to pass the one item under fisheries and then, if it is agreeable, proceed to agriculture.


Frederick George Sanderson: Item No. 78 stands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to say a few words, and then I shall not bother the minister on this item any more. The minister said just

Supply-Fisheries
before six o'clock that out of the increased vote he had got a sum of $30,000 which would be applicable to fisheries guardians and such like work on the ground. I wanted to thank him for that, and to congratulate him. That is the way in which I want to see the money spent, because it is the most effective way. It might have been more, but it is a great deal better than if the amount had been $30,000 less. However, I desire to make one other criticism, if he will accept it in the friendly spirit in which it is offered. The item we are now discussing is a very large sum, and it comes under one general head, in which it names half a dozen different items, among them the fisheries patrol. The details on page 83 of the estimates give the names one by one; even although there is only one officer, his salary is set out there. But when it comes to the money spent in British Columbia, and I suppose elsewhere, on vessels, it is a different proposition. In British Columbia the government owns over a hundred vessels in connection with the patrol of the fisheries service. Two of them are big boats, and the maintenance of those two boats alone will come to something like $110,000 a year. The other boats are much smaller. But the maintenance expenses would aggregate about $250,000. A quarter of a million dollars is a pretty large sum, and I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that we should have a more detailed statement of it. When we turn to page 83 we find that they are not itemized except in a very general and vague way. For instance, part of this $250,000 is taken out of the vote for temporary assistance, part comes out of the vote for total salaries, and a large part comes out of the vote called sundries, which amount to $234,000. I trust that another year the minister may see fit, considering this involves a vote of about $240,000, to have a separate item for this service. It is the people's money we are spending, and is a pretty vague way to wrap up part of it in the vote for temporary assistance, part in the vote for sundries, and part mixed up with another vote for wages. I am not criticizing the minister. Probably this system has been there since time immemorial; but I suggest that it is not a very good one, and that he look into it in the interim and consider whether it would not make the accounts clearer if he had one item for these votes.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Of course my hon. friend realizes that the Department of Fisheries is not responsible for the way in which the estimates are presented to the house. We
have to follow certain rules set by the treasury board, and we have followed them so far. As he stated, the method we have adopted this year, the previous year, and the year before that is exactly the method that was followed from time immemorial. But as far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned, we prepared all these estimates in the detailed form which has been suggested by the hon. gentleman. I have before me 129 typewritten pages of details regarding this very item. If it is thought advisable next year by those who are responsible for preparing the book of the estimates to publish all these details, or any part of them, the Department of Fisheries will be only too glad to supply the material to enable them to do so.


Mr. BARBER:: There is a matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister, and I think it comes under this item. It is in regard to the transfer of the control of sport fish.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, no.


Harry James Barber: What item would it come under?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Under the item of fish culture.


Harry James Barber: This is not "culture"; it is regulations regarding the agreement entered into with the province of British Columbia relative to licences and so forth.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have no objection to my hon. friend discussing it now, but it comes under item No. 81.


Charles Avery Dunning: It had better be discussed then.


Harry James Barber: Very well.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I understand
this item is being allowed to stand.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


James Samuel Taylor: (Nanaimo):	Well, then,
if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has completed his address to the committee-


Charles Avery Dunning: The jury.


James Samuel Taylor: -the jury, yes, on this question of fish traps, I think something ought to be said on the other side.


Alan Webster Neill: Come on!


James Samuel Taylor: I had a long fight last year in the committee, and I am still in a fighting mood. I cannot understand that this petition which was presented to the house was anything but an emotional petition. I find that many of the statements are not in strict accordance with the facts.
Supply-Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: Order.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not necessary in a petition, anyway.


James Samuel Taylor: 
Alan Webster Neill: AY ill the hon. member allow me a question? Is he reading from Mr. Goodrich's statement, or is he making his own?


James Samuel Taylor: I am reading from Mr. Goodrich's statement.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the date?
Mr, TAYLOR (Nanaimo): December 23, 1937. I have already given that information to the committee.
If, as stated in the petition, the Americans have for the past 20 years or so taken about 70 per cent of the Fraser river sockeye catch, just where would they acquire the right to "have objections" to any gear Canadians find it desirable to use? Has Canada delegated to Olympia the right to legislate for Canada in this or any other matter, and must Canada confine its fishing operations to gear to which Americans have no objection? After Canada shall have enjoyed 70 per cent of the catch of Canadian spawned fish for 20 years, it will then be ample time to consider destroying any branch of the Canadian fisheries for the benefit

Supply-Fisheries
of the fishermen of Puget sound. Certainly, however, the mere fact that for the past two or three years its proportion of the catch has shown some improvement should occasion no qualms of conscience on the part of Canada.
When the member for Comox-Alberni originally made the statement on the floor of the house that traps were the most destructive form of fishing, as they fish day and night, while every practical fisherman knew it to be untrue, the member was given the benefit of the doubt and it was assumed that the statement was made from ignorance or misinformation. At the committee hearings at Ottawa last winter, however, this error was pointed out and since that date the member has had ample time to correct his misstatement. When he now sponsors a repetition of this falsehood, he leaves no alternative than to believe that lie does so deliberately and wilfully.
I am sorry, but that is in this statement.
Traps do not fish day and night in British Columbia or elsewhere. The Sooke trap nets are so constructed that they fish only on the flood tide, and they can fish effectively only from four to six hours even in daylight. Phosphorus in the water makes night fishing out of the question and traps are invariably closed during the hours of darkness. As to the statement that nothing escapes the trap or gets through, fish once taken by any type of gear are not expected to get through. However, about 98 per cent of the fish get by as shown by the records.
Records of the catches of springs and cohoes, while not as complete as the records of sock-e.ves show conclusively that the proportion of the total catch of these varieties taken by the Sooke traps is not far different from that of sockeyes.
Nothing justifies the statement that abolition of traps would lead to any increase in employment, but on the contrary, it is definitely known that it would immediately result in throwing out of employment forty or fifty men now profitably employed at Sooke, owning in most cases their own homes and knowing no other means of livelihood. It would be simply a case of a repetition of the old fable of the dog dropping his bone to grasp at its reflection in the water.
Tourist fishermen now find the local waters an attractive field for sport fishing. During the past season many excellent catches were made. These were principally the spring and eolioe salmon.
Commercial fishing for these varieties by the troll has increased tremendously in the past few' years and large catches have been made by Canadian gear on the west coast of Vancouver island and by American gear off Swift-sure banks.
There are no records available showing the landings of cohoes by the Canadian trollers. The state of Washington fisheries department show' the landings by American gear, and the figures are published in Biological Reports 35A and 36A.
I have these Biological Reports, in case any members of the committee would care to see them.
Following is a comparison of the catch of cohoes by American gear and the catch of the
Sooke traps:
American gear Sooke traps. .
1935	1936
874,380	451,231
50,117	36,391
The records as regards spring salmon are a little more complete than cohoes, but still no figures are available showing the catch on the Fraser river.
Following is a comparison of the catch of spring salmon on the west coast by Canadian gear, the catch off Swiftsure bank by American gear and the catch of the Sooke trap nets: 1935	1936
American	gear.	..	232,199 or	314,378 or
56-2%	65-8%
Canadian	trollers..	160,200 or	147,461 or
39%	30-8%
Sooke traps	 19,810 or 16,297 or
4-8%	3-4%
To suggest practising conservation entirely at the expense of a type of gear which is only taking a toll of from 3*4 to 4*8 per cent is so manifestly unfair as to require no comment.
I do not propose to read it all. This entire trap net question was thoroughly investigated last winter by the fisheries committee at Ottawa, and the opponents of trap nets were given every opportunity of presenting their case. At the request of the fishermen the expenses of two men of their own choosing were paid by the government to come to Ottawa, and present any facts they desired. It was conceded that the case against the traps was altogether unconvincing, and the best that the sponsors of the investigation could get was a recommended increase in fishing licence fees and certain minor changes in the regulations, all of which have been complied with. After all, this is purely an administrative matter, and one which can be left in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries, whose department has made an exhaustive study of this and all other fisheries matters. The rest of the letter can be seen by any hon. member desirous of studying it closely.
Referring later to the fact stated in the petition, that the associated boards of trade of Vancouver island had voted against fish traps, I have this letter dated February 28, 1938, in reply to my statement, from the same gentleman, Mr. Charles F. Goodrich, of the Sooke Harbour Fishing and Packing Company, Limited, Victoria, British Columbia:
We note that Mr. Neill states that this petition was signed by Mr. W. W. R. Mitchell, president of the associated boards of trade of Vancouver island and 9,594 others, "all citizens of British Columbia."
The reference to Mr. Mitchell's office is entirely gratuitous. He was never authorized by the associated boards of trade to sign in his official capacity. It is true that a resolution against trap nets was railroaded through at a meeting of the associated boards at
Supply-Fisheries

Nanaimo at Mr. Neill's instigation last June in violation of the rules previously adopted governing such matters. It is also true that this action was promptly disavowed by unanimous vote of the Victoria chamber of commerce, by far the largest body composing the associated boards. It is also true that at the last meeting of the executive held at Nanaimo on January 26 last all further action with reference to trap nets was postponed until June next.
Then follows other matter, which is at the disposal of any inquiring member of the committee.
This is really a very serious matter, and it should not be hastily judged by hon. members in committee. They should go into the whole matter very seriously, because, as I tried to point out to the committee last year, it in-, volves the life history of the various types of salmon, which in turn involves an understanding of the biological history of these fish, and unless one can see precisely what is going on it is useless to attempt to decide whether or not traps or trap nets should be abolished at this particular point. They were established at Sooke after long and close investigation some twenty-five years or more ago, and they have remained there because of the peculiar strategic condition which obtains at that point. The strait of Juan de Fuca is approximately eighty miles long, and varies in width from ten to eighteen miles, having an average width of, say twelve miles. Hon. members can reduce that strait to the compass of this house, which is ninety-two feet long between doors and sixty-one feet wide between panels beyond the curtains. If you then take lour and a half lengths of this house you have the length of the strait, with the width of the house as the width of the strait, roughly speaking. All these trap nets occupy a space within half the length of this house. The shortest of them is no longer by comparison than the length of a man's hand, and the longest of them, 2,000 feet, is no longer than the length of a man's arm. So, if you can visualize in the width of this house the length of a man's arm stretching out from the panels at the wall, you visualize the longest trap in its relationship to the width of Juan de Fuca strait. If you visualize the length of a man's hand sticking out from the panels, you can see what is the obstruction in the strait of the shortest trap net at Sooke. These things are worth noting. All that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said is not proof to a discerning individual that these traps should be abolished.
He made quite a joke of the fact that a whale was caught in these traps. Surely; a whale would be caught in any net strong 
enough to catch him, and if we say that all kinds of fish were caught in the traps that is equally true of all kinds of fishing gear. Very, very rarely when fish are running are they running pure to type. There is always an admixture; there are always camp followers, always fish of other types than those running. But the peculiar feature of the whole thing is that in the eighty mile stretch of the strait there comes a point at which fifty miles from the entrance the salmon leave their general run and turn south in order to pass down into Puget sound. The Juan de Fuca strait runs practically east for fifty miles and then makes a sudden turn to east northeast, and it is at that point of departure that for some reason or another the fish turn down into United States waters. It was for this reason that the traps were permitted to be constructed at Sooke, roughly speaking, in the first instance. What causes the fish to go down there I have not been able to discover; but the chances are that inasmuch as they have, roughly speaking, 150 to 250 miles to travel before they reach the mouth of the Fraser river, it may be conceded that they are not yet ready to enter fresh water, and that immediately they taste the fresh water from the Fraser river, which throws its influence right away down, they turn off into the salt water leading down into Puget sound. Whether or not this is so, the fact remains that this change of direction into United States waters gives the fishermen their chance, and gives the traps their opportunity. These traps in United States waters are not like the traps at Sooke, for they are planted quite definitely in the shallow channels between the various islands.
Now let me read one more quotation, from the Pacific Coast News of Thursday, February 10, 1938, in which there is an article entitled: Sockeye problems reviewed in booklet.
The article continues:
"Net Profits" is the name of a booklet just off the press, published by the national resources bureau in Vancouver under the auspices-
Note this.
-of the British Columbia fishermen's protective association.
I do not propose to read all this article. It continues:
The discussion on "modes of fishing" is supported by a memorandum from Major J. A. Motherwell, chief supervisor of fisheries, setting forth the times of fishing and close seasons.
The reader may gain a clear understanding of the various types of fishing and arrive at the conclusion that while each fisherman would like to believe that his type of gear is beyond criticism there is room in the industry for all types depending on location subject to limitation only for their abuses.

Supply-Fisheries
Then, further on:
Perhaps the most vital matter presented is the firm suggestion that status quo be maintained in the sockeye fishery now that the commission has appointed the advisory committee.
Let it be remembered that the international salmon committee has already appointed an advisory committee of which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is a member.
The suggestion is made that party politics and other external influences not be permitted to lessen the prestige of either the commission or the advisory committee through forcing any changes whatsoever, now that the facility of these two bodies operating under an international treaty have been set in motion to perform the task which confronts them.
Unquestionably that is a most important statement. We have an international commission and we have appointed an advisory committee to assist it, so there is no reason for attempting to interfere until they have made their findings. I bring these matters to the notice of the committee in what is after all a fairly cursory manner, because I am convinced that unless hon. members definitely apply themselves to a study of this whole matter and refuse to give a decision without ordered and considered judgment, they can have no idea how to deal with this question of fish traps at Sooke.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr, Chairman, I think in
the thirty-eighth chapter of Job, the second verse you will find these words:
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?


James Samuel Taylor: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: That was one occasion when
my hon. friend spoke out of the fulness of his heart. I find that my hon. friend according to what has been called in this house the stud book, is a student of comparative religions. I understand that more recently he has become a student of political parties; that he is gradually making a circle and ultimately will come back to where he belongs. I think the minister will now see that I was right when I said, in opening this matter this afternoon, that I would not turn this house into a debating society and try to rehash the whole subject again, because the opportunity did not exist for cross-examination and so on. I said it had been thoroughly threshed out in committee and that a committee was the place to do it, and to that extent, and to that extent only, I regret that my hon. friend has opened up the whole subject.
I observed that, I think for the first time,
I was accused of presenting something in the house that was of an emotional character.
I studied the petition very carefully, but failed to see, and the hon. member failed to point out, where the emotion presented itself.
I noticed that my hon. friend was careful to refer repeatedly to the facts contained in the petition. Yes; they are facts, and, after all, if a thing is a fact it is true. You cannot have such a thing as a false fact. My hon. friend tried to show that the facts were false, but of course there can be no such thing.
It would be impossible and highly undesirable for me to go all over the ground my hon. friend covered; but I want to say that the great bulk of his presentation to-night was an ex parte statement drawn up probably by a lawyer but at least sent to him by the very man whose interests are so vitally at stake, Mr. Goodrich, and Mr. Goodrich has an enormous interest at stake, because he is in possession of an enormous privilege belonging to the people of Canada, out of which he is making a whale of a lot of money. Naturally he will draw up a statement that at least will look plausible as against this petition. But he had his chance before the committee, and there he showed up very differently from the fancy picture he draws in the letter which has been read to the committee to-night. He repeatedly contradicted himself. Frequently he said, "I will not tell that." "Do I have to tell that?" Finally he admitted that he paid an income tax so large that it was very easy to figure the profits of that company. He was asked whether these things were true. Some friend of his on the committee said, "Beware Neill is trying to lead you into a trap," a different kind of trap. They said to him, "You are under oath; is it true that you paid that much in income tax?" He said, "Yes; I think it was rather more." One member of the committee said, "You are sort of sitting pretty, aren't you? You made an investment of so much, and each year you are making more in profits than your total investment." Once you regard that letter as a very ex parte statement, a great deal of the weight of the letter disappears.
My hon. friend went on to make the statement that the traps did not fish at night. They do fish day and night; they fish whenever the tide is most suitable, as any other fisherman does. They can fish twenty-four hours a day, and it is not correct to say they are closed at night, because they are not. If they are closed at all, it is only because of the weekly forty-eight hour requirement of the dominion government.
Supply-Fisheries

Then my hon. friend said we would throw a lot of people out of employment. He knows better than that; he is not doing himself justice when he makes that statement. At the very most it would throw forty-one people out of employment, the people who signed the petition as employees of the company, who naturally do not want to lose their jobs. But man after man rose and stated that it would enormously increase the employment of fishermen if these traps were done away with. A member of the committee-I shall not mention his name, because I know he is a modest man-rose and said, "I am getting a little tired of this line of talk. I own a cannery, as you all know. If I could have a trap at my door, the same as these gentlemen have, I would only employ from twelve to fifteen men a year, whereas now I have to employ between 200 and 400. But I am willing to do it because I am giving employment to fishermen. "But," he said, "I do feel like asking this: If this gentleman has to have a trap, why should not the other thirty-eight canneries which do not have traps also have them?"
That is on record in Hansard. Then the hon. member said the arguments advanced against traps were entirely unconvincing. Were they? That is remarkable, is it not? Yet we presented a report-he says so himself-recommending that the licence fees should be raised from $50. They had seven licences. They did not use them all, but they hogged them to prevent anybody else from using them. Those seven licences they obtained at $50 each, making a total of $350. We recommended that the fee be raised from $50 per licence to $500, and they did not make any objection. They were glad to pay that enormous increase. I do not know whether my figures of percentages are correct or not; it is a 1,000 per cent increase. if my figures are correct. Anyway it is certainly a great increase, from a total of $350 to one of $3,500, and they did not make a chirp of objection. They were only too glad to get away with it at that price, when they were getting this enormous privilege from the people of Canada. We were getting $350 out of them, and we were paying an overseer about $700 to look after matters. Now we are getting $3,500.
The hon. member says one of the things misstated in the petition was that the associated boards of trade at Vancouver Island at their annual meeting in June last passed a resolution asking for the abolition of the traps. That is actually and entirely true and can be easily and regularly proved. The hon. member's ignorance on that point is as great

as his ignorance on the point as to where the meeting was held. He says it was held at Nanaimo, and it was actually held at Port Alberni. He tells what took place. I was there and he was not; I know what happened, and as God is my witness I shall give the exact facts.
There was a resolution on the agenda of the meeting of the associated boards of trade of Vancouver island, and that resolution dealt with traps. The custom or the rale is to circulate the agenda beforehand, and that resolution was circulated with the rest. But even if it is alleged that it was not on the agenda-and it was; it was certainly on the one we used at the meeting-it was made official at any rate by the credentials committee which adopted it, and passed it unanimously and without protest.
The resolution was brought up in the meeting. There were two delegates at the meeting from the Victoria chamber of commerce; there may have been more, but I know that there were at least two of them. When the resolution was brought up, one of those gentlemen rose and said, "There is a point about this thing I am not quite clear on." He might have said more than that; but I do know that was said, and he indicated that he wanted further knowledge. The chairman said, "Mr. Neill is in the audience; he is familiar with the situation and can give the information you wish." I asked what he wanted to know. Replying to him I spoke only a few moments, and before anything further could be done that same man said "Carried," and the resolution went through unanimously. There were no other protests whatever.
Then the traps interests got busy. They have powerful interests in Victoria, and they got the chamber of commerce to repudiate the action of their delegates. They said that the delegates had no business to do as they had done, because they had been told not to vote on anything of a controversial nature. The matters could not have been very controversial, because the vote was carried unanimously, and there was no objection other than the one I have stated.
Then they got busy. In the interim there was a semi-annual meeting of the executive, and it was said that if they did not repudiate the action of the associated boards of trade -which they were not able to do, because they were only the executive-the Victoria chamber would withdraw from the affiliated boards. In other words, "If I don't get my way I won't play in your back-yard." It is not the first time that the Victoria chamber have adopted that hoggish attitude if they

Supply-Fisheries
do not get everything their way. It would not hurt the rest of us on Vancouver island one little bit if they did withdraw. We would get along better without them. They demanded that the decision of the board be upset. The executive was then called together, and they decided that the matter would foe brought up again at the next annual meeting, but there was not the least suggestion of repudiating it, or that it was done in the wrong way, at all.
Then he tries to make something of the fact that Mr. Mitchell's name was on it. Yes, Mr. Mitchell's name was on it, and there is no use in trying to suggest something else. Mr. Goodrich suggests there was something phoney about it. I say that Mr. Mitchell's name was on it; I saw him sign it myself. The clerk can get the record, and he will see that he approved it. What is the use of saying he did not sign it. He did sign it, as a matter of fact.
Just another point, the suggestion is made that it was "railroaded" through. This discussion I have told the committee about, and which the hon. member has been speaking about out of the fulness of his ignorance -he says it was "railroaded" through at Nanaimo; he was referring no doubt to what took place at Port Alberni.
Then he talked at great length to show something else. He drew a fancy picture by using the curtains in some mysterious way. What he really was trying to get at is this: He was drawing a picture or trying to as to the width of the strait of Juan de Fuca at that point. Then he made a comparison of the length of the trap, which runs out perhaps a couple of thousand feet, as compared with the strait, and indicated that the fish really did not need to go into the traps unless they were determined to do so, because the 2,000 feet was such a small percentage as compared with the total width. Well, I suppose he does not know better than that, and I shall not attack him on the point. He has never been a sockeye salmon; that is quite evident. I hope he will never be.


James Samuel Taylor: Has the hon. member been, by any chance?


Alan Webster Neill: Have I been one? If I were a sockeye I would


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


James Samuel Taylor: I do not mind the argumentum ad hominem; you may go ahead with that as far as you like; it will not hurt me. But are we not discussing traps?


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly we are. But when false arguments are put forward by an hon. member, I have, I think, a right to dissect them. I was not talking to the hon. member at all. I was speaking about his arguments concerning the percentage of lead compared with the width of the straits. As I say, if he were familiar with the habits of sockeye he would know something about its homing instinct. It spawns, goes to sea and stays there four years. At the end of that period, in spite of hell and high water, it will come back again, and it will go to only one place; it will go back to the place where it was spawned and it will go nowhere else. It will not go ten or twelve miles away to another stream, but it will come right back to where it was spawned. It is a biological urge within it which comes on at the end of four or five years.
These traps are put out at the good headlands, where the fish will come around the headlands. If I were going around the corner of that table and wished to go to the minister's seat, I would not go around by the seat of the hon. member for Nanaimo, would I? I would have all that width, if I wished to use it, but naturally if I were walking to the minister's seat I would do as I would if driving a car. I would hug the right-hand corner, or keep to the right of the road. That is exactly what the fish do. They go to the headland, and when they go to the right they find a piece of wire-netting sticking out. They cannot go up on the shore; so they go along in the opposite direction, poking along, until they come to the trap. That is the end of it. Of course they could back up and go out to sea, but it is not their custom-and you cannot make a salmon do something different from its natural instinct, or different from that which nature intended it to do. That is the explanation of the percentage.
Then, although I did not hear him accurately, I believe he was reading from a reprint of a Pacific coast fishing newspaper, a memorandum or a brochure got out in the early spring dealing with various matters in connection with Fraser river salmon and, incidentally, with other matters as well. He took out of that certain sections of the tract which were in favour of the traps. I read that tract, too-I got it before he did-and I say that " tract " is the right word for it, because it was an example of propagandizing and evangelizing. I discovered that the publication of that pamphlet was financed by three of the large canning companies. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) does not know that. I was not told which three they were,
Supply-Fisheries

but considering that a large proportion of that pamphlet was in the direction of continuing the fish traps, one might perhaps make an invidious suggestion. Now I just want to say what I had intended to say in the beginning. I had intended to meet the hon. gentleman's argument in just one point, but I was led astray to answer some of his vagaries. I hold in my hand the report of the proceedings of the marine and fisheries committee of March 22, 1937. At that time I was in my poor way summing up my argument against the traps. I had asked for a return in the house of certain correspondence which the minister kindly brought down. That correspondence, therefore, became official, and I quoted some letters contained in the return. One of them was from a gentleman named J. S. Taylor, member of parliament. At that time I took the privilege of quoting that letter, and I shall quote it now. If it does not answer all his argument, well, then I am sorry. He is writing to Mr. William Yowles, general secretary, Sooke and Milnes Landing Branches, Workers and Farmers Protective Association, Sooke, Vancouver island, British Columbia. The vital portion of that letter reads:
From seventy per cent of the fishing catch becoming American it is now, United States forty-seven per cent and Canada fifty-three per cent, and neither country can complain of this division. You see, therefore, that the anomaly of the trap situation at Sooke must be grappled with from the general public interest. If the Sooke traps are allowed to remain, an excellent excuse can be advanced by the United States fishermen for the reestablishment of American traps.
Mark that.
The Sooke workers appear to be falling between two stools and I say, in all kindness, that there is no commercial justification for my advancing any arguments to destroy the position taken by the fisheries department.
At that moment the fisheries department had given orders that there were to be no more trap licences issued.
They are-
That is the fisheries department-
-manifestly doing their plain duty when they protect the larger interests in the community, and it would appear that the economic necessity of forty men at Sooke cannot rate against the economic necessity of 5,000 fishermen definitely affected by the elimination of the trap system.
It would be superfluous if I said anything after that. That is the hon. member's own letter, a copy of which he was kind enough to send to the minister. He stated he could not put the economic necessity of forty men at Sooke against the economic necessity of 5,000 fishermen who would be beneficially affected by the removal of traps. That is all.


James Samuel Taylor: I just want
to explain-


Alan Webster Neill: If you can.


James Samuel Taylor: I still stand by that letter.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


James Samuel Taylor: It was written
at a time when I believed that the abolition of the traps at Sooke was a fait accompli. When it was pointed out to me that there was more to learn and more to be decided about the matter, I went into the fight with a clear determination to know what I was talking about. I think the facts which were brought out in the fisheries committee last year demonstrate that I did know what I was talking about. Let me tell this committee that a prominent member of that committee, when I pointed out the physical change which took place in the fish on their way to the spawning grounds and described the sharpening of the teeth and the extension of the lower jaw, stated quite definitely, "Who in the world ever heard of a fish having teeth." That remark was expunged from Hansard: but, believe me, I have not forgotten it. Unless hon. members apply themselves with equal determination to find out the facts of the case, they cannot be expected to know the true situation at Sooke.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Chairman, I think the trend of the discussion gives considerable force to the argument raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) earlier in the day, that the proper place to thrash out this problem is in the committee on fisheries. I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the minister in denying us an opportunity to continue the investigation initiated last session. I was one of the members who wrote to the minister urging that course earlier in this session, and I resent very much the remark he made this afternoon. The minister stated that it was the privilege of hon. members of the committee who were not satisfied with his attitude to call the matter to the attention of the chairman of the committee for some definite action. I think the minister is aware, as we are, that the chairman of the committee has acted with strict impartiality and unfailing courtesy in connection with this matter, but he could not very well act in the matter unless reference had been made to the committtee by the house with the sanction of the government.
I am at a complete loss to understand why the minister has disregarded the intentions of the committee which sat last year. It' is

Supply-Fisheries
true the findings of the committee were inconclusive as to whether the traps at Sooke should be abolished, but it was clearly understood that further evidence would be procured through the department and that the members of the committee would be afforded an opportunity to settle this matter in a more satisfactory way. Hon. members have stated on their responsibility as members of this house that these traps were a menace to the fishing industry of British Columbia, and it is hardly good enough to hear the minister say, as he said this afternoon, that the additional evidence and the expression of public opinion in the petition were not sufficiently worth while to justify further investigation.
May I point out that the further evidence required is strictly of a technical nature and that it can be obtained only from the experts in the employ of the department. It was understood that they would continue the investigation and make that information available so that this matter might be settled in some judicial fashion. Evidence has been submitted that two companies are enjoying a privilege or a monopoly at the expense of the workers in the industry, workers who must face daily hazards to get the slender remuneration they receive for their labours. I consider the attitude of the minister in this regard to be rather high-handed. We have the unique spectacle in this issue where he extends special protection to privileged interests, to two companies, to exploit the resources of the Dominion of Canada with enormous profits to themselves and disregard the welfare of the workers dependent upon the industry.
In past years the Department of Fisheries has followed the excellent practice of giving the organized workers in the industry an opportunity to discuss any contemplated changes in the regulations. The workers have been permitted to advance their views as to how the proposed changes might affect their interests. But in this particular instance the minister has broken faith with the workers in order to protect these two companies which enjoy a special privilege which menaces the fishing industry of British Columbia. When I say the industry in British Columbia, I mean the very livelihood of thousands of fishermen. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this is a clear illustration of protection for monopoly on the part of a government department with a total disregard of the interests of the workers. It i3 a menace to the livelihood of the workers.
Two companies established at Sooke, with quite a large capital investment, have been 51952-200
fishing with fixed traps, that is traps which are fixed to shore, a privilege denied the operators of all other types of gear and in violation of well established principles of conservation of the industry. A very definite effort has been made to secure the cooperation of all sections to maintain these principles of conservation as expressed in the regulations of the department, and it is extremely difficult to advocate the support of these principles when we have this glaring illustration of protection of operations which do definitely violate the principles of cor servation of the fishing industry. It is ' menace to the livelihood of the workers u the industry, because it affords a pretext to interests in the state of Washington to reestablish traps in United States waters where they can successfully intercept the main movement of sockeye salmon into the Fraser river.
As has been mentioned, on one occasion a widespread agitation was under way for the repeal of legislation in the state of Washington and leading to the reestablishment of traps there. If those traps are established in United States waters, this will deal a most disastrous blow to the fishermen who depend for their livelihood upon gill netting in the Fraser river. In my opinion, if this privilege is now extended to the two companies established at Sooke, there is no logical reason why other companies should not be later afforded the same privilege of establishing traps at strategic points in the coastal waters of British Columbia; and if that is done, it will completely wipe out the livelihood of many thousands of fishermen in that province.
For those three main reasons the continued operation of these traps is a distinct threat to the industry. The minister, in the attitude he has taken, I think has broken faith with the members of the committee and with the workers in the industry in order to protect those special interests. There is nothing more at stake at Sooke than the employment of forty men. Those forty men, as experienced fishermen, could easily be absorbed in other branches of the fishing industry. The capital invested at Sooke could easily be diverted to other types of operations such as purse seining in other waters. No distinct hardship would result if the minister decided to discontinue the issuance of licences for the fish traps at Sooke, and I think the minister owes this committee a more adequate explanation than he has yet given as to why he has not seen fit to refer this matter to the committee for thorough inquiry, place at the disposal of the committee the additional technical evidence

Supply-Fisheries

which might have been procured, and enable a satisfactory settlement of this issue to be made.
It is not good enough to speak with derision of that petition. I have some knowledge of the circumstances under which signatures were obtained to it. It is true they are not all signatures of fishermen, but to a very large extent they are signatures of people in communities which depend in very large measure upon the prosperity of the fishing industry and realize the menace of the fishing traps. The minister cannot hope to dispose of the question in the way in which he has attempted to do so this afternoon. Public sentiment is aroused through these communities as to this issue, and will ultimately demand a more satisfactory settlement. I urge the minister to take steps to have this matter brought before the standing fisheries committee at some appropriate time and have it investigated thoroughly in the light of the technical evidence that his department is in a position to procure.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Even though
some of the members of the committee had requested that it should be convened, I think my hon. friend will appreciate the position in which I, as chairman, would be. We could have called the committee together, but when we met we would have found ourselves without any reference from the house or any special subject to consider. I just wish to point out to my hon. friend that even if we had convened, we had no reference from the house or anything of a special nature to take up.


James Samuel Taylor: Will the hon. member for Vancouver North permit a question? On the Swiftsure banks outside the strait of Juan de Fuca, fifty-two United States purse seiners sit and fish. Only twelve Canadian purse seiners were there at the same time.. If this is such a valuable water for seiners, why were not more Canadian boats at those banks?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I think the answer is fairly simple. Canadian operators have enjoyed the special privilege, with less effort and less expense, to establish six traps at Sooke, and none of the Canadian operators has had the enterprise indicated by the United States operators to construct and operate the type of craft which could successfully fish off the Swiftsure banks.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Before we proceed any further on this point, I wish to repudiate the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver North, that the minister "broke

faith" with the committee or did not carry out the directions of the committee. I feel that the recommendations made by the committee last year which appear on the records were carried out to the letter by the minister and by the Department of Fisheries. Second, there was no refusal on my part at any time to refer the matter to the committee. What took place is this, that I think both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Vancouver North wrote asking me if I would refer to the committee the petitions that were presented to the house. That is my recollection of it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister permit an interruption?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: My suggestion was that
the whole question, a continuation of the inquiry of last year, should be referred to the committee.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, and I think I replied to both gentlemen that, in my opinion, nothing new had been brought to my attention or no new evidence or facts placed before the department which would justify me in my capacity as minister to take the initiative of calling together the committee and referring matters which, in my opinion, had been thoroughly investigated last year. If either of these two hon. members or any member of the house had asked me to refer a special matter to the committee, I could not have refused him that privilege because it was not in my power to do so. There was no intention on my part or on the part of the department to prevent anybody from bringing to the attention of parliament through the committee any new matter respecting the question of fish traps in British Columbia. This is not a new matter. There have been fish traps at Sooke for thirty-four years.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Too long.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All governments prior
to this year have received at different times petitions and requests for the removal of those traps, and the best opinions have been taken into consideration. It has not been thought it was in the best interests of the fisheries to do that, and until such a conclusion is warranted I do not think any minister will take the responsibility of changing an order of things which has been going on for thirty-four years. It might be in the interests of some branch of the fisheries on the coast of British Columbia to remove the traps; but as I said, they have never been able yet to convince me, and they have never been able

Supply-Fisheries
to convince any of my predecessors for the last thirty-four years, that it was in the best interests of the industry to remove those traps. Any hon. member besides the hon. members for Comox-Alberni and Vancouver North could have had the matter referred to the committee when these petitions were laid on the table of the house; they could have moved, if they had desired to do so, that these petitions be referred to the committee on fisheries for investigation and further inquiry. I would have raised no objection. As I said before, I have no objection whatever, and it is not in my power to raise any. Indeed, it is not too late now. Why do not these hon. members do it? I shall not take the responsibility for calling the committee together again to go over matters which, in my opinion, were thoroughly gone into last year. If any hon. member has any new matter which he thinks ought to be considered, it is for him to ask that the committee be called together. I would be delighted to appear before the committee and listen to any arguments advanced and to carry out any recommendations made, just as we carried out the recommendations that were made last year.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has made one statement which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. He said that these things have been going on for over thirty-four years. Is that correct?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is my information -that there have been traps there since 1904.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. Well, for some periods
during that time-for many periods in fact -I made no objection to the traps being there. But surely the minister knows the reason why the agitation was started. As we are threshing this matter out, very regrettably I shall have to give the history of it. There has always been, an agitation by the cannery men for traps, because they are a quick and effective way of catching fish, though disastrous to the fishermen and the fish alike. From 1907 onward this question has cropped up from time to time. There were traps at Sooke and other places; some time around 1924 or 1925 or 1926 the cannery men conceived the idea that they would like to have traps in the northern part of British Columbia, and so they got a commissioner appointed, a gentleman who- had been a lawyer for one of the canning companies. He went there and made an elaborate report. He reported that the run of fish was such that it was highly in the interests of Canada to allow traps there because it was the last chance to get hold of 51952-2004
any of the fish, for otherwise the Americans would get them in their traps on the American side in Alaska. I got hold of the evidence and, with the support of two Conservative members then in opposition, we tore the report to pieces, for the simple reason that it did not gibe with the evidence. The evidence was all the opposite way. We showed by the evidence that the fish did not run north but came south, and as a result of the representations we made the then minister announced that he would not allow the traps there. The traps remained at Sooke, however. Why? For these reasons:	The
run of salmon on the way to Fraser river, their homing ground, is through the strait of Juan de Fuca and past the headlands referred to in the neighbourhood of Sooke; then, for some unknown reason, instead of heading straight for the Fraser river, they go on to the United States side. But they do not spawn there. They go around Puget sound, running the gamut of the United States traps every few' yards, and those that are left came back to the Fraser river. It was known that the Americans were taking an enormous number. The Americans were taking 79 per cent of the total catch of fish spawned in the Fraser river. Taking the Sooke catch, the United States catch and the Fraser river catch, the Americans were said to get 70 per cent, while we were getting 30 per cent. The reason why the preceding Minister of Fisheries never cancelled the trap licences was simply this:	It was argued that as fish were
being caught in such enormous numbers on the United States side, we might as well catch what we could before they went over.
But then the situation changed. The Americans had seines, but we did not allow seines in the Fraser river and the argument was that as the Americans had seines and traps we should have seines and traps. We allowed the traps but not the seines. Then, for reasons which I need not go into, because they are not material to this argument, the people of the state of Washington got up one day and by means of the initiative got a bill passed. If it secures a sufficient number of signatories, it becomes law in spite of the legislature. They got up a bill by initiative and it went through at once. They obtained the requisite number of signatures in a few days, or at any rate, in a few weeks. That bill called for the abolition of traps in United States waters, and just about the same time we allowed seines in our waters. In other words, the conditions were reversed altogether; the tables were turned. Here was our opportunity. The Americans had taken out 219 traps-that is their own record

and the
Supply-Fisheries

query was, " Is not British Columbia going to play her part and take out the four or five she has "? Of course, the trap interests on the United States side, the capitalist interests, were keen to get their traps put back, but once the law is passed by initiative it cannot [DOT]be repealed for two years. It was brought up this spring in the legislature of the state, and the strongest argument used by those who wished to restore the United States traps was that Canada had not played the game. The Americans said that they had taken out 219 traps and Canada had not taken out the seven or eight she had. The result was so enormously to our advantage that instead of getting 30 per cent, we caught on our side 86 per cent of the total catch. It was, therefore, so very much to our interest as a nation to have removed the traps that it would have paid us to pension the forty-one men in order to ensure that the United States traps would be kept out. I met a cannery man last winter in Alberni. He said to me, " I was over in Seattle the other day where I met one of the biggest trap owners in Puget sound and he said to me he was glad that we in Canada had not taken out the traps, and they did not want us to remove them, because at the next meeting of the legislature they would use that fact as an argument in support of the restoration of the United States traps." That is why I say the conditions are different. If we do not remove our five or six traps the Americans will restore their traps.
In my letter to the minister I said:
Might I inquire what your policy in the matter is? Are you disposed to give them notice that they will not be allowed any for or beyond this year, or do you propose to refer it again to the fishery committee of the house?
I cannot see that any language could be plainer, and his answer was that he did not consider it necessary. Now I shall read the last letter, of which there are five copies in existence. The hon. member for North Vancouver has one, the Kyuoquot trollers cooperative association has one, and I have here the one sent to me. It is dated February 7, 1936, and is from the deputy minister:
Dear Mr. Neill,-
I wish to revert to your letter of June 25 last-
That would be June, 1935.
-endorsing petition by the Kyuquot trollers cooperative association urging that licences for salmon trap nets in the portion of the southwest coast of Vancouver island be discontinued.
The question has been receiving careful consideration and, in the light of all the circumstances, it has been decided to continue such licences for 1936. Notification is being given

the licensees, however, that thereafter such licences will not be granted. If trap nets are reintroduced in the state of Washington the question of reallowing them in the above area will again be reconsidered.
Trap nets have not been reintroduced in the state of Washington, and therefore it was not necessary to reconsider the question of reallowing them. The hon. member for North Vancouver, with a copy of a letter like that in his possession, is justified in saying that the fishing industry has not been treated fairly in the matter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister inform the committee of the manner in which the recommendations of the committee have been implemented? I would ask the number of licences issued and the total revenue in the way of licence fees, and also as to what provision has been made to alter the opening in the lead of the traps in order to comply with the suggestion of the committee.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My information is that the same number was issued this year as last year and for the last few years, and the licence fee of $500 has been collected on each as recommended by the committee. As soon as the recommendation of the committee was made, an order in council was passed changing the regulations and the licence fee accordingly. Five licences were issued this year at $500 each. As to the recommendation that an opening in the lead be made, my information is that a larger opening than that recommended by the committee has been made.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Have steps been taken to ensure that those charged with the enforcement of regulations are entirely free from influence by the company? The astounding revelation was made before the committee last year that the man charged with enforcement of the fisheries regulations in connection with the traps was in the off season in the pay of the company; a very questionable situation. I should also like to know whether the department can give assurance that the regulations as they apply to operators of other types of gear are now applied to the traps. That is, when the traps are fishing for springs, are they allowed to catch sockeye in advance of the season in which other operators are allowed to spread nets for sockeye?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Regarding the statement that astounding disclosures were made before the committee last year, I think that is in line with other statements made by my hon. friend. The only astounding statement which I recollect was that apparently one poor guardian during the season when he was not

Supply-Fisheries
employed by this department had been employed by one of the companies operating traps. This year we have taken every precaution possible to see that no one who had at any time been employed with the operators of the traps would be employed as guardian.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) was pleased to read a long treatise from Mr. Goodrich. I am going to read a very short statement from him, made under oath on February 22, 1937. The witness C. F. Goodrich was recalled; he had been previously sworn. I will shorten it. He said he was going to read a wire received from his accountants in Victoria in regard to the set-up of his financial affairs. This is the telegram:
In accordance with instructions we have examined records of Sooke Harbour Fishing & Packing Company, Limited-
That is only one of the two concerns.

from 1918 to 1935 and find dominion income tax paid, $63,053; provincial income tax paid, $48,439 . . . paid-up capital, $24,800; surplus, $76,517. . . .
Later on, one of the committee, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley), asked the witness, as reported at page 159 of the proceedings, whether that $25,000 represented all the money put in; "Did you put any more money in than the $25,000 of stock?" And the answer was, "No." Hon. members can get an idea of the income from the amount of income tax paid for that period. I submit it must have been substantially greater each year than the total investment of the company in the business. No wonder they are anxious to hold on.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Another question asked
by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) was whether the operators of the trap were permitted to catch one species of salmon in advance of the season. Under the rules this is not permitted. If during the cohoe season some sockeye are caught in the traps, they must be liberated.


Alan Webster Neill: Liberated; is that what was
done with them?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand it was; yes.


Alan Webster Neill: My information is that they
were seized by the fisheries department and given to a hospital.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If they are taken out
of the water dead, of course we cannot liberate them; it is better to give them to hospitals than to throw them back in the water. I mean, if it is possible to liberate them and save them, they are thrown back in the water.


Alan Webster Neill: The fact of the matter,
then, is that a trap is allowed to catch them during the close season for those classes of fish. That is the point.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister must be
aware that he is not on safe ground in his statement. They are not aware that sockeye salmon are caught in the trap out of season until the brail is lifted, and then it is surely impossible to liberate them; they are dead. That clearly is an admission by the minister that they are violating the regulations in a way that would be severely penalized if carried on by other fishermen. That is one of the main objections to the trap.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Surely the hon. member understands that all species of salmon in British Columbia waters do not run at the same time. It may be that during a run of one species, like cohoes or springs, a relatively few of other species may run at the same time. But if they are caught and it is possible to liberate them alive, they are liberated. If they are dead, they are given to hospitals or other charitable institutions.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister place
on record such data as have been secured in regard to the catch in the traps last season?


Mr. BROOKS:: I am not going to speak about sockeye salmon. Seemingly it is very difficult to close the trap, whether you are fishing or talking sockeye salmon. But I did want to discuss briefly the report on the illegal fishing and canning of lobsters in the maritime provinces. I think that comes under this item. The minister will recall that last year there was appointed a commission to investigate illegal lobster fishing in the maritime provinces, particularly in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. For six weeks an investigation was carried on by a supreme court judge, Mr. Justice Le Blanc. He had with him as counsel Mr. Bridges from Moncton. Both of these men are estimable legal gentlemen, but I think the minister will agree that they know very little about lobster fishing. The impression in New Brunswick, and I think also in Prince Edward Island, where this investigation was conducted, is, that the facts which this commission undertook to obtain could very easily have been obtained by some member of the minister's department. The facts which were brought out were known by every man, woman and child in those sections. Everyone knew that there was illegal lobster fishing in New Brunswick on Northumberland strait and also on the shores of Prince Edward Island. This factfinding commission, which spent six weeks or
SuppI y-Fisheries

more in these two provinces, did not, as far as can be made out, do much but pile up a big bill.


Mr. SPENCE:: That is the customary
thing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 
Mr. KINLEY:: The report from which the hon. gentleman is reading is the report of a commission which investigated conditions in Northumberland strait only?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And Prince Edward
Island.


John James Kinley: It does not refer to southwest Nova Scotia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No.


John James Kinley: There is no such condition on the south coast of Nova Scotia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No such condition perhaps, so far as illegal lobster fishing is concerned, but I want to say to the hon. member that if he reads his papers-and that is not necessary, because he lives there-he will find that the condition on the south coast as far as poverty and depression are concerned is as bad, if not worse than the condition in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island.


John James Kinley: No, not as regards illegal
fishing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not as to illegal fishing,
but as to poverty among the fishermen. I would advise the hon. member to visit the fishing villages, or to read the Halifax Herald, the Halifax Chronicle or any paper published on the coast. If what I am saying is not true, I shall be very much surprised. I do not wish to divert, but I could quote, for the information of the hon. member, the report of Mr. MacDonald of St. Francis Xavier university who is an authority on the matter.


John James Kinley: He is in another part of
Nova Scotia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He speaks for the province of Nova Scotia generally, and about the intolerable condition in the industry of the province.
But I am getting away from the point. Is the minister talcing any steps to see that the officials who are supposed to look after the guarding of the industry are men who are not engaged in poaching? I would suggest the guardians should be placed under the civil service commission. It is not fair to the men themselves, to the industry or to the provinces that the men should be recruited from the ranks of the fishermen. Then, what is done in connection with controlling the sale of lobsters to the factories in the closed season? It is a well known fact that if the factories were not allowed to buy, the fishermen would not sell. I should like to know particularly whether fisheries protection is being taken out of patronage and put under the civil service commission.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member has
been very fair in his criticism, with the exception of his opening remarks which, under the circumstances, are excusable. He started out by saying that the expenditures incurred in connection with the lobster investigation were not justified, and that an official of the department could have verified the facts just
Supply-Fisheries

as well as a royal commission. That is possible, but we must not lose sight of the circumstances under which the investigation was promoted and carried on.
Prior to the investigation we were told that the supply of live lobsters, on the coasts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island more particularly, was gradually disappearing, and that the industry and those who lived by it were about to go out of existence. What we did was to call a conference of the packers and the fishermen, and ask them to discuss the whole matter in an effort to arrive at conclusions as to the causes of the situation. At that meeting some made allegations that the situation was caused through overfishing, illegal fishing and illegal packing. Immediately the fishermen said the allegations were not true, and the packers in turn told the fishermen that they were not doing any illegal packing or canning.
The result was that public opinion was not made aware of the facts, and in our opinion it was impossible to effect any reforms in the district. We believed that if we increased our strength and prosecuted the fishermen for violation of the law, on a large scale, we would be accused of persecuting a class of people who were in great need. We thought that in order effectively to carry out a program of reform we would have to have public opinion in our favour. We thought it was best to show the public what was going on, and that is why we appointed an independent investigator, a judge of the superior court of New Brunswick, to bring out the evidence. It was made known to the public that we would act on that evidence. That is what was done.
I believe that from that point of view the investigation was a success. Newspapers of all shades of opinion in the maritime provinces admitted at the time the investigation was in progress, and at the time they published the evidence in extenso, that no one had any idea of the extent to which illegal lobster fishing and illegal lobster canning were resorted to in that district. Not long after the investigation closed the season opened, and it was remarkable to note the change in the attitude of the public towards the question. We were enabled to change some of the officials who, we thought, were not rendering the service we expected of them; we were enabled to increase our protection; we were enabled to change the boundaries between districts 7 and 8, and enabled to close the canneries which were operating on no-man's-land, or on the dividing line between the two districts. As a result, we have testimonials in the department that in
[Mr. Michaud.!
the first season after the investigation the change in the administration was most beneficial to the fishermen of the two districts, and there was a marked evidence of the increase of lobsters in the fishing season which followed. As it happened, there were several months between the two seasons.
We were able to close the packers, the big fellows as they were called, who were taking advantage of the dire circumstances of the fishermen, who were inviting those fishermen to violate the law and offering to buy and can their catch surreptitiously. I think we have performed in that respect a great service for the fishermen. In order to enable them to carry on while they were prevented from fishing illegally, in cooperation with the governments of the provinces in which they lived we extended help, so that they may be prevented from exercising their illegal business during the closed season. Not only were we satisfied with strengthening our force and making the changes which I have just enumerated, but we carried on an educational campaign among them. We organized them into study clubs, and sent among them some educated men who placed the facts before them and showed them where they were, as the hon. member has said, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Further, we lent them money at very moderate cost to do their own packing legally during the season. We also gave instructions to have a better class of guardian appointed to watch the fishing grounds during the closed seasons.
We have not been able to accomplish that which many people have thought would be desirable, that is, to place these temporary employees under the civil service commission, but we have seen that a thorough investigation was made by the officials of the department before the appointments were put through. We have had reports that quite a change has taken place during the last two seasons and, what is perhaps more worth while, we believe we have behind us a strong public opinion. I can assure the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that this investigation was beneficial. I believe the expenditures in connection therewith were warranted and the fishermen will receive greater benefits than they would have received by the distribution of money for temporary relief. An effort has been made to preserve their source of supply and to keep it intact in order that they may carry on the calling which they have carried on for generations back.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the desire of the government to get through an interim supply bill to-night if possible, and I would ask that

Interim Supply Bill
this item stand in order that the committee of supply may give attention to the two resolutions necessary in order to enable the interim supply bill to be passed.
Item stands.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$39,057,624.49, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939.


Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved,	that	a	sum	not	exceeding
$17,751,572.68, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939.


Robert Emmett Finn: When such large amounts as these are going through, I think all hon. members should give way to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), otherwise all the money will slip out of the pockets of the poor people of Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I can understand quite clearly the desire of the Minister of Finance to have additional supply voted at this time. We have already voted one-sixth of the supply for the present year, and now we are being asked to vote another one-sixth of the main estimates for the same year. In addition, we are being asked to vote one-sixth of the supplementary estimates that have been brought down. In connection with these supplementary estimates the government finds itself in this rather unfortunate position. Bill No. 105, for the relief of unemployment, was not introduced until April 25. A year ago the estimates embodying items for purposes similar to those referred to in Bill No. 105 were introduced on March 12. When Bill No. 105 was before the house hon. members were insistent in their demands for information as to the amounts to be expended, the nature of the undertakings and other particulars. This information was not forthcoming. We were told that we had to wait for the supplementary estimates.
In looking over these supplementary estimates it is to be noted that the total is $106,509,436.10, a large amount. However, upon examination we find that government owned enterprises require $44,413,714, leaving
about $61,000,000 for all other purposes. As a rule, the main estimates are smaller than those of last year. When one goes through these supplementary estimates one of the striking features is the large number of items that might very well have been included in the main estimates and which, in the ordinary course of events, would have been there. We find page after page of items covering public buildings which should have been brought down in the main estimates.


Charles Avery Dunning: They never have been.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say that larger amounts have been brought down in the main estimates than is the case this year. As the minister says, we have always had supplementary estimates for public buildings, harbour improvements and so on; but with the experience of the last few years and the necessity of initiating work for the relief of unemployment as early in the season as possible, I do suggest that the government should have been in a position to include in the main estimates a larger number of these items than they did. I am not complaining that they are there, but the fact appears to be that these items have been included to swell the amount of money made available for the alleviation of unemployment under Bill No. 105. When you deduct the amounts I have mentioned from this large total of the main estimates; when you consider the items that should have been included in the main estimates, the remainder is not so large after all. I hope it will be sufficient for the purposes, but I have my doubts.
As I have said, it is unfortunate that these estimates were not before the house when we were considering Bill No. 105. The items are scattered through this rather bulky volume of supplementary estimates, and we shall desire to discuss them in the light of the provisions of Bill No. 105. We shall want to point out where we believe they are inadequate or where we consider they are not exactly suitable to existing conditions, where they do not go far enough or where perhaps the expenditure is not, as we believe, in the public interest or best calculated to accomplish the purposes outlined in Bill No. 105. I say it is unfortunate that we have not had that opportunity earlier in the session and that this amount of money was not available earlier in *the season.	[DOT]
For these reasons, and while reserving all rights to discuss any of these items and to object to any of them, I feel that at this stage we are bound to comply with the request of the minister for this grant of one-sixth of these supplementary estimates; but as I
Interim Supply Bill

have said, it must be without any prejudice whatever to the conditions that we have made in connection with Bill No. 105 and without waiver of any rights that we might have exercised if these estimates had been brought down much earlier and we had had ample opportunity to discuss them in the light of the provisions of Bill No. 105.
With these reservations, I have not anything further to say on the minister's motion for one-sixth of the supply in the supplementary estimates, and what I have said with regard to those would apply with equal force to the criticisms which we may desire to make of any other items that are not in any way related to the program outlined in Bill No. 105.


Charles Avery Dunning: I only desire to say that all the reservations mentioned by my hon. friend, which are the usual reservations made by the opposition with respect to interim supply, are readily conceded by the government, and I appreciate the cooperation extended in passing interim supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1939, the sums of $33,057,624.49 and $17,751,572.68 respectively be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I intended to ask the minister if these supplementary estimates cover all that are likely to foe presented to the house this session -for the year 1938-39, or may we expect other supplementary estimates? We were given to understand that the estimates in connection with Bill No. 105 were delayed until all the estimates might be brought down at the same time.
Further I should like to say to the minister that it might not be unreasonable, if he could do so at this stage, to outline what other legislation is likely to be brought down this session. We are now well on into the session, and the order paper has not any more legislation standing for consideration. I 
probably should have mentioned this on the other motion, but I should like to inquire now of the Minister of Finance if he can give an indication of what important legislation is likely to be brought down.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the first question, as Minister of Finance I can assure my hon. friend that these are all the estimates I expect to table this session. I know that sometimes one's hopes in that regard are disappointed, but the intention of the government is that these supplementaries represent the last of the session. That, of course, is always to be qualified by the happening of something which cannot be now foreseen.
With respect to my hon. friend's second question, regarding legislation yet to some down, I think that question had better be directed to the attention of the Prime Minister. I shall be glad to do that. Some of the legislation, of course, was indicated the other day by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), with respect to housing and with respect to municipal improvements. I hope to have financial resolutions relating to matters of that kind on the order paper within the coming week, but I shall direct my hon. friend's question as to legislation generally to the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1939.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration-further amount required, $7,350.
Robert Emmett Finn: I understand from the Minister of Finance, who is leading the house to-night, that we were to go back into committee for the purpose of further considering the item that was under discussion in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Now I see that we are shifting to agriculture.
I cannot quite understand the minister's assurance.	;

Supply-Agriculture


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry my hon. friend got the wrong impression from what I said.
I said that we would be going back into supply, but the Minister of Fisheries has just advised that he has no hope of getting the item through to-night and that progress might be made in agriculture. The Minister of Fisheries does not wish to go on immediately, and the Minister of Agriculture is ready.


Robert Emmett Finn: That explanation is perfectly satisfactory to me, and I sincere^ hope that to-morrow the Minister of Fisheries will get through the committee the item we were on, and others.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Looking at the supplementary estimates, one finds that the total amount for agriculture, under the heading of agriculture, appears to be included in items Nos. 475 to 502, making a total of $6,742,059- % 71. Looking over these items in detail, one is struck by the large number of items that are simply supplementary to the regular administrative items of the department. I find: Departmental administration, further amount required, $7,350; publicity and extension division, further amount required, $5,640; then, passing over the next four items under the heading "special," we come to the heading, "marketing services," and we find a further amount required of $7,000 odd for agricultural economics. Then we find dairy products, further amount required; subsidies for cold storage, further amount required of $178,000; fruit and vegetable products, further amount required of $4,972; live stock and poultry, further amount required of $7,040. The next is production services, and we pass down through these, a considerable number of items, and then come to experimental farms and then science services. The same remark applies to all these. It seems to me that the minister in preparing these estimates should have been able to anticipate these amounts which he now asks for in the supplementary estimates. The only two headings under which apparently there are special items for carrying out the purposes of Bill No. 105 are to be found under the headings "special" and "marketing services." As to the first item, administration, further amount required, I would ask the minister to look at the main estimates and compare the total for 1937-38, which is given as $9,266,476 with a total for 1938-39 of $9,160,532. Shall we find that in the total for 1937-38 there are included all the items that were voted in the special supplementary estimates for the relief of unemployment distress and that sort of thing under the Department of Agriculture? If not, how much in addition to
the amount appearing on page one of the main estimates was voted in special estimates last year for that purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: Generally speaking, to answer the last question first, the amounts that were in special estimates last year are under the heading " special " in these estimates on page one; that is, such amounts as were voted for paying freight on live stock and paying feed and fodder, and providing resettlement and prairie farm rehabilitation. These amounts were voted in specials a year ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But are they included in the total in the main estimates?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; they are not
included in the total in the regular estimates. I am informed that resettlement was included last year, but the others were not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was voted altogether for 1937-38, made up of the amount appearing in the summary of the main estimates for this year, of $9,266,476? What amount was administered through the Department of Agriculture in addition to that? Will the minister give that information so that we shall have the total for that year as compared with the total for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount that was provided last year in special supplementaries included $2,000,000 for rehabilitation and $500,000 for feed and fodder.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For what?


James Garfield Gardiner: For feed and fodder and rehabilitation. I do not recall what the amount was for paying freight on live stock back to areas, but it would be less than the $100,000 here. I understand that it was all in the feed and fodder appropriation last year, which would make the amount $100,000 less than the two amounts this year.
In order to answer the other question raised with regard to the comparatively small amounts through quite a number of branches, that is explained by the fact that at the time the regular estimates were being made up the reclassification of the service as a result of the reorganization was being carried on by the civil service commission, and it was impossible for me at that time to get the reclassifications complete. For example, in the first item, No. 475, $7,350, I find there are twenty members of the service involved in that reclassification. Increases are provided for with regard to eight of them as statutory increases, and eight are salary adjustments of small amounts; $180, $120, $120, $240 a year, and so on. Four of them are for salaries not
Supply-Agriculture

provided in the main estimates. The others are these small amounts of increases I have indicated. That will be true through practically all the items; it was a reclassification carried out by the civil service commission as a result of the reorganization, which brought changes in salaries here and there, and adding an occasional salary where an additional oificial was required.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When was that reorganization completed, and what will be the total amount for departmental administration for the current year as compared with the total for last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount for administration in the regular estimates for 193S-39 was $112,655. That is an increase of $15,234.75 over the previous year. This amount of $7,350 will be added to that, making $22,584.75.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that the increase in the cost of administering this department over last year, or the year before? As I understood the minister, there was an increase last year over the year before?


James Garfield Gardiner: A small one.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. Again this year
there is another increase, $22,584. The reorganization apparently has not brought about economies.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole expenditure
in the department, as I remember the figure for three years ago, was $7,000,000 odd, and this year it is over $9,000,000, or an increase of perhaps 30 per cent. But it is not yet within $2,000,000 of where it was at its peak. The expenditure was cut greatly around 1932, and has been gradually increased since.


Mr. STIRLING:: The minister's explanation just now of the increase as shown on the details on page 24 of the supplementaries I understand was with regard to the first line, "salaries, reclassification and increases," but is the increase in temporary assistance also dependent upon the reorganization, which was not then complete, or is this further temporary assistance required ?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is both. In some
places it is a case of additional temporary assistance, and in other places it is a matter of an increase in the amounts given to those already temporarily employed. In this particular item there is only one increase in temporaries; one who is on the staff temporarily has had an increase of S240. There are four not provided for previously in the other estimates. I understand they were just omitted from the previous estimates; they had been on the list.


Mr. PERLEY:: What is the nature of the
services they rendered before?


James Garfield Gardiner: The first is a stenographer, grade II; the second is departmental librarian, grade I; the third a clerk, grade I; and the fourth a stenographer, grade III.


Harry James Barber: Are the chief, dairy products, marketing and merchandising service, and the chief, consumer service, new appointments?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not in item
No. 275.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Why were the increases for departmental administration in the general estimates over last year, $15,234.75, and this amount of $7,350, not included in the former estimates? Or is this new work?
t Mr. GARDINER: The explanation is that which I gave a moment ago, that it was impossible to include these at the time the general estimates were made up because the information was not then available. The civil service commission was going over the reclassifications resulting from the reorganization of the department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister tell
the committee of any additional activities or widening of the scope of the work of the department that has been undertaken as a result of the reorganization?


James Garfield Gardiner: The largest increase in
activity, as I explained on the main estimates, has to do with the marketing activities. There are, of course, increases in general activities all along the line. There is an increased number of illustration stations and experimental stations, and an increase in the activities in connection with the promotion of live stock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This increase is in connection with administration, which I take to be largely at the head office here. One would have thought that increased activities through the country might have been carried on very largely under the same organization.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there is a limit to the amount of work which an administrative staff can do. When you add services you naturally have to add more or less to the administrative staff. If there is more investigation going on, it makes more work for stenographers and clerks.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under this item we might discuss almost any activity of the department. As I have intimated, there are perhaps some hon. members who may wish to ask questions, who are not prepared to go on to-night. If

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity
the minister would agree that under some of the items which he has kindly consented to allow to stand we might discuss any matter which would properly come under this item of departmental administration, I understand some sort of undertaking was given on one of the main estimates that an item might be left open for that purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was an undertaking given on the main estimates that opportunity would be given to discuss all matters having to do with relief and those things particularly relating to the drought area in the west. That will all come under the special estimates. I had not intended to-night to proceed with the special estimates. If it would meet with the approval of the committee, though I do not think we shall reach it tonight, when we reach item No. 502, which is for $76,700 and which concerns buildings all the way across Canada in the different branches of the department, at that time there might be a discussion of anything at all in the department. Perhaps that would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and extension division-further amount required, $5,640.
George Halsey Perley: I see two appointments shown at page 24 of the estimates. Are these new appointments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; these are both new positions.


George Halsey Perley: Where do they carry on their publicity work?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are what are called publicity editors. Their duties will be carried on in the main building here. Their work is chiefly to prepare printed literature to be distributed.


Grote Stirling: In pamphlet form?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Not articles to the press?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there will be articles to the press in connection with agriculture generally, but also pamphlets.


Angus MacInnis: How has this work been done in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been a certain amount of it done, but it is a growing activity in the department and two additional men are required for it.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: How is the mailing list for these publications prepared?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course I do not know when the nucleus of the list was established in the department; I assume that was many years ago. The list is made up of officials of agricultural organizations, those connected with agricultural colleges, individuals who belong to agricultural associations or societies that hold exhibitions here and there across the country, and a great many people who apply from time to time to have their names placed on the mailing list in order to obtain different publications of the department. A list has been built up gradually, and from time to time it is revised in order to strike off the names of those who may have died or moved elsewhere, or to insert the names of new officials of different organizations.


Grote Stirling: With regard to the articles which appear in the press and which are sent out by the department-I am thinking principally of the weekly press across Canada-does the government pay for the space when it is desired to have such articles appear in -the weekly press?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the space in the
weekly press is not paid for when anything in the nature of news is sent out. Space is paid for only when advertising is carried on.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Are there to be new publications sent out, or are we to continue with just the publications we have now?


James Garfield Gardiner: Whenever any new information is available, a new pamphlet is published. It is one means of putting out information gathered from time to time through experimental and other work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many of these
publicity editors will the department have when these two are added? Are they appointed by the civil service commission?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three at
present, and they are all appointed by the civil service commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As to the paid advertisements, about which the minister spoke, would these be prepared by these publicity men or by an advertising agency?


James Garfield Gardiner: In both ways. There
is an advertising agency that prepares some of our advertising, and these men do some of the work as well.


Mr. LOCKHART:: The pamphlets that have been prepared in the past have been very useful in a general way. How is the public reached in order to get these publications across to them? Is it done through co-
3170	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Health oj Animals
operation with the provincial government men who operate in the provinces, or how are these publications put into the hands of the people back in the rural areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: The question that was asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lanark I think pretty well explains that. There is in the department a list that has been established comprising the names of officials of agricultural organizations and others who have applied to be placed on the mailing list, members of parliament, members of legislatures and others, and that official list is used as a means of distributing the literature of the department.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is there a system of
cooperation between the provincial representatives and the federal department? I am just wondering how that has worked out, because I have been asked that question in my own district.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is some cooperation. Wherever provinces indicate a desire to have certain publications distributed, that is done.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is that in effect in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; in every province.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I suppose any man engaged in agriculture or any other citizen who so desires may write to the department asking that his name be placed on the mailing list; or is it confined solely to officers of agricultural organizations? Can individual farmers get on this list if they apply to the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any individual who has an interest in agricultural matters may apply for and obtain these publications.


Harry James Barber: I understand that a list of the publications of the department is com-_ piled and sent out. The minister does not mean to suggest that all the publications contained in that list are sent out free to all those on this mailing list? I was under the impression that this list of publications was sent out and those on the mailing list chose what publications they desired to obtain.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a list sent out, of which the greater number are distributed free. Some of the more expensive publications are sold, and the department also follows the practice of sometimes selling them in bulk. A considerable number may be sent out for distribution to a particular organization.


Harry James Barber: What is the revenue from that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact amount, but the revenue is very small.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister said the department used an advertising agency or agencies in certain cases. What agency or agencies are now used for the purpose of departmental advertising?


James Garfield Gardiner: We used Cockfield-
Brown of Toronto until about three or four months ago. I think we have been using the Canadian Advertising Agency of Montreal for the last three or four months.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You are only using one?


James Garfield Gardiner: Only using one at a time. We used Cockfield-Brown at one time and have been using the Canadian Advertising Agency since. By way of correction I should say that there were some small matters of advertising looked after by a firm in Winnipeg in connection with our cattle movement and things of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production services-Health of Animals- Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Poods Act-further amount required, $39,800.
Mr. EVANS:: Has anything been done, in regard to the sore mouth disease in lambs.
I understand there has been quite a loss in the prairie flocks on account of this disease, and I should like to know if any work is being done towards getting a vaccine, or. something of that kind, to control it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there is a recommended treatment for the disease. The department has been asked to bring in a serum with living virus in connection with the disease, but so far it has not agreed to do so. The department does not agree with that method of dealing with the disease. There is a recognized treatment for it.


Charles Robert Evans: Is there any objection to
bringing in the vaccine that is being used in the southern United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there is
objection to bringing in vaccine from the south. It is based upon the idea of treatment through the use of the living virus in the vaccine. The health of animals branch of this department have never used that method of treatment in connection with any disease

Supply-Agriculture-Health of Animals
having to do with animals. They object to it, and they have not brought in vaccines based upon that principle.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compensation for animals slaughtered-further amount required, $110,000.
Grote Stirling: Have these animals all been slaughtered since the main estimates have been prepared?


James Garfield Gardiner: Every year we have followed the practice of waiting for the supple-mentaries with the idea that there would be more information at that time as to the number of districts which would be included for investigation during the coming season.


Grote Stirling: There was a vote of
$200,000 in the main estimates, which showed a reduction of $269,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are the districts which had to be reinvestigated or rechecked. The sum of $200,000 was provided in the main estimates to. deal with districts which have been gone over at least once. The retesting work is to take place this year. The sum of SI 10,000 will cover the number of districts we bring in to test for the first time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose some of those items have been standing for some considerable time, subject to negotiation, correspondence and so on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Speaking from
memory I would say that as a matter of general practice the counties made application. They have to go through the form of getting petitions. They are at certain stages at different times, and it is only after they have gone through all stages that we include them in the estimates for expenditures during the year.


George James Tustin: What counties are to be tested this year in Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: The new areas which have been established but not yet tested are as follows:
Quebec:
F rontenac Papineau Joliette Montcalm
Ontario:
Peterborough
Lanark
Island of St. Joseph
Simcoe
Victoria
District of Rainy River
Manitoba:
City of St. Boniface
Rural municipality of North Cypress
Part of the city of Winnipeg
Rural municipalities:
Whitewater
Edward
Charleswood
Ritchot (west of Red River)
Oakland North Norfolk Cameron
Saskatchewan:
Rural municipality of Macleod Estevan (comprising the rural municipalities of Coldfields, Estevan, Cambria, Browning, Benson and Symria.


George James Tustin: Is Lennox county included this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; I understand Lennox county is not yet established. They have not yet gone through the full process of establishing themselves as a district.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has there been any change in the basis of compensation for animals slaughtered under the provisions of this act, and of compensation for pure bred and grade cattle?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision for $150 for pure bred stock, with a two-thirds valuation, making a full compensation of $100. For grades the amount is set at $60, with a two-thirds maximum compensation of $40.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The maximum might not be paid in all cases?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Who determines the value of the animal slaughtered? If the owner insists the animal is extremely valuable, and the department thinks it is not so valuable, how is a value arrived at?


James Garfield Gardiner: A specially appointed veterinary surgeon really makes the valuation. If there is any dispute, a second one may be called in; but the valuation by the department is final.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Is it the intention to have the counties just named thoroughly checked during the coming summer, or in what manner does the department proceed? No doubt these counties have gone through the necessary requirements in connection with restricted areas.


James Garfield Gardiner: The work will probably be started in all of these counties just as soon as we can get at it, during the early part of the summer. Some of them will be completed, but possibly not all. The endeavour will be made to get over them, and to complete the first inspection during the coming summer, if possible.


George James Tustin: When is the second test made?
3172	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Health oj Animals


James Garfield Gardiner: The second test is supposed to be made sixty days after the first one. A period of sixty days must elapse, and the test is not made until the expiration of that time. In some instances it might not be completed during the year, but would be carried over into the following year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: My experience leads me to believe that objections have been raised in some areas. Could the minister tell me what the objections have been to the establishment of restricted areas. I have in mind one county which has raised considerable protest.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are very few objections made to the establishment of these areas, but where it is made it is usually by those who are raising cattle for beef purposes. Very seldom do we have objection from those raising cattle for dairy purposes. The other evening I read into Hansard a statement showing the results in a great many districts. If the hon. member would turn up Hansard, on the date our main estimates were before the committee, he would find a statement indicating that great progress had been made in the matter of eliminating tuberculosis from all those areas.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I have read the statement referred to by the minister. There are still some areas where it is proposed to put these regulations into effect, and some objection is made, more particularly to the rates of compensation. Would it be possible to increase the compensation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can quite understand that where an animal valued at from $200 to $300 is slaughtered and the owner receives no more than $150, there would be cause for complaint. However, the department has always taken the position that where an individual allows tuberculosis to develop in his herd he should assume some responsibility. The limit of compensation has been set at $150, and it has been found over many years that this is accepted fairly generally as liberal compensation.


Mr. WARD:: It might be of interest to some hon. members from agricultural districts to know the experience I had in connection *with tuberculosis. In 1921 I had a herd of pure bred cattle which were tested for tuberculosis, and I lost almost $6,000 worth. The last animal reacted in 1922; my herd is still under the dominion government accredited plan, and I have had no reactors since. Apparently the serums Used are perfect. At that time the maximum compensation allowed

was $160. I lost several animals ranging in value from $1,000 down to $400, but I was perfectly satisfied with the settlement. As the minister has said, I felt that I should accept some responsibility for the fact that I had a herd with a number of tubercular animals in it, and I have never regretted having cleaned up my herd at that time. My advice to anyone who has not had his herd tested is to do so without delay and come under the dominion government accredited plan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder, $1,200.91.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a small item, and the only comment I have to make is in connection with the last few lines which read: -which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder.
If they do not come under the act or under the regulations, what claim have these people for compensation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Strictly speaking, for the owner to receive compensation under the act, an animal must be slaughtered. There have been instances where animals have died immediately after they have been tested. Such animals are not slaughtered, and this is to provide for compensation in such instances.


Harry James Barber: Would that take care of compensation for hog cholera?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; tuberculosis only.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the payment on the same basis as though the animal had been slaughtered?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; on the same basis.


Grote Stirling: With the exception of one in New Brunswick and one in British Columbia, all the amounts are to be paid in Ontario and Quebec. Why is this?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just a matter of chance. For some considerable time the maritime provinces have been an antituberculosis area. It just happens that more work has been carried on in Ontario and Quebec.


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

Foreign Policy
Tuesday, May 24, 1938