1938-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Outremont) presented the fifth and sixth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the sixth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special committee on electoral matters-Mr. Bothwell.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I have been asked to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the fact that at Cardross, Saskatchewan, the farmers are without feed or seed; their horses have had no fodder since March, and it is alleged that they are without seed for the purpose of putting in a crop, although conditions seem to be favourable for an adequate return if they are fortunate enough to get the seed. I can only say that those who have asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the minister are of the opinion that if he will take notice of the conditions he may be able to remedy them.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I would suggest that if those who send such telegrams would direct them to the provincial government they would get much more speedy action than by sending them around by way of Ottawa. I took this matter up fully with the government of Saskatchewan when I was in Regina last Friday and Saturday, and they are giving every attention to any delay that there may be in getting the seed grain distributed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently that action had been anticipated; for they complain that they are unable to get any action from Regina. That is the only reason it is brought to the attention of the minister through this channel at the moment. It is just possible, as

Member jor Beauce
it was Friday or Saturday that the matter was dealt with, and this telegram having come through Crane valley, that they were not aware of the conditions to which the minister has referred and to which I shall direct attention.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to a report appearing in the two Regina newspapers, the Leader and the Star, to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture of that province had given an interview in which he stated that the wheat board was responsible for the delay. I understood that the federal minister was meeting with the wheat board in Winnipeg, or was getting in touch with them, and I was wondering if he would care to make a statement as to the result of that conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether I understood the first part of the remarks of the hon. gentleman. Was it suggested that I had made the statement that the wheat board was responsible?


Ernest Edward Perley: No. I have here the two Regina papers, which state that Mr. Taggart admits a hitch in distributing seed wheat, and charges the wheat board with responsibility for the delay. The report goes on to the effect that the federal Minister of Agriculture had been in communication with the wheat board by telephone, and it was understood that on his return to Ottawa he would take up the matter with the board in Winnipeg. I wondered if the minister cared to make a statement as to the result of that conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: I interviewed the wheat board while passing through Winnipeg and also discussed the matter with the provincial government in Regina on Friday last:	In
those two interviews I discovered that there had been some delay due to the unnecessary sending of messages, first from Winnipeg to Regina and then from Regina back to Winnipeg, when the messages might have been transmitted from either one point or the other without the duplication that actually resulted. That probably brought about a delay of about one day in some of the distributions. The main difficulty in connection with distribution, however, is that this year wheat had to be found for a very large area, and had to be brought in from outside the province. Until very recently it was impossible to know the amounts that should be shipped to the different municipalities, but it is hoped that any delays will be overcome during the present week.



MEMBER FOR BEAUCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley). Has the minister taken notice of a charge levelled by the premier of the province of Quebec against a member of this House of Commons the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Edouard Lacroix) to the effect that this member had defrauded the Department of National Revenue by bringing trucks into Canada without paying duties? What steps are being taken by the department to protect the revenue in this case? Will the government conduct an investigation into this charge, and if so, when?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: I have not seen any newspaper reports of the charge to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I may say that the hon. member for Beauce himself informed me of a charge having been made. The hon. member denied the charge, said it was entirely false and demanded that I have an investigation made into it. This I propose to have done.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce):: On a question of privilege arising out of the question just asked by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) I desire to say that the charge referred to is false; that I owe no money to the federal government or any department thereof, and that I have already asked that the fullest investigation be made by the government with regard to the charge mentioned by the hon. member.



CANADA-GUATEMALA TRADE APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1937

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 80, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Guatemala.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement approved.
Mr. STEVENS:: We have had only a brief opportunity of glancing at this bill, which appears to be very ordinary and simple. The explanatory note indicates that it is an agreement providing for the exchange of most
2252	COMMONS
Canada-Guatemala Trade Agreement
favoured nation treatment. I should like to ask the minister whether, in the light of modern developments, or, shall I say, particularly developments in the older countries of Europe and indeed in all parts of the world, special consideration has been given recently by the government to the effect of the extension of most favoured nation treatment.
This is an old principle, as far as Canada is concerned, in international trade. If my memory serves me rightly, some twenty-two or twenty-three countries enjoy the privilege. I remember making an analysis a few years ago which indicated that whenever a reduction was given to one of these countries it extended also to the whole twenty-three countries. The result, of course, has been a much wider reduction in tariff charges than an individual agreement would indicate on its face, and I was led to the opinion that the whole system ought to be reviewed. When I say that I wish to assure the minister and the government that this observation is not offered in criticism of them or their policy, because this matter extends back over a number of governments and a great many years. But.in the light of changing conditions, with the controlled markets of many of these countries, it is a question whether we should continue the principle of extending in blanket form the most favoured nation treatment. I think I am within the judgment of the house and of those who have studied modern trade conditions when I say that in the last ten years the trend has been more to special agreements between countries, the limitation of imports except under quota arrangements, and such practices or customs as these would indicate, as against the blanket extension of all the privileges that are enjoyed by all these other countries, in this case to Guatemala. I am wondering whether or not we are wise in following that course. That is the question that arises in my own mind, and I was wondering if the minister had given any recent study to the situation and whether he would be prepared to-day to express an opinion as to the result of such study; also whether he considers the extension of most favoured nation treatment the best course to pursue in making new agreements with other countries.
Perhaps one further question might be asked: has he any opinion as to the wisdom of abrogating some of the existing treaties, again in the light of changed conditions? For instance, by the extension of the most favoured nation privilege we accord a country an extremely wide entry into our market. As a matter of fact, our general tariff might

be considered a dead letter to-day. Most stuff comes in under the intermediate tariff; I refer of course to other than British Empire countries. Therefore I feel strongly that the time has arrived when we should review conditions of import into each of these countries, the extent to which in recent years they have placed on imports restrictions which affect Canada as they affect other countries, and whether or not many of these countries are enjoying undue privileges with respect to the entry of goods into Canada under most favoured nation treaty arrangements as against the restriction of imports into their own markets.
Perhaps the minister will accept this somewhat casual way of expressing a difficult question and suggesting an important problem. I am quite sure he is familiar with the situation, and will grasp what I have very imperfectly put before him.


Mr. EULER:: As every hon. member knows, it is of course true that the conclusion of a most favoured nation agreement with any one country extends certain tariff privileges to all other countries with which we have most favoured nation arrangements. That it has worked to the detriment of Canada up to this point, I certainly would not like to say. As a matter of fact it is definitely the policy of this government to negotiate to promote the exchange of commodities with all countries. I would say, however, that when any agreement with any country whatsoever is contemplated, the specific interests of that country and their relation to Canada are very carefully considered before arrangements are made. So far as the agreements with Hayti and Guatemala are concerned, the implications are not important, because our trade with these countries is very small.
The former Minister of Trade and Commerce has asked whether or not the time has arrived to consider whether some of these agreements giving most favoured nation treatment should be cancelled or abrogated. That, again, is a question upon which I should not like to give a very definite opinion. Occasionally-and perhaps at the present time-it does happen that where we might desire to give certain concessions t-o one country we are obliged to hesitate because it would involve the same concessions to some other country, importations from which might be prejudicial to Canada. Speaking generally I believe it is in the interests of Canada and of the trading nations of the world to have as free an interchange of commodities as possible, without detriment to our own industries. In anticipation of some questions which might be asked may I say that the

Canada-Gualemala Trade Agreement
present bill involves the ratification of a trade agreement between Guatemala and Canada which was signed on September 28 of last year. It provides, as stated, for the exchange of most favoured nation treatment and- perhaps this will answer one question which has been asked-also that if either country introduces exchange restrictions, exchange control, a quota system or anything of the kind, Canada shall receive proportionately as good treatment as any other country.
The agreement is for three years, and will continue unless terminated by the giving of six months' notice. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member, as to whether or not we should consider abrogation, I would say offhand that it is not very probable. But where any agreements are made in which most favoured nation treatment is conceded to another country, the whole situation is carefully canvassed before the agreements are finally signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the volume of trade?


William Daum Euler: Almost infinitesimally small. Last year the imports from Guatemala were valued at 852,000, of which all but $1,000 came in the form of coffee. The exports, consisting chiefly of wheat flour, amounted to only SS8.000.


Mr. CHURCH:: While the minister may say that the trade involved is small, I would remind him that the principle behind the treaty is not small. I suggest to him that in future not only treaties with smaller countries but also those with the United States be submitted to industrialists and agriculturists for study before bills are introduced. I suggest he should adopt a new policy, that followed by Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain and by the federal administration at Washington, of giving industrialists, agriculturists and others a chance to be heard before a treaty is consummated.
So far as these treaties are concerned, we are only having a post mortem. The agreements are signed, sealed and delivered. We have to swallow the whole thing, although some of our constituents may not favour the agreements which have been made. I do not object to the treaty now under consideration. But the government is running all over the world looking for treaties, while it forgets about the home market. I know that the present treaty is only a small one, and that a small amount of business is involved. I do point out however that we must consider an important principle, and must consider the effect agreements may have on employers of
labour and employees. We should not permit the making of treaties without first consulting the people interested and giving them a chance to be heard.
We are losing our home market, and prominent industrialists do not know where they stand. At Christmas time one may walk into Eaton's or Simpson's in Toronto and see on display the goods coming in under preferred treaties. From fourteen or fifteen countries we see goods of all descriptions, even down to Christmas cards, and all that sort of thing. This practice is taking the home market away from our own people. This is a stable market, not one which is here to-day and gone to-morrow. It is true that only a small amount of money is involved in this agreement, but an important principle must be considered, because we may have before us a treaty of greater importance, namely that between Great Britain and the United States. The British government have called industrialists and agriculturists to the city of London so that they may know what the government is doing. In Washington they have seen fit to send to Canada a list of forty-seven pages of items, and have asked their people to give consideration to them. Business men were to file their written objections or support by March 14. On March 20 there was a public hearing at Washington before which any person could express his views-not after the treaty was consummated, but before.
Coming from an industrial city I protest against the irregular practice of consummating treaties in this manner. It has been stated in the press that this is a decadent house. Someone should answer such a charge. I say the government should answer, but it has been left for a private member to do so. If this is a decadent house, I would say it is a decadent press which gives the public and business men no notice of treaties until they are consummated. The treaty with Hayti is to be considered, but we have had no notice of it. The press will print three or four pages of ballyhoo about sime kind -of sport, or that sort of thing, but not one line about these treaties.
The minister, who has some regard for the public, should consider a new policy. He should consider the possibility of giving business men proper legal notice. They should be given a chance to be heard and then there could be no complaints made. This is a matter of policy in administering this matter for Canada.


William Daum Euler: The complaint made by my hon. friend arises out of the difference of
2254	COMMONS
Canada-Guatemala Trade Agreement
procedure in the two countries. I take it that he is referring to the United States, and, of course, to Canada. Under the law of the United States a certain procedure has to be followed by which a list of the articles in connection with which it is proposed to negotiate, with Canada in the present instance, must be published in order that the producers may be given an opportunity to make representations. That is not the procedure followed in Canada. As to whether that should be done would be a matter for future consideration by the government. My hon. friend is in error when he states that the same practice was followed in connection with the treaty with Great Britain. They did not follow the policy of notifying their industrialists to come in and make representations.
I am not so sure that any great practical benefit would result if the industrialists were called in in advance. I am quite sure my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will bear me out when I say that practically every producer and manufacturer in Canada has already made representations with regard to every commodity under the sun in connection with which we may negotiate with the United States. Any trade agreement which we might make with the United States will have to be ratified later on by parliament, at which time a full discussion can take place.
I think it should be stated that where we make a most favoured nation arrangement with another country, Great Britain and all the other parts of the empire are excluded from the operation of that clause. In connection with this particular treaty with Guatemala, the other Central American republics are excluded from the operations of the most favoured nation clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What countries are they?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can enumerate them. It is all the Central American republics, and they can be easily identified. As far as Hayti is concerned, the exception there applies to the Dominican republic, which is a part of the same island.


Mr. LENNARD:: Is it expected that these treaties will greatly increase our trade with these countries?


William Daum Euler: I would not care to make any prediction with regard to that. Having regard to all the circumstances, I do not suppose it is physically possible that our trade with either of these two countries will ever be very large. However, it has been thought well to make this trade agreement because of certain restrictions which might be brought into force

with reference to exports from Canada to Guatemala if no regular agreement were made.


Mr. CAHAN:: What are the transportation facilities for the exchange of trade between Canada and Guatemala?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can give an answer to that question. They would probably consist of tramp steamer service which would be offered from time to time, as well as rail facilities.


Mr. BAKER:: Are the Central American republics specified in the agreement?


William Daum Euler: I do not think they are mentioned.


Richard Langton Baker: Should they not be specified?


Henry Herbert Stevens: "Customs union" is the term used.


William Daum Euler: I do not think there is any doubt that they can be readily identified.


Richard Langton Baker: Should they not be named specifically in the agreement?


William Daum Euler: They are named. Article IX reads:
The advantages now accorded or which may hereafter be accorded by Guatemala to the commerce of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua or Panama, so long as any such advantage is not accorded to any other country shall be excepted from the operation of this agreement.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is this treaty designed to give assistance to any particular commodities which it is hoped Canada will be able to export or import?


William Daum Euler: As I said before, we have not any great hope that our trade is going to be considerably extended. However, we hope to keep what we have. I could give the names of the commodities which we now sell, but in most instances the amounts are quite small.


Grote Stirling: What about mahogany and woods of that kind?


William Daum Euler: For importation into Canada?


Grote Stirling: I said exports or imports.


William Daum Euler: I do not know that any particular commodity has been kept in mind Like most countries, we are more concerned perhaps with exports than with imports. We export wheat flour, rubber tires and tubes, various vegetable products, newsprint, rubber belting, silk socks and stockings, brushes, cotton duck, farm implements, bags, whisky, cotton cloth, needles and pins, and other commodities, but in most cases the amounts are quite small.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.

Canada-Guatemala Trade Agreement
On section 4-Coming into force.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Who signed the agreement?


William Daum Euler: It was signed by the British minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing to indicate who he is.


William Daum Euler: It was signed by Mr. J. H. S. Birch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not stated in the agreement who Mr. J. H. S. Birch is.


William Daum Euler: He is the British minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that an oversight? There is nothing to show who signed this agreement on our behalf.


William Daum Euler: I do not think there will be any difficulty in identifying him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Article IV, which I believe is a little unusual, reads:
In the event that the government of Canada or the government of Guatemala establishes or maintains an official monopoly or centralized agency for the importation of or trade in a particular commodity, the government establishing or maintaining such monopoly or centralized agency will give sympathetic consideration to all representations that the other government may make with respect to alleged discriminations against its commerce in connection with purchases by such monopoly or centralized agency.
In the absence of precise knowledge of the origin of that article it would appear that there is either already in existence or contemplated a centralized agency or monopoly in connection with some article of commerce that is likely to enter into trade between the two countries. Instead of the agreement specifically undertaking that Canada shall have fair treatment by such centralized agency or monopoly, all that is done is to assure that sympathetic consideration will be given to representations made. Sympathetic or courteous consideration is usually accorded to any friendly country, so that in a treaty of this kind these words are meaningless. On the other hand, the article seems to imply the existence of a monopoly. The minister mentioned coffee, and it may be that the export of coffee from Guatemala is controlled. It also may be possible that some article entering that country from Canada is at present under government monopoly-we will say, for instance, flour, which might indeed be an important article of export. If it were under the control of a central monopoly in Guatemala, then such central agency could very well discriminate, and this agreement would not ensure to Canada either most favoured
nation treatment or any treatment at all except such as the monopoly might desire to give us.


William Daum Euler: There is a clause which declares that Canada shall not be discriminated against in any case such as that. For instance, if exchange control or a quota were imposed by Guatemala she could not do it to the disadvantage of Canada as compared with any other country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite aware of
that, blit the very presence of this article implies that some central agency does exist, or else the article is superfluous.


William Daum Euler: I will give another reason
for that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Frankly, I think the
article is one that should not be in the agreement, but of course it is there and I suppose we must accept it, and that is all there is to it. But I was wondering if the minister had the facts behind it, because there must be something behind this article. It strikes me that there is a central agency or a number of central agencies controlling, we will say, imports; buying, we will say, all the flour, all the lumber or some other commodity and supervising its distribution within that territory. That is quite a common practice nowadays in many countries, and if such exists then it might well nullify the effects of this treaty, because that does not affect the question of exchange or import quotas or matters of that kind. These are governmental actions. But this contemplates the establishment or the actual existence of an official monopoly or central agency. I think some explanation of that should be given to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is covered by the agreement itself. The monopoly covers matches, wax matches and lighters, and it is so indicated in article II, in the last paragraph, which is the reason for article IV being in the agreement. Article II says:
The advantages and provisions contained in the present article and in article IV shall not be applicable to the importation, production or sale of matches, wax matches and lighters, in view of the existing laws in Guatemala on the monopoly of such goods.
>
And article IV sets out the matter in the terms there indicated.
I cannot understand why there is nothing in this schedule that indicates who made it. It is the first time I can recall such a thing happening, although I am not challenging my memory with it. This is an agreement purporting to be made between two countries.
2256	COMMONS
Canada-Guatemala Trade Agreement
The schedule reads:
Trade Agreement between Canada and Guatemala
The government of Canada and the government of Guatemala, desiring to further facilitate and develop the commercial relations existing between Canada and Guatemala, have resolved to conclude a trade agreement and for this purpose have agreed upon the following articles:
And at the close we have these words:
In witness whereof, the undersigned, duly authorized to that effect, have signed the present agreement and have affixed their seals hereto.
Done at Guatemala City, this twenty-eighth day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, in duplicate in English and Spanish, both texts being equally authentic.
(L.S.) J. H. S. Birch,
(L.S.) Carlos Salazar.
There is nothing to indicate who these people are. The minister now tells me that one of them is the British consul. I do not know who the other, Carlos Salazar, is. There must be some reason why an agreement submitted to this parliament for confirmation does not indicate who the parties are who signed it. Any agreement that I have ever seen made with any community, however small, usually states that it is made between the government of the country represented by so-and-so. One of the agreements we made with the West Indies was signed by five or six of their ministers, and it was stated who they were on the face of the agreement.


William Daum Euler: There is an order in council authorizing someone to sign on behalf of Canada.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The order in council must include all of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is nothing in the agreement itself to indicate who signed it on behalf of Guatemala or on behalf of Canada, which I do submit is most unusual-I will put it that way. There must be some reason for it; I do not know what it is.


William Daum Euler: I do not think there is anything ulterior in it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not suggesting anything ulterior; I said there must be some reason for it.


William Daum Euler: In a practical way there can be no possible difficulty about the matter. Whoever signed for the Canadian government was duly authorized to sign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian government could not authorize the representative of Guatemala to sign.


William Daum Euler: No, I said on behalf of
Canada, but certainly I would not think for

a moment that the government of Guatemala did not authorize someone to sign on their behalf. I would not suspect that somebody out of the air signed this agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has any such document come before us in the past, with no indication as to who were the signatories?


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with my right hon. friend that the regular form would 'be as he indicates. It should state: the government of Canada, represented by the person duly authorized to represent the government; and the same thing on behalf of Guatemala. But the fact that it is not mentioned in the agreement does not, I think, vitiate in any way the validity of the agreement, because the two countries are mentioned and specified. Of course, these treaties are the object of legislation in both countries, and while I do not foresee any difficulty, I agree with my right hon. friend that it would have been better had it been done as he indicated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that possibly the agreement was not copied in its entirety. I assume that the information is given in the original agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I was wondering
whether or not the schedule had been completely printed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The government must have some evidence of the authority of Carlos Salazar to sign on behalf of the government of Guatemala in this case. There must be some evidence of authority somewhere.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
April 23, 1937
Hon. W. D. EULER moved the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Hayti.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the value of the trade?

Canada-IJayti Trade Agreement


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, this agreement in its terms is practically identical with the treaty with Guatemala. The trade is very small, the imports to Canada amounting to
159,000,	and the exports 8164,000. The imports from Hayti practically all consist of sisal fibre, and the exports consist almost entirely of certain fish products. I may say that both of these agreements-and perhaps this may account for no very meticulous attention being given to the various clauses-are really extensions of existing agreements.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who is the F. M. Shepherd who, apparently, signs?


William Daum Euler: The British minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the minister have any objection to indicating that a British official was acting in the capacity of agent of the government in signing the document?


William Daum Euler: Oh, I am not very particular about these matters, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the trade commission services be enlarged because of these several treaties with West Indian and Central American countries?


William Daum Euler: No, it is not so contemplated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Agreement approved.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Clause 2 ratifies the agreement. The suggestion I made a moment ago regarding article IV of the other treaty in connection with official monopolies was brushed aside very lightly, as if it were of no importance.


William Daum Euler: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Article IV of this treaty provides exactly what I suggested should have been done in the other treaty:
In the event that Canada or Hayti establishes or maintains a monopoly for the importation, production or sale of a particular commodity or grants exclusive privileges, formally or in effect, to one or more agencies to import, produce or sell a particular commodity, the government of the country establishing or maintaining such monopoly, or granting such monopoly privileges, agrees that in respect of the foreign purchases of such monopoly or agency the commerce of the other country shall receive fair and equitable treatment.
That was exactly my criticism in connection with the other clause.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but the other specifies the monopolies already in effect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that was not the correct answer. That answer applied to monopolies
regarding lighters, wax matches, matches, etc., but it did not apply to other monopolies which might be erected or established.


William Daum Euler: Which might be established later on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or which might exist, other than matches, wax matches or lighters. Of course the other point is passed, and I am not going to quibble about it. It is not a very important item; it is the principle which I think we should safeguard. What I am pointing out is that in this agreement article IV does safeguard the rights of this country, whereas in the other agreement in article IV such rights were not properly safeguarded.


William Daum Euler: But there is a clause that if any such monopolies are established there may be no discrimination against Canada as compared with any other foreign countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My. hon. friend is referring to the other agreement.


William Daum Euler: To both of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That refers to exchange on certain specified things.


William Daum Euler: Any restrictions that may be placed upon trade.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in connection with monopolies that may be established.


William Daum Euler: That is a restriction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Before you report the bill I should like to ask the minister if the government is giving consideration to trade agreements with other countries in the vicinity of Hayti and Guatemala. I refer especially to Cuba and the Dominican republic, having reference to trading between them and the maritime provinces, which is very important. These treaties, I suppose, are all to the good for other parts of Canada, but possibly we in the maritimes do not get the same benefit from them as we should do from agreements with the other countries I have referred to. Have negotiations been opened up between Canada and Cuba or any other countries in that general area?


William Daum Euler: The government is always concerned in making trade agreements with an" country which may promote the trade of Canada. But even this government can do
2258	COMMONS
Insurance Companies-Investment of Funds
only one thing at a time. Ever since the government came into office we have been fairly well employed in the making of agreements. I understand quite well the desire of the maritime provinces to have some trade agreement which will promote the sale of some of the products in which they are especially interested-for example, with Cuba -and the government is bearing that in mind. At the same time I must say that at present there are no trade negotiations in progress with Cuba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To what extent does the proposed agreement modify existing commercial relations between our country and Hayti?


William Daum Euler: Not at all. Really it is just a continuation of the old agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not quite sure.


William Daum Euler: That is so in both cases.


Mr. SENN:: Do I understand by that that the rate of duty on Canadian goods entering Hayti is not in any way changed?


William Daum Euler: We have had most favoured nation arrangements with that country for the past seven or eight years at least, and practically no change has been made. In one case a specific duty is changed to an ad valorem duty. I believe that the duty on rubber pneumatic tires has become twenty per cent where it was nine cents a pound; I am informed that that constitutes a reduction of about twenty-five per cent. Otherwise this is just a continuation of the old agreement. They have given us most favoured nation treatment and we have given them the same.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INSURANCE COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 81, to amend The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Investment of company's funds.
Mr. DUNNING:: I think I explained at an earlier stage on the bill that it is proposed, by the first portion, namely (i-d), of the amendment now under discussion to permit

Canadian insurance companies to invest in the equipment trust obligations of Canadian railways. I believe that will commend itself to the house generally as a wise provision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The explanation refers to the sub-clause (i-d)?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not cover clause (i-e)?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry; I should have remembered that they are both in the same section. A number of the Canadian life companies which do business in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world have asked that we take cognizance of the fact that, particularly in Great Britain, new types of public authorities have come into being. At the present time there is at least a doubt as to whether Canadian insurance companies may invest in the securities of these public bodies. In some cases there is no doubt that under the existing law they cannot, and in others there is doubt. It is therefore proposed that power shall be extended in the language of (i-e). I have suggested a qualifying amendment which would make clearer the type of body to which it refers, namely, in line 30, to strike out the words "with power to regulate the administration of" and substitute the words "or to a body so responsible, with power to administer."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought there was something left out, because it does not make good sense the way it now reads.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there is that difficulty, and not merely that. As it was originally, the limitation would be to a body responsible to the government of such kingdom or dominion, or to any minister of such government; whereas in many such cases there are bodies which are responsible to the minister, which in turn occupy a regulatory relationship to the body actually issuing the securities. So the insertion of these words will make it clear that if the body is under government supervision and control, then the bonds of such public utility or other corporation would be a proper investment for Canadian life insurance companies.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the minister wishes to exclude any other authority than a governmental authority, does he not? The mere fact that a company may be incorporated for a certain purpose should not bring it within the scope of (i-e).


Charles Avery Dunning: The difficulty there is due to the fact that the body may not be a

Natural Resources
governmental body in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term. It may be a body administering a utility-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Such as the electricity board in England.


Charles Avery Dunning: -but under a board which in turn is under the direction of the minister. We are endeavouring to include the various types of quasi-governmental authorities which are being erected in England particularly, which are nevertheless public in reality. The law officers have had some difficulty in finding descriptive terms which would cover specific cases which have been put up to the department, as, for instance, the electricity board, the Port of London Authority, the London Transport Board, all of which have in varying degrees relationship with a minister of the crown of Great Britain. In some cases that relationship is direct; they are immediately under the minister's direction with respect to rates and matters of that sort; in other cases they are responsible to a board which reports to the minister, the board itself in most cases being a board of civil servants, in some cases with what are called over there co-opted members. Various experiments are taking place in England of a very interesting nature with respect to the combination, in the operation of great public utilities particularly, of private enterprise on the one hand and governmental capital investment or supervision, or both, on the other. You cannot use a phrase which is descriptive of all these experiments, because they vary in certain particulars. But there is no doubt that the securities issued by them rank very high in England, and it is for that reason that we think Canadian insurance companies, particularly those doing business in England, should have the right to invest in such securities, which in England are regarded as being prime securities.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) moved:: That the words in line 30 "with power to regulate the administration of" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"or to a body so responsible, with power to administer or regulate the administration of."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act. -The Minister of Transport.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The bill in question is for a very simple amendment to the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act, to bring in a small portion of property lying between that under the control of this harbour authority and the adjoining harbour authority. Since the bill was presented I have received strong representations from the New Westminster harbour commission and the city of New Westminster to add a further small amendment to the bill; but as this amendment requires a resolution, I would ask the unanimous consent of the house to_ withdraw the bill and introduce it again, with a resolution, in the form now required.
Bill withdrawn.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to confirm certain agreements between the government of the dominion and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, concerning the transfer to the said provinces of the interest of the crown, in the right of the dominion, in and to certain natural resources.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, this resolution will authorize the introduction of a bill to confirm amendments to the agreements transferring the natural resources of the three western provinces. They were transferred under agreements which mentioned that all lands, mines and minerals in the right of the crown were to be transferred to the respective provinces. There has been doubt as to whether those terms included waters and water powers, and in order to remove the doubt an additional agreement has been signed with the three provinces transferring waters and water powers as well. That was always the intention, and this is merely to avoid any difficulty in that regard.


Thomas Langton Church: Are any regulations included in these agreements with regard to natural resources? For instance, one of the agreements is with Alberta, where there are valuable oil and coal deposits. From some of the factums and briefs which have been presented to the Rowell commission we have
Natural Resources

learned how the natural resources of this country have been squandered. I believe the time has come when we should have some regulation in this regard, because one of these days the United States are not going to have enough coal for their own people, let alone enough for us. I believe these provinces, especially the three prairie provinces, since they are the only ones left where such regulations could be enforced, should be under some sort of control with regard to their natural resources in order that these resources may be conserved for the future. In the old province of Ontario we have had trouble about water power. They will have it in this resolution without riders. In Canada we have 42,000,000 horse power in all, but only one-seventh of it has been developed. So I believe there should be some provision in these statutes for federal authority and conservation in this regard.
At the present time federal authority in Canada is the weakest it has been since confederation. There seems to be no central control over these provinces. We have agreements made both without and within the British North America Act. If there is one thing this country needs at the present time it is cohesion and unity between the provinces, but to-day they are like a lot of Balkan states, quarrelling among themselves and fighting federal authority. No doubt the resolution will pass, but when the bill is brought down I hope the minister will consider inserting some provision for the protection of posterity by conservation of natural resources. This country does not belong to those who inhabit it to-day. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present and a trust for the future. Notwithstanding the reflections that have been cast on this House of Commons, this body is quite competent to deal with the affairs of the country without appointing royal commissions. If we hand over all these great natural resources in these provinces, oil, coal and all the rest of it, without restriction, we shall be criticized by posterity. We have seen the trouble the British government has had in Mexico in regard to oil. Here in Canada in Alberta we have the Turner valley, and as I stated when I first came to this house, we should have a national policy dealing with all our resources, including coal, oil, lumber, water powers and so on.
There should be some measure of protection and of conservation. It may be said that under the British North America Act we have that protection as to cash subsidies. Each year we hand over to the provinces certain sums of money by way of cash subsidies, but when it comes down to the fine point we have

absolutely no control over these subsidies, although they arise under the British North America Act. The provinces spend the money as they wish, though it was intended for provincial and municipal purposes. This is the only way in which we can bring to the attention of this parliament the need, from social, economic and business standpoints, of doing something to protect these resources in these interprovincial agreements. In British Columbia they are selling timber to Japan, I am told, for about $1.30 a thousand. It costs $10 to deliver it in Toronto by the Panama canal. I am not in the lumber business, and I have not my papers here, but that resource is being squandered to-day. In England and other countries they are doing something to put a brake on conservation of resources and on this sort of thing, but here it is almost too late. In the United States the federal government is trying to exercise some control over the states.
These three provinces in this resolution are as rich in natural resources as any provinces of Canada. The Lord did not intend these wonderful natural resources to be only for the millionaires who can take a holiday once in a while in Bermuda or the West Indies. The Lord intended the water power, coal, oil and all the rest of our great resources for the benefit of all his creatures, not for the few favoured people of this country. That is the trouble to-day. In a rich country like Canada, with all the natural resources that we possess, we have people suffering and starving in a land of plenty though we have all the fuel and oil we need and all the falling water to generate power to help the poor farmers who are struggling on the land. This is a very important bill; as I have said many times before, we should have a legal committee where matters of this kind can be considered. In my opinion there should be some rider inserted in the statutes which will protect the people of the country and establish some federal authority.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the Minister of Justice inform the committee whether there have been any controversies in the courts with regard to the title of Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Alberta to the water powers located within those provinces? I do not remember that the issue has arisen in the courts. As a matter of fact I was under the impression that the province of Manitoba assumed that it had not only title to all the water powers but complete control over them within that province, and that from time to time it had granted

Natural Resources
charters and franchises with respect to the development of hydro-electric power. Just bow did the issue arise at this time?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry that the Minister of Mines and Resources is away at the moment. My name has been placed on this bill but it really concerns a matter arising under the Department of Mines and Resources. If my hon. friend will agree we shall give all the information requested when the bill is up for second reading. As a matter of fact I agree with my hon. friend; I do not recall that there has been any litigation in this regard, but I know that this legislation has been requested by the attorneys general of these three provinces because of some possible doubt as to the transfer including the water powers. I am sorry I cannot give more information to-day, but I can promise it when the bill is up for second reading.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That will be quite satisfactory, if by passing this resolution we do not preclude ourselves from such an inquiry when the bill is before the house.


Ernest Lapointe: No; a bill will be introduced to-day.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister did not mention fisheries. As I understand it, the legislative authority with regard to fisheries lies with the dominion, but the administration, in most provinces, has been by the province. Is there any provision in the bill which will save subsequent litigation in this matter?


Ernest Lapointe: No,
nothing regarding fisheries. Of course the agreement as signed cannot be changed; it is an agreement requested by the provinces. Nothing concerning fisheries appears in it.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Will the bill contain any provision for the maintenance of watersheds on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains?


Ernest Lapointe: When the bill is introduced the hon. member will be able to find that out for himself. I have not a copy of it before me.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 106, to amend the Manitoba Natural Resources Act, The Alberta Natural Resources Acts and The Saskatchewan Natural Resources Acts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Part I and rules and regulations applicable.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the minister give an explanation?


Ernest Lapointe: I believe the explanatory note is sufficient, and gives clearly the purpose of the amendment. Under the act as it now stands the reservists are enjoying all the privileges enjoyed by the mounted police under the act. This is to make the act apply only to those killed or wounded on duty. The pension privilege would not apply otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Act not to apply except as specified.
Ernest Lapointe: This section makes the same provision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Stoppage of pay.
Ernest Lapointe: In this section we wish to substitute the words "any other penalty which may be imposed under this section" for the words " a fine or imprisonment." It is to subject an offender convicted of absence without leave to a stoppage of pay each day he is absent, in addition to any other penalty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Time in permanent forces included.
Ernest Lapointe: The act as it stands says that the time served in the permanent forces of Canada may be included for purposes of pension in the term of service of an officer. This is to make it clear that the permanent forces shall include the Canadian naval and air forces as well as the military forces.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is there a similar provision for men, as well as officers?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, there is a special section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Natural Resources
On section 5-Constable may be required to retire.
Ernest Lapointe: It is the intention under section 5 to make section 65 of the act harmonize with subsection 3(a) of section 66. Thus, when any constable has completed a service of twenty years or not less than ten years, and has reached the age limit, the commissioner may, with the approval of the governor in council, require him to retire upon the terms as to pension which are prescribed under the act. The former section was as follows:
When any constable has completed a service of twenty years, or has reached the age limit, the commissioner may,-
And so on. The purpose is to add the words "completed a service of not less than ten years," because that is the requirement in connection with pension.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Certain constables pensioned may be recalled.
Ernest Lapointe: The purpose of this section is to repeal what has been changed under section 5.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Time served in permanent forces included.
Ernest Lapointe: It is the purpose under section 7 to achieve the purpose pointed out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, namely to apply the same rule to constables as to officers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Payment of $750,000 authored.
Charles Avery Dunning: As I explained in the discussion on the resolution preceding the

introduction of the bill, the measure is introduced to extend for a further period of ten years the present provisions of the act with respect to the national battlefields commission.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The national battlefields park is a dominion memorial. There has been considerable discussion lately in Quebec city with regard to a move to place in the park a new' monument which has no connection with the purposes for which this memorial was created. I have had correspondence with several individuals in Quebec who have urged that the commission cannot be said to be carrying out its trust when it permits the battlefields park to be used in this way. It seems that recently an American lady offered to donate a statue of Joan of Arc which it is proposed to place in this park. Many people feel that this statue should not be placed on what is a Canadian historic site. I believe the case is fairly well put in an editorial which appeared in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph of March 25, a paragraph of which reads as'follows:
Under these circumstances, the chairman and members of the commission, although it happens that most of them at present are residents of Quebec city, are trustees for the whole nation and are not justified in acting from any merely provincial or parochial point of view'. It will hardly be pretended, for instance, that public opinion in Canada desires or would approve of the use of the park for the erection of monuments having no connection with Canadian history and of direct interest only to some particular section or group of the population.
I5y what process of reasoning, then, the commissioners can reconcile it with their duty to accept a monument of St. Joan of Arc from a private individual who is an alien citizen and resident, and erect it as a conspicuous feature of the park, we are at a loss to think.
The editorial goes on to state that an appeal has been made in vain to the commissioners with regard to this matter. I think it is only fair that the matter should be introduced into this discussion and the minister give an explanation as to why this action should be taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: At a former stage of the discussion of this matter I was asked certain questions by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). I have also received communications from various organizations. No application had been made by the commission for authority to erect anything of this nature and consequently it was necessary to make inquiries. I do not think I can do better by way of explanation than read a letter which I received from Sir George Gameau, who has been chairman of this commission for

Battlefields Commission
thirty years. The letter is addressed to me under date of March 29, 1938, and reads:
I was informed of the debate which recently took place in the House of Commons when you moved that the house go into committee of supply to consider the resolution authorizing the payment to the commission of the sum of $75,000 a year, for a period not exceeding ten years from April the 1st, 1938.
Having read most carefully in Hansard the questions asked and answers given during this short debate, I feel it advisable to inform you immediately of the particulars concerning the valuable gift of a bronze statue of Joan of Arc; the work and conception of one Anna Hyatt Huntington, officer of the Legion of Honour; and offered and given to the commission by Mr. and Mrs. Archer Milton Huntington, of New York.
Acting under the terms of its charter, the commission gratefully accepted this donation; which being a gift entailing no expenditure did not, in our opinion, necessitate the approval and sanction of the governor general in council.
Were it not for the questions put to you recently before the house, I would have waited until a later date to acquaint you, in greater detail, of all that had transpired in the matter.
This equestrian statue of Joan of Arc, one and a half times life size, is the replica of those already erected at Blois, in France, and at Riverside Drive, in New York.
The offer of this statue was made to us in the first days of August, 1937. The gift comprised not only the statue, but its pedestal and base, as well as the expense of erecting it.
The donation was accepted by the commission at its meeting held on September the 2nd, and I then proposed the sunken garden as the most suitable place to erect the statue; as here it would enhance the beauty of the garden, without being directly connected with the historical portion of the park.
This sunken garden occupies a strip of land 540 feet by 140 feet. It is bordered on one side by Laurier avenue, a city street, and on the other by No. 1 driveway of the park. Being long and narrow, it has proved difficult to treat along the lines used in landscaping the rest of the park. The placing of the statue in this section would solve the difficult problem of decoration, and meet in part objections raised in certain quarters as to the advisability of erecting, in the battlefields park, the statue of a personage not connected with Canadian history.
It was with this object in view, and in the hope of eliminating all such controversy, that we made the choice of this site.
A meeting of the board was called on December the 17th when the commission, after due consideration of all factors concerned, resolved to maintain its previous decision and accept this munificent gift to the people of Canada.
The suggestion has been made that the Montcalm monument be removed from its present position and placed in the sunken garden and that this vacant site be occupied by the statue of Joan of Arc. This, in our opinion, would be quite unsuitable, as the small size of the Montcalm monument would be further dwarfed by the large area in which it would stand.
51952-144}
I confess that I fail to see how the erection of this statue can detract from the historical significance of the park. Joan of Arc died over 300 years before the conquest of Canada and her statue symbolizes the valour and patriotism of the men of 1759 and 1760, which we commemorate in the park.
My long association with the development of the battlefields park, covering as it does a period of thirty years may I hope give the assurance that in the opinion I have reached with my colleagues we have been moved only by the desire to accomplish satisfactorily the work entrusted to us; and, in the fulfilment of this duty, we have endeavoured to give to those who so generously contributed to this park a memorial worthy of our country.
I thought it well to place on record Sir George Garneau's answers to the questions asked when this matter was before the house on a previous occasion. Perhaps I could summarize by saying that the statue is being donated and will cost the national battlefields commission nothing; they will not even have to pay the cost of erection. As Sir George Garneau points out, the statue is not being placed in what might be termed the historic part of the battlefields park; in fact, it will be nowhere near the actual battlefield. It is to be placed just off one of the main streets of Quebec which borders the battlefield and will be between that street and number one driveway which gives access to the battlefield. After reading Sir George Garneau's letter I felt that no valid objection could be made to the acceptance by the commission of this gift and its erection in the particular spot to which it had been assigned.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to Sir George Garneau, the chairman of this commission, who has been giving most of his time without remuneration to the work of maintaining and improving something which is of great value to our country. Of course there is a board, but, as my hon. friends know, work of this kind is done by one man, and he has been devoting his energies to giving Canada a monument that shall be worthy of our country. I feel that we owe it to Sir George Garneau to express emphatically our appreciation when an occasion such as this arises.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I heartily endorse the tribute to Sir George Garneau.
I think the work which he and his commission have performed is a work of great historic interest to Canada, and the commission, and he as chairman, are entitled to our commendation. The question did arise in the minds of many whether the statue of Jeanne d'Arc should appear on a Canadian battlefield as
Battlefields Commission

a figure of historic interest in that connection, but I have such confidence in Sir George Gameau that when he states, as he does in this report, that the statue is not to be erected on the historic battlefields site but in another portion altogether, so that the purport of its erection may not be misunderstood, it satisfies me and I think will satisfy the house.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is the place in the park where the statue is to be erected a part of the park that will be maintained with this donation from the dominion government?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not recall whether this edge of the park referred to by Sir George Garneau is part of the property originally acquired by the government many years ago, or a part that was given by the city of Quebec. In any case it is a part of the battlefields park-there is no question about that-but as I explained before, and as Sir George Gameau makes clear, it is just off a city street which borders the edge of the park and is not on the historic part of the area.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think the question where the statue will be erected has anything to do with the main question, which is that of establishing a precedent, and whether this is a statue that pertains to the historic battlefields of Canada. I claim it is not. Suppose it is erected, and then next year someone offers a monument of someone else, say William Prince of Orange; would that be erected in some part of the park?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of National Defence suggests Mary Queen of Scots.


Angus MacInnis: Possibly the Minister of National Defence would have no objection to that, but then again someone else might. A few years from now someone might wish to donate a statue of Lenin to be placed in the park. That is the difficulty we are getting into, and I suggest it is a wrong precedent to establish. There is an obvious religious significance attaching to this statue, and consequently I do not think this government is right in accepting it or allowing it to be placed in a park that is kept with dominion funds.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Not even if there is plenty of room for your monument?


Angus MacInnis: ' That is all right, and I have no objection to having a monument of my friend placed there if he has any connection with the battlefields of Canada. But that has no bearing on this question at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to
carry this any further, Mr. Chairman. I introduced this matter to get a statement from

the minister. I do not think the statement from Sir George Garneau really covers the point. Sir George is obviously desirous of beautifying this park, and it may very well be that the statue which has been donated will do that. Personally I have very little use for war or war memorials, but I would say that the people of Canada, who are contributing these funds for the upkeep of historic monuments, ought not to be put in the position where they are practically giving away part of an historic site for the use of a certain number of individuals who for their own reasons wish to have such a statue as this erected. There are a great many very important people in Europe who have contributed enormously to western civilization, and I can quite understand that their memory should be perpetuated in this country. But that is not the point at issue. The question is whether public funds should be used-


Ernest Lapointe: They
are not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, they are
being used, because in the bill before us we are asked to donate public funds for the maintenance of this park, and a part of this park is to be used by private individuals for the erection of a monument which they seem to think it is desirable to have erected in the city of Quebec. The city of Quebec is a large city, and no doubt there are other places where the statue could be erected. Canada is a large country, and there are other parts of Canada where it could be erected. I do say that when we are here administering public funds we ought not to be asked to grant public funds for the maintenance of an historic site, and then allow' that historic site to be used for another purpose. Hence I must protest against the passing of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday. February 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 22, respecting the registration of shop cards by labour unions-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. RINFRET:: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that we revert to section 5.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

. On section 5-Grounds for refusing registration.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: When we dealt with this bill on a previous occasion all sections were passed but it was agreed to leave the bill in committee in order that an amendment might be introduced to allow an appeal from a decision of the minister refusing to authorize the registration of a shop card. The proposed amendment has been drawn and appears in the votes and proceedings of the 29th of March last. I will ask my colleague to move the amendment and to explain what it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: That section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(2) If the minister refuses to authorize the registering of any shop card, the registrar shall refuse the application and shall give notice in writing to the applicant of his refusal and shall state his reasons for refusing to grant the application for registration.
(3)	Upon the refusal of the registrar to grant, wholly or in part, any application authorized by this act to be made to him, the applicant may appeal from such refusal to the Exchequer Court of Canada within sixty days from the date upon which the notice of the decision was dispatched to the applicant by the registrar or within such further times as the court may allow, either before or after the expiry of the sixty days aforesaid.
(4)	Notice of such appeal shall within the time limited as aforesaid be filed with the registrar and with the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada and a like notice shall within such time be given by registered mail to such unions as may appear from the register to be the proprietors of any shop cards which have been referred to by the registrar in the decision complained of.
(5)	In any case in which by reason of the nature of the question presented by such appeal, the court considers that such question cannot be properly dealt with without public notice by advertisement or otherwise of the hearing of the appeal, it may direct such public notice to be given in such manner as appears to it to be necessary to bring the question raised to the attention of the persons whom it considers may be concerned or interested in the decision thereof.
(6)	Subject to the direction of the court, any such appeal shall be deemed to have been abandoned if it has not been brought on for hearing within six months after notice thereof was filed with the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada."


Grote Stirling: Was this the point in which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was particularly interested?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, not that one.


Grote Stirling: Because he has been
called away to fulfil an engagement.
Shop Cards Registration


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am aware of that. But we may perhaps make at least a little progress with this matter. This amendment was asked for by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) and agreed to by the leader of the opposition. Section 5 of the bill contains the grounds for refusing registration. One of them is:
If, in the opinion of the minister, the registration of the shop card is -otherwise on public grounds objectionable.
The point was made that, in the same way as it applies in respect to trade marks and patents, an appeal might be granted to a labour union whose shop card is refused by the minister, and this amendment, which is comprehensive but reproduces practically word for word the phraseology of the Unfair Competition Act, provides for such appeal before the exchequer court in exactly the same terms as the other bill I have referred to.
Section as amended agreed to.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The preamble is all that is left now, Mr. Chairman.
On the preamble.


Mr RINFRET:: This relates to the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as to the validity of the bill. He suggested to the Minister of Justice that the -bill be referred to the department for an opinion as to its validity. I will now read the memorandum submitted to the Minister of Justice and which has been transmitted to me:
Keterrmg to the remarks of the Honourable Mr. Cahan at page 887 of Hansard for 25th February, 1938, to which you directed my attention, I have examined the provisions of
t V n , ^Ct Tre*Pecting the Registration oi ohop Cards by Labour Unions"- from the standpoint of their constitutional validity, and beg to advise you as follows:
I am of opinion that the bill is within the legislative competence of parliament. If the bill is regarded as dealing with trade marks which I think it does not, its validity is supported by the reasoning of Lord Atkin in delivering the judgment of the judicial committee ot the privy council in the recent reference as to the validity of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, 1935, and the more recent remarks of the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Davis in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the validity of three bills passed by the legislative assembly of Alberta.
I am of opinion that the purpose and effect of the bill is to vest in certain labour unions a copyright which they do not now enioy, and
Pelagic Sealing

that the validity of the bill is supportable on the ground that it is copyright legislation within the meaning of section 91 (23) of the British North America Act.
W. S. Edwards.


Grote Stirling: The attention of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George will no doubt be directed to this statement that the minister has read, and on the third reading he will have the opportunity of making any remarks he wishes to make.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Well then, the bill might be reported.
Bill reported.



PELAGIC SEALING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, respecting,the North Pacific pelagic sealing convention.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Is the minister going to speak on this bill?


Mr. MICHAUD:: Oh yes, in committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the minister not going to speak on the second reading?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Not unless I find it necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: I was waiting to give the
minister the courtesy to speak. I wish to say something. As the subject of this bill deals entirely with waters that lie off the district I represent, and nobody else, I think, handles it, it behooves me to take some interest in the matter, and in the past I have done so.
The purport of the bill might be best expressed by referring to the explanatory note on page 2. I may preface that by saying that the pelagic sealing treaty was enacted between the United States, Britain, Japan and Russia-Canada was a contributor by virtue of being at that time under the British government-in 1911, forbidding pelagic sealing except to some stated Indians under certain conditions. The explanatory note says this:
The legislation adopted at the time-the Pelagic Sealing Act-contains no provision whereby such Indian or other aborigine could be penalized for violating this provision of the treaty.
I have read that explanation with a great deal of interest and pleasure, because I have been trying to tell the officials of the department that for the last nine months, and they have been sedulously denying it; and now,
CMr. Rinfret-.l
I think with admirable frankness, they have stated it in the explanatory note. The matter arises in this way. I will not go into details, but some man or some company with a very obvious axe to grind made representations to the government here that certain Indians were fishing illegally on the Pacific ocean, and the department in my humble opinion got stampeded and at once issued a most peremptory and, I think, ill-considered order that all skins were to be seized by the customs officers-who do not know anything about seals-provided not that they showed evidence of having been taken illegally, but that, they showed evidence of having been shot. There was a great deal of correspondence between the department and myself. The minister very kindly-and I now express my gratitude to him for doing so-gave permission and arranged that a case should be taken before the exchequer court. It is now before the court or in process of being brought there, so, the matter being sub judice, I will not go any further with the merits of that particular case.
As regards the bill itself, as amended it contains fourteen sections, but I fail to see that it leaves the matter very much clearer than it was to start with. I take exception more particularly to section 4, which says:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of carrying out the convention or for giving effect to any of its provisions.
That of course is a clause such as we find in many bills, but I do not think we find it under conditions such as depicted here; because whoever has the power to make these regulations is not going to make regulations, he is going to make a law. The whole purport of this bill is to put restrictions and penalties on Indians breaking the law in that regard. It is all going to be left to regulations made by the government; they may be wise or unwise, reasonable or unreasonable, but once made they are there, and the act says they shall have the full force of law. In a matter where the very purpose of the bill is concerned it is going to be done by regulation. I submit the greater features at least should be expressed in the bill itself.
Then we come to the other sections. They do not seem to agree. Section 5 says that anyone who breaks the treaty "shall be guilty of an offence against this act". Section 6 says something different. It says that if any person other than an Indian, etc., uses

Pelagic Sealing
a port or equips a vessel with the idea of going sealing illegally, he shall be liable to a fine, but does not state the amount.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Pardon me; there will be an amendment to that.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what I was wanting to hear; I thought the minister would explain it was a mistake. It "was in the old act, but that it was wrong twenty-five years ago does not make it any better now. But under that section he will be liable to a fine or two years' imprisonment upon indictment, or on summary conviction to imprisonment or fine. This is what he is liable to get, on summary conviction, which means conviction before two justices of the peace, not sitting as police magistrates in a city, but away out in the bush on the Pacific coast, men who have been selected very often because it is necessary to have someone to sign papers and not for their legal knowledge or training. On summary conviction by two justices of the peace an offender will be liable to a penalty of 8500-no minimum, and I know justices of the peace who have the idea that the maximum fine should always be imposed. The maximum is $500, and six months' imprisonment, no minimum; and further, the vessel and everything connected with it is liable to seizure and forfeiture. That is the result of committing an ordinary offence against the act. And the people who come under it, by virtue of section 5, and section 8 where Indians are concerned, are liable.
Here is the discrepancy: I direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to section 6, which provides a penalty, as I have already indicated, for anyone equipping a boat with the intention of going sealing. But subsection 2, which I think should apply to the whole lot, reads as follows:
If any officer authorized by the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act to board and search is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for believing that a vessel has been or is being equipped contrary to this section, he may seize and detain the vessel and bring her for adjudication before the Exchequer Court of Canada on its admiralty side, or before any superior court in the province in or near which the vessel was seized.
(3) The court may thereupon adjudge the vessel and her equipment to be forfeited to His Majesty. . . .
There is the difference. If a poor ignorant Indian goes out and takes a seal in the open sea in pursuance of immemorial custom he is liable to have his little boat and gear and everything he possesses seized and forfeited, not on the adjudication of the exchequer court, in which we all have the greatest confidence,
but on the mere say-so of an officer as defined under the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, which includes a fisheries officer. A fisheries officer is a man in the employ of the fisheries department, he may have been there only two weeks; he may be a political hack of the most obvious description and owe his appointment to that cause, but he has this power. I do not care what act it is in; I contend it is wrong, and that n-o one short of a court should have the power to declare the forfeiture of something on sight.
A clear case occurred two years ago in my own district in connection with the fisheries regulations. There was one of these absurd- I think I should rather call them infamous- sections, by which a man's boat worth perhaps $15,000 could be confiscated on sight by a fisheries officer. The man was charged with some comparatively trivial offence, such as fishing illegally in a certain place. The fisheries officer was told about it and went and seized his boat. It was quite illegal, because he had to do it on sight, and it was not done on his sight but someone told him of it. Before the case came up for trial- for there was a charge as well-someone enlightened the fisheries officer as to his error and he withdrew the confiscation. The man went on trial and was acquitted; he was pronounced innocent of any offence, yet if that fisheries man had happened to see the boat the seizure would have been legal and condemnation and forfeiture to the crown would have been legal. So we should have had the remarkable and utterly unjust situation of a man charged with an offence against the law, properly tried and legally acquitted, and yet unable except by mercy of the crown to get back his boat which had been seized.
The same thing exists here. It may be a case of a wealthy firm equipping a schooner; the boat can be seized by one of these subordinates, and that is all right, but he cannot condemn it; he can only bring it before the nearest exchequer court or superior court. But under section 8 this wretched Indian is liable to have everything he owns in the world forfeited on the say-so of someone who is described as a fisheries official. I submit it ought to go before a court in every case; let the man be prosecuted and brought into court, and let the forfeiture follow conviction. But to have a condition under which it would be possible for an innocent man to be acquitted but his boat previously forfeited is utterly intolerable. Section 8 says that the Indian who fishes illegally can have his boat seized by any officer authorized to board and search, and it shall be forfeited to his majesty.

Pelagic Sealing
That ought to be followed by the words "after due process of law" or something of the kind.
I have already referred to the severe penalty. You never make law good by making the penalties too severe. In almost every other act in connection with summary convictions you find-the Minister of Justice will correct me if I am wrong-that there is a minimum penalty provided so as to prevent ignorance or personal feeling operating to give a man a tremendous penalty, perhaps $500, for shooting a seal the skin of which may be worth $2.50.
Then section 5 provides that an Indian is not subject to the act if he has been engaged in pelagic sealing in convention waters in strict compliance with the stipulations of article 4 of the convention. Let us look at article 4. It says that:
It is further agreed that the provisions of this convention shall not apply to Indians, Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines dwelling on the coast of the waters mentioned in article I who carry on pelagic sealing in canoes not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and propelled entirely by oars, paddles, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons each, in the way hitherto practised and without the use of firearms.
Now there is a contradiction in law, and certainly in common sense. It was put in there by the British when they were drawing up the treaty nearly twenty-five years ago, and were not familiar with conditions on the Pacific coast and ocean. They drew it up wrongly. It says, "a way hitherto practised and without the use of firearms." I submit that the one contradicts the other, because the old way did permit the use of firearms. There is no question about that. I am thoroughly familiar with the subject; I lived there for many years; I was Indian agent and had to do with these Indian crews and sailing captains, and I have often heard them talk about it.
The course followed by the sealers was this: They used to be fitted out in Victoria in the early spring, probably in March. Then they went down the California coast and came up there. Very often they ran into Victoria to get fresh stores, and then proceeded up towards Bering sea, going up the west coast of Vancouver island. That is where they took the skins now in dispute, but for all that distance from the California coast up to Bering sea they were allowed to use shotguns. There is no question about that. They did not always do so; if they could use their speara they preferred to do so, since a seal that is shot is liable to sink.
(Mr. Neill.]


Mr. REID:: Might I ask the hon. member whether they were allowed the use of shotguns when the treaty was signed in 1911, forbidding the use of firearms?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, they were. The business had dwindled so much that there was very little done, but they were allowed the use of firearms outside Bering sea. When they reached that point the American or Canadian cutter came up and compelled them to seal their guns. If the guns had been illegal all along the cutter would not have sealed them up; it would have seized them, but they were allowed the use of firearms as far as Bering sea. Now the words are "as hitherto practised." If that is to be the policy they can use firearms now. If the intention had been to introduce something different from the existing practice they would have said "hitherto practised but without the use of firearms." They did not say "but"; they said "and," indicating that they thought there were no guns allowed on the coast at all. That was a mistake; the wording was erroneous, and it should be corrected now. There is provision under the treaty for conferences by means of which the various signatory governments can get together and agree on modifications of the treaty, and I believe that should be done. In any case I maintain that these Indians are entitled to go out and use a gun off the coast of Vancouver island, because that was the old way of getting the seals.
What was that provision put in the treaty for? The idea was that these were poor, uneducated Indians, unable to earn their living other than in the ways to which they were accustomed, and it was considered desirable to perpetuate the status quo and let them go on doing what they had been doing befqre. That is all I am asking. The language is capable of being interpreted in the other way, I admit, but I believe it should be interpreted according to what was evidently the intention of the framers of the legislation.
There is another point I should like to make; perhaps it is not quite so strong as this but still I think it is applicable. This treaty was negotiated twenty-seven years ago. At that time the idea was to rehabilitate the sealing industry, which had fallen to a very low level, owing to the methods of sealing in practice and the frequent poaching that went on. Sealing was practically nonexistent, and it was considered desirable to get together and draw up this treaty so that the herd could be built up. That was why they restricted the Indians to the old method.

Pelagic Sealing
But those conditions no longer exist, and I think we should move with the times and allow the Indians the same facilities we allow anyone else, twenty-seven years after the event. The seal herds have increased enormously under this protection, so much so that they are becoming a menace to salmon fishing on the Pacific coast. I have heard many .people advocate that we denounce the treaty altogether and begin to kill the seals in the old way because of the enormous number of salmon they eat. Of course people who want to prove the opposite catch a few seals at a time and place when they know there are no salmon in the water. Then they triumphantly produce the stomachs of the seals and say, "These seals are not eating salmon; there are none in their stomachs." Of course there would not be any, because there were no salmon for them to eat. I remember an argument one time in regard to sea lions; it was said that only seaweed had been found in their stomachs, and it was argued that therefore they lived on seaweed. I suppose if they had found a piece of motor tire in the stomach of a sea lion they would have argued that they lived on motor tires; and that would have been possible, because old motor tires are used as fenders on many of the fishing boats.
I submit that there is no longer need to protect the seals, and that is an additional reason why we should not be too hard on the Indian. Then again, why should we not allow the Indian to use modern methods? In 1922 a royal commission consisting of members of this house went thoroughly into conditions on the Pacific coast. We found that on the Skeena river no one, white or Indian, was allowed .to use a power boat. A fisherman was not allowed to have a little Evin-rude or a little two horse-power engine to buck the tide; he had to use sails or oars. It seemed an extraordinary thing that people who were licensed to go fishing should not be allowed to do so in the most modern and appropriate manner. On investigation we discovered that the reason was purely a financial one. At that time the canners financed those people much more than is the case at present, and they foresaw that they would be up against buying engines for all these boats. So they violently objected to the use of engines, but we could not see that it was unreasonable or improper that a man who was licensed to catch salmon, who was restricted by closed hours, seasons and so forth, should be allowed to catch the fish in the most practical method possible. Therefore we ordered that they should be allowed to use power boats thereafter, and nothing in particular happened except that it was a great deal more convenient for the fishermen. I suppose going back to antiquity we can recall that members of parliament, if they existed in those days, used to blot their letters with sand instead of using blotting paper, and they made copies of everything by hand, just as the monks did, some of whom would spend half a lifetime writing one book. We do not need to do such things now; we have gone ahead with the times, and if we allow the Indian to catch seals I do not see why he should not do it in the most reasonable way and with the least effort possible.
As I mentioned before, article 16 of the treaty contains a provision whereby one or more of the parties concerned may ask for a conference forthwith between representatives of all parties to consider and agree upon a further extension of the convention with such conditions and modifications, if any, as may be considered desirable. So there is opportunity for this government, in agreement with the other nations concerned, to make such modifications as would meet the situation, without going to the extent of entirely denouncing the treaty. I submit that in fairness to these Indians that should be done. They are not represented by members here, but because they do not have members representing them they should not be penalized. In New Zealand, where there is a comparable race called the Maoris, they have four members to represent them in parliament, so their interests are well looked after. We should not discriminate against the Indian here. A white man who has a schooner and who proposes to go out sealing illegally cannot have his vessel seized until the matter has been disposed of by the exchequer court, but in the case of the poor Indian his vessel may be seized on the mere say-so of a man calling himself a fisheries officer.
I do not submit these views to the department in any spirit of antagonism at all, but, I do hope they will consider these points when they are dealing with this matter later on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: As indicated in the
explanatory note, this bill is for the purpose of amplifying a measure passed in 1913 which was passed in confirmation of the treaty entered into and signed in 1911 by Great Britain, the United States, Japan and Russia, regulating sealing in Pacific waters.
Pelagic Sealing

In 1911 Canada had no treaty making powers, and after the signing of the treaty the enabling legislation was passed by the British parliament. It was not until 1913 that this parliament passed legislation with a view to controlling natives who might fit out boats on the Pacific coast or along Canadian shores for purposes of fishing on the high seas. Since 1911 we have been operating under the legislation I have indicated; but last year, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, a situation arose which, in my view, necessitated the revision of the then legislation. There was some room for difference of opinion as to whether or not we had the necessary machinery to punish those who violated the provisions of the treaty.
It mighlt be well for the committee to understand that through the treaty of 1911 Canada has relinquished any claim to property in the seals frequenting the waters. The United States claimed they owned a herd; Russia claimed they owned a herd, and Japan made a similar claim because, as was pointed out, the herds were found in the neighbourhood of islands within the territorial waters of those countries.
By virtue of our agreeing in 1911 not to interfere with the property of those countries with respect to seals, we are being allotted each year a certain number of skins, the valuable part of the seal. We receive a certain number of skins from the seals destroyed under the supervision of the governments of the United States, Russia and Japan. We receive those skins in return for helping those countries to protect the herds of seals by refusing rights to people from this country to fit out vessels on our shores and to go to sea hunting for seals, and for generally contributing towards the enforcement of the treaty.
The governments of the United States, Russia and Japan permit their natives to destroy or kill a certain number of seals each year, and under the provisions of the treaty we are granted fifteen per cent of the furs of seals killed by the United States, fifteen per cent from Japan, and ten per cent from Russia. Those skins are delivered each year at Victoria by the countries in question. The skins are sold at auction at St. Louis, Missouri, and London. From the sale of skins allotted to us we have derived SI,493,540.71 since the inception of the treaty.
The white people along the coast of British Columbia have not participated in the killing of seals, but under article 4 of the treaty the aborigines or Indians along the coast are allowed certain privileges. In 1936 the proceeds
[Mr. Michaud.}
from the sale of skins from animals caught by them amounted to SI,888. In 1937 their share, according to departmental statistics, amounted to 2,671 skins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What happened to the proceeds of the sale of skins?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It goes into the consolidated revenue fund. It is not administered by the department, and is not charged against departmental expenditures. My information is that since 1911 payment has been made into and made part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I find that the skins are sent either to London or to St. Louis, depending upon the state of the market. I am informed that these are the two great fur markets of the world. The furs are sold at auction and the proceeds are paid into the treasury of the dominion.


Thomas Reid: Does that take place in regard to skins from Russia and Japan?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; that is my information. I know that has happened in the last two years, and records of the department show it happened before that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do we take the skins or cash?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In the last few years we have taken the skins, but I am informed that prior to that we took cash. I am informed that for some years the skins have been delivered at either Victoria or Seattle. Russian and Japanese skins are delivered at Victoria, and the share contributed by the United States is delivered at Seattle.


Alan Webster Neill: Has Japan given her share in recent years? I think not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I believe so.


Alan Webster Neill: I think not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think so. We take the word of the governments of those countries, and I do not know of any investigation being made to ascertain whether or not we were getting exactly the proper number.


Alan Webster Neill: My impression is that in the last two or three years the Japanese have not paid their share. If I am wrong, I am ready to apologize, but the minister ought to know.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I may be wrong, but I understood the difficulty was with Russia, that they had been late in making returns in one or two years. However, I am not positive about that. It may be that Japan delayed in

Pelagic Sealing
making her returns, but I doubt it. My information is that they have made returns regularly. However, I shall find out and give this information to my hon. friend as it appears on the records of the department before we finish discussing this bill in committee.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has complained that this bill contains more clauses than the original act. This is necessary in order to administer the legislation. It was found advisable to provide in the bill for the necessary machinery to administer the act as it should be administered. The original act passed in 1913 implemented the provisions of an order in council passed by the British government. At that time it was thought that the fisheries legislation provided the necessary procedure and machinery to enforce the provisions of the act. This matter was looked into after the hon. member directed the attention of the department to the anomalies of which he complained. It was suggested that in order to remove all doubt the act should be recast and the necessary provisions included to cover all cases as they might arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Alan Webster Neill: There is an obvious mistake in spelling in the fifth line. "Fur sales" should read "fur seals." Will the minister correct that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations by governor in council.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister give us some information as to what he proposes to do with regard to issuing regulations?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The regulations will provide the means for properly marking and identifying skins taken legally by Indians. These provisions exist already.


Alan Webster Neill: Where?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The regulations were
passed not long after the 1913 legislation. The department has been administering the law under the provisions of those regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: I understood that there were no regulations.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The explanatory note states that the legislation adopted at the time contains no provision whereby they could be penalized.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No provision.


Alan Webster Neill: You are providing regulations to penalize them.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend should remove from his mind any thought that the object of this bill is to penalize anyone. The idea of the bill is to enforce the provisions of a treaty which we have bound ourselves to observe and enforce. The object of the bill is to make it easier for the people to observe the law and for the department to enforce it. There will be regulations covering the issuing of certificates and the declarations to be made by those who purchase skins. All these matters have been covered by departmental regulations.


Alan Webster Neill: Under what legislation were they made?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Under the provisions of the treaty.


Alan Webster Neill: Of the treaty?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: It states here that every regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Were the regulations referred to by the minister published in the Gazette?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I cannot say.


Alan Webster Neill: I have never seen them.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was before my time.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not this the situation? There has not been the least attempt made to put any penal clauses in the act. I think we might as well admit that and then go on. My contention is that there were never any regulations which were legal in the sense of having been gazetted. I think it will be found that the deputy minister, or an assistant deputy minister, wrote to the customs people and asked them if they saw any skins which they did not like the look of to seize them. I have seen those instructions. I did not think this matter would come up in this shape and I do not have them under my hand. I am very much of the opinion that they were not in the form of regulations; they were in the form of a letter from the deputy minister, or with the authority of the minister, to the customs people, asking them .to detain any skins which they had reason to believe had been obtained illegally. Those instructions were concentrated, so to speak, at Victoria.
Pelagic Sealing

Apparently it has now been discovered that those instructions did not have the force of law. Last July the deputy minister made an attempt to enforce them, but he found that he had not anything to enforce. The customs people seized some skins on his instructions, but the people who owned the skins asked for their authority. There was no authority, and this legislation is the outcome. I say that we should forget the past and deal with the future. What kind of regulation has the minister in mind with regard to inspection? These skins should be inspected by some one readily accessible to the Indians. The skins ought not to be sent to Vancouver or Victoria, as at present. They ought not to be inspected by customs officers who may not know whether they are seal or lion skins; they should be inspected by some officer of the department having knowledge of fishing, by somebody who knows something about it, and if possible always the same officer in the same district. It is a comparatively small district, and a couple of customs officers might do the work, but fisheries inspectors would be much better. They are capable men and maintain a continuity of policy, so to speak, and they would come to know by practical experience whether a skin was illegally shot. It is quite simple for anyone to break the law by coming along in a canoe and taking a 32 rifle and shooting, and the temptation would be to shoot the seal, and then poke a spear through the hole made by the shot. Now it is alleged they go and shoot them with shotguns. But I doubt that. The Indian is not a fool. He may be a lawbreaker. But every time you use buckshot it makes the skin less valuable; the Indian would be penalized when he sold it, and it would be obvious on a cursory inspection that the seal had been shot. I cannot believe the Indian would do that.
But these men say: Yes, here are these skins with shot-holes in them, and therefore the seals must have been shot. That is what the case turns on that is now before the exchequer court. There may be buckshot holes in them, but that does not prove that they were illegally shot. I was in the butchering business at one time, and I have killed cows that had a lot of small shot-holes in their skins because some indignant gardener had fired at them. It is a well known fact that the white fishermen who go out trolling for salmon get so mad pulling up their lines and finding nothing but heads on them that they take a shotgun and fire at a seal if they see one, not to kill it, but to scare it away, to

keep it clear of their lines. It is quite possible that some of these skins might have been shot in that way, and later on have been speared legitimately. Therefore I say this legislation should be administered by somebody who knows these things. It does not follow, because there is a buckshot hole in the skin, that therefore the poor Indian is responsible. I have seen hides of cattle with holes in them as big as your thumb due to an insect called a warble that makes a hole like a bullet hole. Is the minister going to arrange for some practical men, some persons easily accessible to the Indian, to do the inspecting, and will there be some method of marking the skins so that if an offence has been committed you can get back to the real sinner?
The exchequer court case is that of a storekeeper who bought the skins and paid cash for them to the Indian, and as you never can get cash back from an Indian, the storekeeper is now confronted with the loss of the skins. You cannot say whether the skins were shot illegally or not. The department should have said that in future the purchaser must be more careful, and the department then have legislation such as this passed. Is it the intention to proceed along these lines that I have been suggesting?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Certainly. The object
of this legislation is to remedy the situation which has just been described by my hon. friend and to obviate the difficulties which have arisen in the past year. The regulations which it is proposed to make under this legislation will meet the situation described by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Use of Canadian ports for equipping vessels for pelagic sealing prohibited.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to add after the word "fine" in line 8 of the section the words "not exceeding two thousand dollars."


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Alan Webster Neill: A pretty steep fine for an ordinary offence. After all, it is not murder.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It says " not exceeding," and it may be only one dollar.
Section as amended agreed to.

Pelagic Sealing
On section 7-Importation or possession prohibited.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a word misspelled in line 37 on page 3 of the bill.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, the word "otherwise." That will be corrected.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Pelagic sealing by Indians.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to renew the appeal I made a short time ago. Why not put the Indian on the same footing as the large vessel owner? You cannot seize the big man's vessel without going to the exchequer court. Why not insert the same provision in section 8 as regards the Indian, and have the same process of law? It is against common sense-I do not know about law-for the reasons I have already given that it should be possible for a fisheries official, a man without any legal training whatsoever, to confiscate a boat, and then afterwards it may be discovered that the man was innocent of the crime for which the boat was seized and confiscated. Those are the words used at the top of page 4. The boats may be seized by any officer and shall be forfeited to his majesty. I suggest that the Minister of Justice should have inserted a provision that the case should go to some competent court.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend should take cognizance of the difference in the size of the penalty for those prosecuted under the provisions of section 6. Section 6 reads:
If any person (other than an Indian or other aborigine in respect of the exercise of the privilege reserved by article 4 of the convention) uses any port within Canada for the purpose of equipping any vessel intended to be operated or used for any purpose whatsoever connected with the operations of pelagic sealing

And so forth. That would be persons who were operating a large vessel. It would be valuable property which we would not allow an ordinary officer to seize and forfeit to his majesty without process of law. But section 8 deals with the Indian who generally operates in a canoe.


Alan Webster Neill: No; you would not be seizing it if it were a canoe.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In a canoe or other vessel. It is generally a small craft that the Indians use for this work because they know they are violating the law and they try to conceal their method of operation as much as possible. The value of the property is not such that we should place the offender in the position of
having	to defend	forfeiture	proceedings,
incurring a large amount of costs, and the same with respect to the department in prosecuting.


Alan Webster Neill: I would not insist on the
case going to the exchequer court because that is an expensive proceeding, but it should go to any superior court such as the county court.	I wonder	where	our	CooperativeCommonwealth Federation	and	communisticfriends	are to-day.	They	would have just
heard a pronouncement that will ring throughout Canada, that if a large vessel is seized the case must go to the exchequer court, but if it is only a small vessel, worth only 81,000 or so, owned by an Indian, it can be confiscated on sight. That is a terrible position to put this parliament in. My protest is registered against that proceeding. What I have said cannot be gainsaid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree with the hon.
member who has just spoken. This is a serious matter to an Indian or one operating a small vessel. The vessel is likely to be of some value, in fact a very great value to the Indian; it will be one that can go to sea and will probably be equipped with a gas engine; probably it will represent almost the entire possessions of the Indian. May I suggest to the minister-and I should like the Minister of Justice to listen to this suggestion-that at the end of clause 8, instead of saying-
. . . may be seized by any officer authorized under the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act to board and search, and shall be forfeited to His Majesty.
-words should be used somewhat to this effect:
. . . shall be held pending the decision of a court in the matter.
The Minister of Justice could easily frame something of this kind. The idea is to give the seizing officer only the right to hold the vessel in order to hold the man. I quite understand that if an Indian, having been arrested for this offence, were allowed to go with his boat, it might be difficult to find him again, but the vessel could be held pending the determination of his guilt. It will be noted that in section 11 penalties are provided for violations of the act, so that there is no need to insert in this clause an added penalty against the Indian by the seizure of his vessel. I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that it is more serious to an Indian to lose his vessel than it would be to a group of individuals in the form of a company who have equipped a
Pelagic Sealing

vessel for such a purpose. I know how this all arises. In days gone by-and I remember it very well, thirty-five or forty years ago- it was one of the glorious practices of seafaring folk on the Pacific coast to equip vessels, as dozens of them did in Victoria and some at Vancouver and other places, and go out poaching and killing seals. It was a real thrill to the men who operated those vessels. I knew some of them well. One whom I knew personally very well indeed was the "Sea Wolf," and one could not help but admire the spectacular type of individual he was. but he was utterly unscrupulous so far as poaching seals was concerned. A law that provides against the equipping of vessel? under such circumstances is quite right; but where an Indian goes out and is tempted to kill a fewr seals, although I am not condoning the offence, to take from him his whole livelihood on the say-so of an officer authorized under the Customs or Fisheries Protection Act is giving to that individual a power and a right w'hich I do not think should be given to any individual. So I suggest to the minister that the words as printed be struck out and that there be substituted the power to detain or hold the vessel.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes; I agree-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there will be found in the Nadan case a somewhat similar provision. A confiscation is a judicial act. In the Nadan case liquor was being carried in an automobile from British Columbia into Alberta and across to Montana, and the statute contained a provision that the magistrate should have authority or jurisdiction to declare the automobile and the contents forfeited to the crown. All that is necessary in this case is to clothe the stipendiary magistrate, or the judge of the county court if there is one resident nearby, with the same authority as the provincial act clothed the magistrate within the Nadan case. In that case confiscation was held to be within the powers of the magistrate in view of the provisions of the statute. All that it is necessary to do is to provide that it shall be the result of a judicial hearing and not an arbitrary exercise of judgment by an individual.


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly the words could be inserted which are used at the end of section 9:
.	. . shall be liable to forfeiture to His
Majesty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then say how.


Ernest Lapointe: Instead of saying "shall be forfeited." And then say how,-yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the clause would have to be recast to provide the name of the judicial officer who would exercise the judicial pow'er of determining the forfeiture.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This confiscation or
forfeiture should be a judicial act and not an arbitrary discretion exercised by an officer. That is the general principle which underlies these decisions.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. The proceedings
against violators of section 8 will be generally summary proceedings. If the committee will allow this section to stand, I shall try to have it recast so that it may include this provision, making the boat or vessel liable to forfeiture by the tribunal before which the person will be tried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And name the tribunal.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And name the tribunal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think this requires a little more thought. If the clause is merely revised in the way the minister suggests I fear the court will conclude that if a man is guilty this forfeiture must follow. It should be made clear that forfeiture should follow only in a very flagrant case. The fact that a man shoots a seal is not cause enough to forfeit the means of his livelihood. That point should be safeguarded. Let me give an illustration which I think is in point although it is not in regard to pelagic sealing. Two men, father and son, owned a gas boat on the Pacific coast with which they earned their livelihood by doing a little work along the coast. A fellow borrowed the boat and "ran" some liquor. This happened a few years ago when that practice was being indulged in. The customs officers seized and sold the boat; the owners, although entirely innocent of any offence, lost their means of livelihood. My point is that before taking a boat away from a poor man we should be convinced that the offence warrants so extreme a penalty. I suggest that the minister pause over the dinner hour and consider some provision which will fit the case.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

Niagara Falls Bridge
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 8-Power to construct bridge.
Mr. LOCKHART:: 
Mr. DAMUDE:: I did not make that statement. Of course I have no jurisdiction over other people who may have made such a statement. I had no knowledge that this matter was brought before the city council, and did not make the statement.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then the statement is not correct? I did not oppose any resolution of yours for $90,050?


Arthur Byron Damude: As far as I am concerned it is not correct.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I thank you. I do not intend to bring down another thirty or forty letters which I have received since the Easter recess, as it is not my intention to take up the time of the committee, but I want to verify a statement I made in connection with the taxpayers' claims. There was an assurance given to the taxpayers of Niagara Falls I believe by one of the members of the Niagara Falls hydro commission, saying that the taxpayers were protected. Might I ask the hon. member for Welland if any further assurance has been given the taxpayers of Niagara Falls since the discussion before the Easter recess? I am still receiving letters asking that something be done in that connection.


Arthur Byron Damude: As I pointed out on a former occasion-and I think the statement ' is correct-this bill makes no provision for taxation, which is under the control of the provincial legislature and the municipal authorities of Niagara Falls. I have made no further statement, and if any member of the Ontario hydro commission has made any further statement it is not within my knowledge.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I appreciate that very much, because there seems to be an impression, as I gather from the inquiries brought to my attention, that they are expecting some assurance of some kind. The taxpayers are still concerned about that point.
Another point to which I want to refer is in connection with numerous inquiries I have received from taxpayers relative to a meeting that was to be held on March 26, a few days after the bill was passed in the special committee of this house. There still appears to be a feeling among those who have communicated with me that that meeting should have been held. It was to have been a joint meeting of the chamber of commerce, the Niagara parks commission, the city council, representatives of the International Railway Company, the Hon. Mr. Houck and the hon. member for Welland, to discuss the question of arrangements acceptable to the ratepayers of Niagara Falls. I have not had opportunity of making any definite inquiries; I am going only by the letters I have received asking about that meeting. I would ask the hon. member for Welland whether that meeting has been held or if any arrangements have been made or are intended to be made for the holding of that meeting.


Arthur Byron Damude: I seem to be under crossexamination to-night. I have never refused to meet any body of citizens of the city of Niagara Falls, and if there has been any cancellation of any meeting it has not been my fault. If the meeting has been deferred, this has been done by other people or organizations, not through any fault of mine.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I appreciate that assurance. I do not want the hon. member to feel that I am making this a personal matter with him; but I am trying to get information, as there are fifteen or twenty of these letters from citizens of Niagara Falls, to which I still have to reply. I do not feel that the hon. member for Welland is responsible in any way; nevertheless he sponsored this bill and so I suppose I have to look to him for information. I am definitely assured
Niagara Falls Bridge

that if some protection such as I have suggested could be given, protection similar to whait was given in connection with the Buffalo-Fort Erie bridge, or such as was set forth in the resolution sent to the Prime Minister of Canada in connection with that bridge, I think the people of Niagara Falls would be only too happy. There is no question that they need a bridge, with the tourist season coming on; but they do resent the fact that a bill was presented in this house providing for an expenditure of $7,500,000 and that by a stroke of the pen we were able to take off $3,500,000 at the start; they are wondering whether it would not be possible to reduce it to the amount in the bill brought into the New York state assembly, which was $3,000,000. They are continually asking me these pertinent questions. I assure the hon. member for Welland that I appreciate his frank admission absolving me from any intention of trying to stop anything he may want to do in the house. Now I shall make it my business to check up with ithe members of the Niagara Falls council.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Any remarks I have made have been on behalf of the taxpayers of Niagara Falls, who have gone through a very serious period of stress and strain, even to the extent of having to appoint a city manager. That, of course, is no disgrace. Many cities in the Dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario went through the same difficult situation. But I agree with the ratepayers of Niagara Falls that the way the bill was handled in this house, the way it was promoted and the way it was lobbied and subsequently cut nearly in half, were enough to make the taxpayers of Niagara Falls feel a little suspicious, and they appealed to a source from which they thought they might get some information.


Frank Exton Lennard: Earlier in the debate the hon. member for Welland stated that he had been assured that there would be no loss of taxation to the citizens of Niagara Falls through the passing of this bill. Would the hon. member state where he got his assurance and what that assurance was?


Arthur Byron Damude: My assurance, of course, was that the province of Ontario setting up an authority, in conjunction with a like authority in the state of New York, would permit taxation in connection with the bridge by the municipalities of Niagara Falls, New York, and Niagara Falls, Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, since this house has had to consider this measure the members of this committee have been attacked from outside this house. It has been charged that we have been derelict to our duty in connection with this legislation. No self-respecting member of this house can allow any such statement to be made without resenting it. Therefore I made it my business during the holiday to study this measure and give it such attention as my capacity permitted, and I propose .to oppose it and to give my reasons for doing so very carefully and very fully. I do not propose, so far as I am concerned, that the House of Commons shall be overawed or threatened by any person, whoever he may be or however high may be his position, with respect to legislation pending in the house. It is a pretty day indeed when members of this house can be charged- as we have been- with having lost to the province of Ontario large sums of money per day, because members saw fit to examine into the legislation which was submitted for our consideration.
It might be well to deal with the matter very frankly and fully so that there may be upon the records of the house a permanent memorial as to what has transpired. When this bill was first promoted, according to the advertisements in the Gazette and in the local newspapers, the international railway bridge was in existence. I have heard that bridge referred to in this house as the "honeymoon" bridge, but in fact it was a bridge built by an international corporation under authority of the appropriate bodies, namely the parliament of Canada and the United States of America. In January last that bridge was destroyed by an act of God, and those who were the proprietors of it have the right to reconstruct the bridge. They are preparing their plans and hope to have the bridge completed by the end of 1939.


Mr. GRAY:: Have they the right to construct it without coming to this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are advised that they have that right, and I am advised that the hon. gentleman as a lawyer must know that.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It is debatable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the opinion of some eminent counsel it is not even debatable. I do not express any opinion myself, for it is not necessary that I should. I am only saying that my investigations have satisfied me that steps are being taken to reconstruct that bridge; that plans have actually been

Niagara Falls Bridge
prepared to a considerable extent, and that it is expected that the structure will be completed by 1939. Right here may I point out that the other evening the hon. member for Peterborough West in this very chamber asked the members of the committee to believe that the United States authorities had given their approval to the construction of this bridge. Not only is that not true, but the bill was rejected, and the governor of the state is reported as having said that he will never sign that bill as long as this international company have their vested rights unprotected. Then why should we pass a bill?


Mr. McLARTY:: Did not the hon. member for Peterborough West state during the debate that he had a copy of the bill which was proposed in the state of New York?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall read what he said, which appears at page 2173 of Hansard:
Mr. Duffus:	This is the fifth occasion on
which this matter has come before the committee. I have in my hand a copy of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company, and also a draft copy of the United States act dealing with the same matter. I wish to refer to the discussion which has taken place on the bill, and it is not my purpose to take up the time of the committee talking about the people of the United States or Canada.
Mr. Bennett:	Did the hon. gentleman say
that there was a United States act? My information was that they declined to pass it.
Mr. Duffus:	I said I have a copy of it.
Mr. Bennett:	That is the one which was
introduced, but it was not passed.
Mr. Duffus:	May I say I have listened to
the discussion of this important international matter, and to say the least I am amazed to note that the objections have emanated almost entirely from one group in the house.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is not my right hon. friend drawing an inference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statement was
calculated to do just one thing and nothing else-to leave the impression with the house that the United States had agreed. When I asked the hon. gentleman if he did not know that the bill had not been passed, what did he do? Is he here? Let him answer.


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I suggest to my right hon. friend that the difference between a bill and an act might not be completely clear to a lay member of the house. My right hon. friend is drawing an inference that I question very much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not drawing an
inference at all; I am only saying that the speech speaks for itself. It should be made
.51952-145
known at once to the house that the United States, as represented by the state of New York, has declined to proceed with legislation similar to that before us; that the governor gave a reason, and that the reason was that the vested rights of another company should not be disregarded, they being now in the process of converting those rights into a new bridge. Whether or not this may eventuate I cannot say; but one thing is perfectly obvious and it is this:	This country should not be
incorporating a company to construct a bridge when the country with which it must connect has declined to do so, for we would have but a structure hanging in the air. Then why the hurry? Why are we doing this?
Let us take the second point. It is alleged that the province of Ontario is behind this measure. If that is so, why did the responsible ministers not become the incorporators? The other night the Minister of Transport said there was some difficulty about a province doing this. Of course there is; but there is no reason why the responsible ministers should not do it, as persona designata, as minister of public works, treasurer and minister of highways,' etc. They could obtain incorporation for the purpose of enabling the province to deal with the situation.
Let us go a step further. I wonder if the government-I heard the Minister of Transport speak the other night-has ventured to read the bill that was sought to be put through this house. I do not believe the province of Ontario is so lost to public shame as to endeavour to put through this parliament Bill No. 15 as it was originally offered to the house. I cannot think any government would try to do it. I wonder how many members have read that bill, which was offered to this house, in the terms in which it appeared. Here are a number of gentlemen being incorporated to do what?-to construct a toll bridge across the Niagara river, an international stream, and the works are declared to be works for the general benefit of Canada. That divests the provincial legislature of all control. That is not my say-so. That is the decision of the courts.
In their original bill they say, in section 2, that "the works and undertakings of the company are hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada." That certainly places some obligation on the government of this country, because a declaration that a given enterprise is a work for the general advantage of Canada is something with respect to which the government of the day usually exercises its control.
It has not been usual in this country for a private member in a private measure to

Niagara Falls Bridge

declare that a work to be constructed is for the general benefit of Canada. There are instances, of course, in which this has been done.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It has been so declared in
all international bridge bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was done by act
of parliament.


Ross Wilfred Gray: And introduced by private
members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, certainly. Governments do not usually introduce this type of private legislation. But it is usual for the government in some way to intimate its view as to whether or not a given enterprise should be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
I assume from what was said the other evening by the Minister of Transport that he does regard it as a proper exercise of that power, and that therefore the government is agreeable to this bridge being declared to be a work for the general benefit of Canada. But, Mr. Chairman, just let us look at what the original bill says. It is said the province of Ontario is promoting this; remember that. This is what they are promoting, under section 4:
The capital stock of the company shall be five hundred thousand dollars of common stock divided into shares of one hundred dollars each and may be called up by the directors from time to time as they deem necessary.
Just turn over the page and look at the powers given. The amazing thing is that under section 13 they ate given power to issue that stock-in payment for what? Let us look at it. Where are my friends who have cried aloud about watered securities? Where are my friends who have talked about the iniquity of these enterprises being created with stock handed out to promoters? Let us look at section 13:
13. Subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, the directors may issue as paid-up stock shares of the capital stock of the company in payment of any business, franchises, undertakings, rights, powers, privileges, letters patent, inventions, real estate, stocks, assets and other properties which the company may lawfully acquire, and may for such considerations allot and hand over such shares to any person or corporation or its shareholders or directors: and any such issue or allotment of stock shall be binding upon the company and such stock shall not be assessable for calls, nor shall the holder thereof be liable in any way thereon; or the company may pay therefor wholly or partly in paid-up shares or wholly, or partly in bonds and debentures or as ma3' be agreed upon.

If we take those two sections together, I just ask this committee whether or not they think the province of Ontario would put itself behind that legislation? Take those two sections and read them; see what they mean and, knowing what we do about company practice, as it is reported in the courts of the country, and in the cases, just ask that simple question.
We leave that; for when the bill went to the railway committee, it was not prepared to adopt that view, and they reduced the capital stock to $500, or five shares of 8100 each. Under ordinary circumstances any promoters who came to this parliament with a proposal asking for the issue of 8500,000 worth of capital stock for the company, and providing for its disposition in the manner indicated by section 13, and who went before the committee and agreed to reduce that to $500, would not get very far; for it is the same promoters.
The provision as to its being work for the general advantage of Canada still prevails under section 2 of the bill which came from the committee. So I find myself, as a member of the House of Commons who is being attacked because I ventured to say half a dozen words about this matter, now asked to give my approval to legislation incorporating an enterprise which the United States government, as represented by the state of New York, has declined to sanction, approve or recognize; I am asked now, in advance of any such action being taken, to approve this incorporation with a capital of 8500. Either one of two things must be apparent to every thoughtful member of the committee. Either the $500,000 was intended as a steal, or the 8500 does not represent anything. Which is it?
All I can say is this, that the bill as originally introduced in the house is just the kind of measure that has been introduced by every promoter who is getting a franchise to sell.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not what we are discussing now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am discussing, if the minister will permit me to say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not what the committee is discussing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am discussing that for the moment and within my rights. The hon. member may think he may associate himself with one who attacked this house from outside. But I am going to deal with this

Niagara Falls Bridge
measure under the sections with which we are dealing, and shall point out why we should not approve this section, because of the endeavour on the part of promoters to foist this scheme upon parliament and, when they fail, to offer us a new scheme, cutting the capital of the company to $500, to build an international bridge.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? I hesitate to interrupt; but is he aware that the promoters also agreed and filed with the committee an agreement by which they agreed to transfer all their assets to the Niagara parks commission for the sum of one dollar, and therefore stepped completely out of the picture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, if it had any validity, would be in the bill. It is not binding upon anyone; it is just the old promoters' trick. What is more, the books are full of the very same cases, the very same thing. Let it be written in the bill; that is the place where it should be written. If this is, in reality, what it is said to be, why did the commission not apply for the bill?


Mr. YOUNG:: Apparently they have not the right to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I pointed out that it is not in any sense derogatory to the dignity of the minister of public works or the minister of highways, or whoever it may be, of Ontario, to apply for a charter for something the province of Ontario wants.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that was the point upon which I, too, felt somewhat keenly. The committee, on my suggestion, asked the deputy minister of justice for a ruling, and we have his opinion in writing stating that that could not be done; otherwise that would have been in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What could not be done?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That either the government of Ontario or the Niagara parks commission, acting for the government of Ontario could not be named in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who gave that opinion?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The deputy minister of justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it in writing?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to see it; for, high as my opinion is for the deputy minister of justice, I know he never gave an opinion that individuals who constituted 51952-145}
a government, to the number of three, could not apply for a charter, if the province cf Ontario wanted it. They do it. As I say, the minister of public works, the minister of highways, whoever it may be, three of them, might apply for an act. That is all there is about it. There could not be any question about that. I should like to see that opinion and I would thank the minister for it. If that is the sort of opinion we are getting on other matters; if those opinions are no more accurate than that, then I feel rather sick for this country.
Let us go on to the next point. The next thing that appears in this legislation is that this is to be a toll bridge. Therefore the item of cost becomes a primary consideration to everybody concerned. The representations that have been made as to cost make it difficult to understand just what is meant. I confess that I do not. This may be due to my lack of understanding, but all one has to do is to look at the original bill and then at the redrafted bill to find out what the difficulty is. Section 12 of the original bill deals with the issue of securities and reads:
1.	The company may issue bonds, debentures or other securities in aid of the construction herein mentioned, to an amount not exceeding seven million dollars.
2.	For the purpose of securing the issue of such bonds the company may execute a mortgage or mortgages,-
They may mortgage their properties and it is specifically provided that the tolls may be mortgaged. What does that mean? We are asked on behalf of the province of Ontario to authorize the formation of a company that cannot build beyond the middle of the stream and give that company power to issue $7,000,000 worth of securities. Bear in mind what I have pointed out as to section 13 and as to the giving away of the franchise and the granting of powers for the issuing of paid-up shares to the extent, if needs be, of $500,000. Then take your mortgage and bonds that may be issued to the extent of $7,000,000 on a toll bridge and compare the result with the provisions we have in the revised bill. What have we there? Section 12 stipulates that the amount shall not exceed $4,000,000.
I remember the golden days when they used to promote legislation of this kind in the old houses of parliament. Here we have a company coming to us at the instance of the province of Ontario, first with a capital of $500,000 which is reduced to $500, which company it is suggested at first shall be authorized to issue securities to the amount
Niagara Falls Bridge

of $7,000,000, which amount is subsequently reduced to $4,000,000. What do hon. members think of that?
We come now to the next point. The power granted in the original bill is the power to build a bridge across an international stream. I asked the Minister of Justice whether we could confer any such power by this parliament. I raised that issue, but I said I was not going to bother about it. The hon. member for Lambton West said that is what we did in another case.


Charles Avery Dunning: In many cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In several cases.	The
fact that we were wrong does not make it right in this instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bridges are there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so; they are there under an amalgamated company. They are there because the states concerned have granted the power to land the bridge. In this case the state concerned has refused to do this.


Charles Avery Dunning: Refused?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, refused to do it. The other night the hon. member for Peterborough West read the bill. I said then that I believed what I subsequently took the trouble to ascertain. Senator Lee, who is one of the senators in a nearby community, said that there was no reason why this information should not be used publicly. The governor of the state has said that he will not agree to this bill with vested rights thus being destroyed.
Let us see what we are trying to do. In the original bill the company is being authorized to construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles, carriages, electric cars, street cars and other like purposes, with all necessary approaches, roads and works, from a point described in the city of Niagara Falls, in the county of Welland, in the province of Ontario, to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, and to purchase, acquire and hold such real estate as may be necessary for such bridge. Here is the important language in the section:
. . . but the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder, until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridging of the said river, but the company may, in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and do all things authorized by this act.

Would any sane man suggest that he would do that in connection with his business? I just put that to this committee. Just think what we are being asked to do as legislators, as members of this committee. I am saying to the committee that although the province of Ontario, to use their own words, may not construct this bridge or any part of it until such time as the state of New York or the United States of America give authority to do so, nevertheless they may go ahead in the meantime with real estate speculation. I ask, would anybody do that?
The international company has its approaches at both ends of its proposed bridge. I have taken the trouble to ascertain the value of these properties and I have been told, not by the company itself, that they are worth $500,000. I have the further information that the engineer has estimated the cost of spanning that river to join up the two properties of the international company to be $1,400,000. I believe the Minister of Transport will agree that Colonel Monsarrat is the most eminent of the steel engineers we have in the country. That is his estimate and those are the plans he is now preparing. Yet we are being asked as legislators to say, in the face of the attitude taken by the governor of the state of New York, while you cannot commence to build a bridge until New York agrees, even though New York has refused already, nevertheless you can go ahead and have a real estate boom. That is what they are doing. More than that, they are to be given authority to issue securities to the face value of $4,000,000 on the bridge. Does that mean the Canadian part of the bridge or the whole bridge? Does that mean half of the bridge or all 'of the bridge?


An hon. MEMBER:: The whole of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not quite sure of that, although I assume it would be the whole bridge. But a bridge can be built for $1,400,000, according to the estimate of Colonel Monsarrat. What is more, this company already has property valued at half a million dollars, according to the estimate I received. I am very careful to say that I know nothing of this personally, but the two items make an expenditure of roughly $2,000,000. Yet in this instance we are being asked to give our sanction to the issuing of securities to the extent of $4,000,000, the original bill asking for authorization to the extent of $7,000,000 That is the position.

Niagara Falls Bridge
Section 8 in the new bill is somewhat similar to the same section in the old. The new section reads:
. . . but the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge nor exercise any of the powers hereunder, until an act of congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving such bridging of the said river, but the company may, in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and do all things authorized by this act.
What does that mean? Listen to these words. It states that the company shall not exercise any of the powers hereunder, but that they may in the meantime buy lands, submit plans and do all things authorized by this act. What does that mean? There is a prohibition in one line and authority is given in another line to do everything. Why? I do not know. There is only one explanation that is feasible, only one explanation that has been suggested. Knowing as they do that they cannot build a bridge beyond the medial line of the river, the only thing left to do is to create a real estate boom. Why? Because when this matter was considered on another occasion I recall that it was pointed out very clearly-my hon. friend the surveyor (Mr. Fafard) smiles-that under the old International there had grown up certain well-defined rights. People had built homes; the traffic had been diverted in a certain way. But now, before we have the right to build a bridge at all, with that prohibition against our doing anything about it, we are going to authorize them to buy all the real estate they want and to place their plans before the governor in council, and notwithstanding the prohibition, " to do all things authorized by this act." What does that mean? If that is not a plain contradiction in terms, I cannot understand what a contradiction is. On the one hand you have the condition that nothing shall be done until the United States has granted authority, and on the other side what? The permission to do all things authorized by this act. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we have not reached that stage.
It is all right to say that you must read the two together, and I tried to do that. When you read them together as a whole, what have you? You cannot do anything until the act of the United States authority permits you to land the bridge over there. That is No. 1. But before that is done-and that permission has already been refused- they can in the meantime acquire the lands, submit plans to the governor in council, and do all things authorized by this act. That only proves one thing, and that is that the authority
to build the bridge is improperly given. It must be to build a bridge to the centre of the stream, and to that point only, because obviously the governor in council cannot be given approval to what has not any substance in law. What plans are they going to approve? They cannot approve plans for constructing beyond the middle of the stream. How could they? In the meantime the only plans they could submit would be plans to the centre of the stream, because otherwise they would be dealing with plans of the United States of America, over which it is admitted they now have no power.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: May I ask a question? This is not a new principle. In the Civil Practice Act of the state of New York, section 76, subsections 1222-23-24 and so forth, the attorney general of New York is permitted to go into a foreign country and sue there for the state of New York when some money has been hidden in that foreign country. Surely the attorney general cannot come into this country and sue if there is not any provision here in Canada that allows him to do it. This bill incorporates a company that will have the right to go ahead with its plans subject to the laws of another country. That is all it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I followed my learned and hon. friend with great ease; but he has overlooked one thing and that is this, that we have no jurisdiction to confer power to construct a bridge beyond the centre of the stream.


Ernest Bertrand: We have the capacity to organize a company that may ask for that power from the United States, and that is all we are doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but that is after you get the consent of the state of New York.


Ernest Bertrand: We have to organize the company first.


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I ask my right hon. friend a question? Before the company can take any step at all, does it not have to be clothed with the capacity to accept the right which extraterritorial jurisdiction may give it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I answered that very
proper question of my learned and hon. friend the other evening in the affirmative, and I would not be averse to answering it now. Capacity is one thing, and power is another. Capacity to hold a share does not necessarily imply that you must exercise the power to do what the company has the right to do
Niagara Falls Bridge

Mr. MeLARTY: But does not capacity precede the right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this ease what is
happening is just the opposite. This is conferring power to build a bridge.
Mr. MeLARTY:	It is capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, power. It says:
The company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge-
That is not capacity; that is incapacity.

across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians-
Now, mark you, this is a case not of capacity to hold something but of capacity to construct and operate a bridge:
-for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles-
And so forth, and it states between what points, between a point in Canada and a point in the United States. That means the crossing of the river; we cannot give power in this parliament to operate a bridge across an international stream, and that the hon. gentleman knows far better than I. We cannot confer the power to operate the bridge.
Mr. MeLARTY: Quite true; but the capacity, as my right hon. friend will agree, is something we can give to the corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not what you are doing. I said the other evening that I was not going to take up the time of the house on this matter, and until the committee was attacked I had no intention of doing so. But I am a free member of this parliament now, and I am going to do it. I am glad that my learned and hon. friend has directed attention to that distinction, and if he will put that distinction into section 8 then one of the difficulties will disappear. But at the moment what he has done is to clothe the corporation with power to construct and operate a bridge across an international river into territory foreign to Canada.
Mr. MeLARTY: Subject to the power being given by the appropriate United States authorities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there cannot be a conferring of power by this parliament to operate in a foreign country.
Mr. MeLARTY: The capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Capacity to hold is one thing; power to operate is another. This is the power to operate, and that power we cannot confer even though it is conditional upon the granting of power elsewhere, because there must be a conferring of the power to

operate by the foreign company, and then the two amalgamate for the purpose of having the company operate as a whole. That is the story; but that is not what this says.
I want to ask, in view of those facts, why it provided that they may acquire real estate. Why? Suppose New York never gives its permission? Should they be permitted to buy real estate for a company that cannot lawfully be organized, because the basis of its organization was to operate a bridge, which it cannot do over international waters. Should we as legislators give 'this authorization to the province of Ontario by another name? They changed the designation of their legislators the other day from M.L.A.'s to M.P.P.'s, and with respect to this matter the province of Ontario has now become Welby, Young, Scott, Kaumeyer and Farrell? That is the name of the province of Ontario with respect to this bridge. I ask my learned and hon. friend just where we are at in this matter. Can we authorize the province of Ontario, under this name, to proceed with a work for the general benefit of Canada? Mark you, the province has no longer any jurisdiction over this. It is ours now; it is a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Mr. MeLARTY: In the matter of taxation, the municipality and the province retain the right to tax even if it were for the general benefit of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my learned and hon. friend knows that question can obtain only one answer. The power to tax and the power to operate are not the same thing. The power to tax is a municipal power. The power to operate this bridge over international waters is a power that this parliament only can grant; and when the work is declared to be for the general benefit of Canada, you divest the provincial legislators of their jurisdiction with respect to operation and matters of that kind and the necessary powers are vested in this parliament only.
Let us go to the next point. I said that this was a toll bridge. I said that the International were now constructing a bridge. Their plans are being prepared; they propose to go forward with their undertaking, which also is a work for the general advantage of Canada, and they are advised by the authorities in New York that they may proceed there. I shall read at the proper time what Senator Lee says the statement of the governor was when the measure came before him. This proposed company now contemplates buying real estate and preparing plans of a bridge. May I ask my hon. friend, What bridge? A

Niagara Falls Bridge
bridge across the Niagara or a bridge half way across? Where do they get the power to prepare plans beyond the medial line?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The capacity to prepare.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The capacity? Their
digestive powers must be sadly tested. Now my learned and hon. friend is in rather deep water. "Capacity" is not going to help him out of that. What plans are they? Of what bridge?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interrupt for a moment I would say, as an experienced preparer of plans, you can prepare plans for any bridge, anywhere, without an act of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have heard of the Minister of Transport preparing plans. Sometimes they were not any too good either. He says he can prepare plans. Certainly he can; and all his plans do not become works.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is quite right. But you can prepare plans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And sometimes plans are not just what we expect them to be. The hon. gentleman, as an experienced man, knows that is so. If any ocular demonstration is required, perhaps the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) can give evidence on that point.
Let us go a step further.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some lawyers lose lawsuits, too.


Mr. STEWART:: That is the fault of the client, though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have lost lawsuits
because my appreciation of the law was erroneous. I have also lost cases because the witnesses told one story in court and another to me. And sometimes, when I listen to stories about these bridges, I think those who tell them must all be witnesses. But I ask my learned and hon. friend to look at this point:
The company may in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and do all things authorized by this act.
Notwithstanding the fact that they cannot do anything until New York or the United States agrees. What does that mean?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is purely an empowering section, I would say to the right hon. gentleman; empowering, as the whole act is, creating a corporation with powers, but not directing what they may or may not do, except as to capacity, not as to power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well then, the provision that they may do these things which they are forbidden to do is merely one of those juxtapositions of words that sometimes arise in a section; is that it? The last part of it should not be there at all. But I put the question to clear up the point upon which I want to be quite clear: What plans are to be submitted? What plans does the Minister of Transport consider? When the plan of this bridge comes up, what plan is the minister going to consider?


Mr. FACTOR:: Then is there no way of
building a bridge across the Niagara river?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the resources of
civilization against its enemies are not yet exhausted, to use the language of Gladstone.


Ernest Bertrand: Well, it
would never be constructed if we were all to see the difficulties which the right hon. gentleman sees to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an odd thing, is
it not, but they have built bridges, and it is very odd that the International is going ahead with its plans to build a bridge?


Samuel Factor: Under the same kind of
act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. The learned
and hon. gentleman is already qualifying for judicial office. But what I want to know is, Of what bridge is he going to submit the plans? That is what I should like to know, and until that is clear, surely this committee have a right to decline to take further action. They cannot be dragooned into action-one of them, anyway, cannot-by some person outside this parliament. I just want to know what plans are to be submitted.


Mr. HEAPS:: The same as with any other bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought so. Five
hundred thousand recedes to five hundred and seven millions to four and a giving away of the stock to the promoters. Is that what is meant?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; I mean that if plans
are to be submitted, they would be submitted in the same way, I assume, as when we have been dealing with other bills before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That shows again how
conversion does not always convert. The attitude of mind of the hon. member some days ago was not just what it is now; but he has suddenly become converted; he has seen a great light; Saul of Tarsus has become Paul the Apostle.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman cannot say that to the hon. member!


An hon. MEMBER:: He has not the
capacity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance reminds me that I should indicate to the learned and hon. member that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has not the capacity to act in that direction, and I take pleasure in conveying that intimation.
We were at the point where the statement was made that the procedure would be "the same as with any other bridge." But this bridge cannot be built or started until such time as the United States give their approval, and they have refused it. Then what bridge plans is it intended to put up? Are they to be of a half bridge or a whole bridge? That is ' what I want to know.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nine o'clock. The clock is striking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not got fairly
under way yet.
Progress reported.



PELAGIC SEALING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 98, respecting the North Pacific Pelagic Sealing	Convention-Mr. Michaud-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 8-Pelagic sealing by Indians.
Thomas Reid: Is the language of this section as clear as it ought to be? It mentions Indians dwelling on the coast; what about Indians from the interior moving out to the coast?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Before recess it was suggested that an amendment should be made to this clause. I suggest the following:
That in line 3, page 4, the following words be struck out, ''and shall be forfeited to His Majesty," and the following words added: "and may be liable to forfeiture to His Majesty as may seem just by the court of competent jurisdiction in the province in or near which such canoe, vessel, equipment, firearms or fur seal skins was or were seized.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I so move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the words "court of competent jurisdiction " are hardly sufficient.


Alan Webster Neill: What is a court of competent jurisdiction?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A county court, a
magistrate's court or the exchequer court; any of the courts to which we might resort.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does that not leave it obscure as to whether an action would have to be brought in a competent court to declare a forfeiture? Would it not be better to provide that on summary conviction before a magistrate the magistrate should have power and authority to declare a forfeiture? As it is now, it is left wide open to controversy whether you must bring an action to have a declaration that a boat is forfeited, or whether it should be part of the proceedings after a conviction or in connection with a prosecution. It seems to me it should be provided that where a charge is laid and conviction made, the same court that makes the conviction should have power and authority to declare a forfeiture.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Let the clause stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will find it preferable to make it read, " on summary conviction before a stipendiary magistrate or other competent court," a fine not exceeding so and so. That is the course which has been pursued in similar cases and has been found satisfactory.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I was not sure what courts were sitting in those outlying districts of British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is always a
magistrate.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is intended to make it subject to the jurisdiction of the court which may happen to sit in the district.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that in all parts of Canada there are courts of summary jurisdiction. That would be sufficient.
Section 8 stands.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Penalty for violation.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have an amendment to clause 11. As it is now, it is not clear. I submit the following:
In the second line, after the word "shall" insert the following: "unless some other penalty is expressly provided therefor in this act."


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I move that amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the act provide any other penalty?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In sections 6 and 8 penalties are specifically provided.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Pelagic Sealing
Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister not think the words "made hereunder" should come after the word "regulation"?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: By the interpretation clause "regulation" means any regulation made by the governor in council under the authority of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That covers it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that does cover it, but I wish to call the attention of the minister to this:	He has reserved section 8. I
suggest that he should also reserve sections 9 and 10, because the same objection can properly be made to them as was made to section 8. If he proposes to submit to his own legal advisers or to the Department of Justice an amendment to section 8, he might also suggest a similar amendment to subsection 2 of section 9 and to subsection 1 of section 10. They were passed so hurriedly that I had no time to make my suggestion. I make it now as section 11 purports to deal with all offences against this act.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Sections 9 and 10 are not intended to apply to the same violators as those mentioned in section 8. Section 8 applies only to Indians. The suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not referring to the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi; I was calling attention to the fact that we slipped over sections 9 and 10, and there was no time to raise the issue which I am raising now. Subsection 2 of section 9 provides that:
Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this act-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that these sections have been earned. He may proceed with the unanimous consent of the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I am cohtent to let it go until third reading; but the sections were slipped over, because if I may say so the Chairman spoke very quietly and his voice did not carry this far, so we did not know that he was dealing with sections 9 and 10.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member please resume his seat for a moment? I simply rose to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. member was out of order. With the unanimous consent of the committee he may revert to sections 9 and 10 if he so desires, but those sections were carried ten minutes ago.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so; but I submit also, if we wish to be extremely technical, that I am not out of order; that I have a right at any stage of the proceedings to draw the attention of the minister who has charge of the bill to the fact that, in dealing with offences under the act, he might properly reconsider two subsections of sections 9 and 10 which were inadvertently passed without discussion.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As far as I am concerned
1	am quite willing that the hon. member should proceed.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to straighten
out the matter I move that we reconsider sections 9 and 10. That will put the whole matter in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On sections 9 and 10-Construction subject to governor in council regulations-expropriation.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On the reconsideration of
section 9, subsection 2, I wish to suggest again to the minister that when he considers his amendment to section 8, as he proposes to do, he or his legal advisers should consider also whether a similar amendment is not necessary in the case of section 9, subsection 2, and also in regard to section 10, subsection 1. Whether it is considered now or at a later date is quite immaterial to me, because the rights of a member of this house arise at a later stage of the debate, but I made my remarks out of courtesy and as a suggestion to the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see that the language of section 9 is different from the language of section 8, in that the last line of section 9 subsection
2	reads "shall be liable to forfeiture to his majesty," which is quite different from "shall be forfeited to his majesty" in section 8. It is clear that "liable to forfeiture" mean? that it would have to be declared so by some court, while under section 8 it is forfeited ipso facto. So far as I am concerned I would rather suggest to the minister that he suspend those three sections in order to consider amendments which will meet the wishes of the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am merely suggesting-and I am sorry that I even suggested it-that instead of having duplicate actions, the first with regard to liability to fines and the second, subsequently, with regard to forfeiture, it
22S6
Pelagic Sealing

would be well to consider whether both could not be dealt with in the one proceeding. That is all I am suggesting.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I quite see the point
raised by the hon. member, and inasmuch as we have allowed section 8 to stand for reconsideration we might as well let these two sections stand as well. They can all be considered at the same time, later on.
Sections 9 and 10 stand.
On section 11-Penalty for violation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Section 11 has not been carried. An amendment has been moved and carried, but the section as amended was not carried.


Alan Webster Neill: Would you please read the amendment?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have already done so, but I shall read it again. It is in the second line; after the word "shall," the following words are inserted: "Unless some other penalty is expressly provided therefor in this act."
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
On the schedule.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is an amendment to be made to article 13, appearing on page 11 of the bill. In the second paragraph the word " Russian " is to be stricken out and the word " Japanese " substituted therefor. This is a misprint. I am sure this change will please the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: I prefer the Russian; thank you.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I move this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: Just before the dinner recess the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked me whether the Japanese had fulfilled their obligations under the treaty and had turned over our share of the proceeds of the sales of skins or our share of the skins. At the time I replied that they had done so. I have found since that my reply was correct, and that they have each year given us our share of the skins or our share of the proceeds from the sales.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.



BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES-STATEMENT OF MR. NEILL ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Alan Webster Neill: As this is the first day that we are going into committee on the fisheries estimates I should like to make a statement dealing with some points in connection with that industry. Possibly some of them are only local; others are certainly provincial; some of them are national and one matter at least might fairly be called international. I thought perhaps it would be fairer to the minister and the department to make my statement at this time so that he might have an opportunity of looking up these various matters before they come up on the detailed estimates in committee of supply.
The first matter I want to present, and about which I desire to register a mild protest, is the custom that has grown up, not only under this minister but under previous ministers, of allowing a subordinate officer in British Columbia to issue a statement to the press containing what is called a review of the situation as regards the fisheries of British Columbia, without first submitting that review to the head office of the department. The relations between head office and the office at Vancouver are not my business, if that is the way they prefer to do things-to have a man out there tell them not only what they should do, but what they are going to do. But I do protest, when it becomes a source of trouble to fishermen, and to people who represent fishermen. Unfortunately it sometimes becomes not a review, but a preview, and announcements are made as to what the policy of the government is going to be. Sometimes the government's policy is not in accord with the announcement that is made, and this causes a lot of trouble.
Recently an extensive review was published. The review was a long one, because the compressed report in the papers took up nearly a column of print. It leaves the impression, as evidenced by the big headlines, that the department have in hand some scheme or method by which fishermen can obtain loans in order to enable them to buy better and bigger boats. That is a very nice idea, indeed; I am all for it. I have advocated it for years. In fact, I believe the minister himself two years ago introduced some scheme of the kind. But British Columbia did not accept the offer he made. Now

British Columbia Fisheries
the department says it has no such scheme before it. I have letters from fishermen asking how they are going to get in under this new scheme which is to be evolved. This makes trouble. It may be alleged, perhaps correctly, that the official did not definitely use that language; but that is the impression he conveyed to the press, and the press indicated it by printing, in big headlines, "B.C. Fishermen May Get Money to Build Traps."
The fisherman does not discriminate between the use of the word "may" and the use of the expression "is going to." They expect that that is going to be carried out. I submit a lot of trouble would have been saved if the official in question had not issued these reviews, or previews, without first submitting them to the department at Ottawa. I wonder if the minister-or any minister- would allow a deputy, or any subordinate official here, to announce what the policy of a department was going to be? That is what happened in this case and, as I have said, it makes trouble.
May I point out that with the idea of getting a proper conception of the alleged proposals I asked for a copy of the review- once on the fourth, twenty-two days ago, and again on the eleventh. But I have not yet had them given to me. Either the deputy in the west has not seen fit to forward them, or the minister here has not seen fit to furnish me with a copy. In any event, I think the principle is an unhappy one, and should be abandoned. It is not only to-day that this trouble has occurred; it has also occurred in the past.
The next matter I should like to deal with is a local one-and I am sorry to bore the house with local matters. I assure hon. members that it is only after long correspondence and after permitting myself to be stalled for several years in the hope that the very obvious facts-the unalterable and logical facts-would bring the government to take action in the matter. Apparently that has not been done, and I am forced to bring the matter to the court of last resort. It reveals a record of stupidity and neglect, and a refusal to face obvious and inescapable facts, and to deal with existing conditions.
The matter is linked with Comox lake, a lake five miles from Courtenay. Into that lake streams and creeks run from higher ground, and provide an ideal spawning place. Then, out of Comox lake runs the Puntledge river, to the sea, some five or six miles lower down. Some twenty-five years ago a colliery company wishing to establish a source of power built a dam on the Puntledge river. That was in 1913. The law is that the owners of dams must, on the request of the Department of Fisheries, put in suitable fish ladders.
So far as I can ascertain, and so far as the records show, the department made no attempt to do that, until individuals and boards of trade alarmed by the drop in the amount of fish running in that direction, stirred them up. It took a couple of years before any action could be obtained. But in 1920 the department did take some action. They obtained a report from one of their officials, a man who had been twenty years in the service and who had intimate local knowledge, a man whose reputation stands high. He has since left the service. This is what he said:
I am not in a position to state whether salmon got into the lake in any quantities before the impounding dam was built, but it is a fact that now they do try to get into it and are prevented from reaching the lake owing to the present structure of the dam. I have been up the lake on several occasions and have carefully inspected the nature of the bottom of it anti i am convinced that no better spawning ground could be found anywhere. . . [DOT] In my opinion as fishery officer I have no hesitation in saying that I most certainly consider that a suitable fish ladder should he erected in the impounding dam.
Not satisfied with that, the department consulted a real expert in such matters, an expert in the culture of fish and the operation of hatcheries. He was a very able man, and now occupies a very responsible position, doing the same kind of work for the provincial government. He made this statement, which is even stronger:
I can state, without hesitation, that the Cruiksliank river wffiich enters the lake from the north, and Beadnell creek entering the head of the lake, offers spawning grounds unsurpassed in quality and extent, by any I have seen in other parts of the province.
British Columbia abounds in rivers in which there are salmon and fish of all kinds. When experts say that Comox lake and its tributary creeks provide the best spawning grounds to be found anywhere in the province, they are saying something worthy of attention. He described the fish attempting to pass up the dam as being variously described as "crowds", "lots" and "hundreds". He ended up by saying that he considered the number of fish attempting to enter the lake fully justified the expenditure of installing an efficient fishway. People might believe that any body of water would do for salmon spawning, but that is not so. Special conditions are required. There must be a special kind of bottom soil, or gravel. And, for most classes of fish there must be, as in Comox lake, creeks entering the lake. The fish go up the river, into the lake. Then they go into the creeks to spawn.
British Columbia Fisheries

Then they go down, after spawning, and stay a year in the fresh water of the lake, following which they go out to sea again, to fulfil their destiny. That is true of the two most important and valuable salmon, the sockeye and the cohoe. So that when both these men specializing in the culture of fish have spoken in the manner indicated, surely it is urgent and important that we take steps to develop such wonderful spawning grounds. Both the sockeye and the cohoe, as I have indicated, go into the creeks above Comox lake. No sockeye are in there at the present time. There was an attempt made to introduce them, but apparently it failed. But it can be done, because it has been done in other places, and the conditions are ideal.
But the cohoes were there, and they are not there to-day. The sockeye is the most valuable commercial fish; but the cohoe, while commercially valuable, has a much greater value in its opportunity for development as a sporting fish. It has been discovered only in recent years that they will take a fly and, as they make a tremendous fight, they become valuable as a sporting fish. All the world knows, however, about the big spring salmon taken in that neighbourhood. They come from all over the world as the club records show. The cohoe sport will not be competitive with that, but will be supplementary to it, and will add tremendously in increasing sporting facilities for the tourist trade. It is estimated that every tourist who comes from afar to take one of these large springs will leave anywhere from a hundred to five hundred dollars in the province for each fish he takes.
Incidentally the cohoe is a valuable fish to the working fisherman. All a man needs is a rowboat to go out to make a start. This type of fishing does not require any nets; they do it by what is called trolling. It offers an opportunity to the working fisherman to get a living with the least possible expenditure.
An agitation was stirred up by the public and by the boards of trade, and the officials of the department told the company that they would have to put in a ladder, which they did in 1922. The first blunder was in not making the company do it a number of years before, and the second blunder was in allowing the installation of this type of ladder in the place where it was installed. The proper place to have put it was at the end of the dam in the solid rock where it would have been permanent and effective. It should have consisted of a series of pools about two and a half or three feet above each other. The

fish could jump from one to the other, almost like children jumping up a stairway. This type of ladder has been a tremendous success in a similar river near Alberni where tourists come from all over just to watch the fish going up.
Because it would be cheaper for the company, they were permitted to install what is known as the Hocken type of fish ladder. This ladder consists of an opening eighteen inches deep and a certain number of feet wide in the bottom of the dam. This ladder worked for a while in a sort of way as some fish got up after it wias put in. But it was workable only under ideal and unusual conditions; that is, when the water on one side of the dam balanced to some extent the water on the lower side. But when there was any large quantity of water; when there was high water in the river, it was impossible for the fish to get up. In order to do so they would have had to dive down and go through this hole through which there was a rush of water. It was like asking a minnow to go up a fireman's hose against a pressure of sixty pounds to the square inch. The fish simply could not go up unless the water was fairly well balanced. The error was made in allowing this type of ladder, but it was done because it would be cheaper for the company. The company has rebuilt the ladder twice. The ladder has been constructed three times and it has washed out again, so it was not any economy for the company. At no time was it effective, and for the last three years, certainly for the last two years and a half, it has been a total failure. Later on the company wanted more power and they raised the head of the dam some three or four feet.
The ladder was washed out in 1927 and was replaced that year by the company. The same type of ladder was put in on the advice of the officials. Then it was washed out again in 1934 and replaced in 1935, and it was washed out again last December. When it was rebuilt in 1935, it was moved somewhat to meet the changed condition of higher water, but it was not placed at the end of the dam as it should have been. The result was worse than it was before. I think I can safely say that there have been no fish go up since. There is a record of one trout that was believed to have been found above the dam. The company is not to blame as they put in what they were ordered to put in. They constructed the ladder three times at their own expense, and I understand they are now saying to the department that they have done their part; that they have done what they were told to

British Columbia Fisheries
do, and that if the department cannot devise a ladder which will be effective and permanent, they had better do it themselves.
I asked a question as to what the cost of this ladder had been and I received a reply that that information was not available as the fish ladder was built and installed by the owner of the dam. That is quite correct, but I have in my hand a letter from one official to another in which the cost of the first ladder is given and an estimate of the second ladder is made. This is not very important, but it illustrates how determined the department is not to give information that they do not want to give. Perhaps I could now suggest that the department is to blame in the matter, but I am not altogether prepared to do that. It is easy to be wise after the event, and possibly if I had been in their position I would have made the same error, but I certainly would not have assumed the attitude that they assumed subsequently. I do blame the department for refusing to recognize results and facts.
They spent two or three years trying to prove that I was wrong, trying to prove that people who had lived there all their lives did not know what they were talking about. The department contended that fish were going up when in fact they were not. Some years ago I made a sporting offer. I said: Let us forget whose fault it is, let us unite to try to get the situation remedied. But the officials of the department are like the Medes and Persians, perhaps far more so; if they once say a thing is so, then it cannot possibly be proved to be wrong. They were so determined not to admit the thing was a failure that they built a trap above the dam to catch the fish that they were sure were going through, but they did not get even a sucker. They now admit that the thing is a failure and that the cohoe run has been killed. I have under my hand six letters from various officials, all of which state in more or less precise language that that is so. They admit the run is killed; they admit the ladder is no use, and still they do nothing.
Then, in order to put themselves right, they turn around and say: Well, after all, the cohoe did not go up into the lake; they spawned in the river. Tell that to any fisherman and he will laugh at you. They may spawn in the river below the dam under certain circumstances, but they are not successful. How can they be when there is a record a couple of years ago that that area below the dam was dry for three weeks? They want to go up, not only into the lake but into the' streams above the lake. Then they said: Well, perhaps .after all the fish never did go into the lake,
even before the dam was built. If that is so, what can be said about the report of their own officials? What is to be said about the fact that they compelled this company three times to build the ladder? What about the expert who said that there were lots of fish going up? I think I might quote from one letter which is typical and illustrative of what the officials say. This reads:
Indeed, I have gone back on the original records in the department about the matter, and I find that as long ago as 1898 the then commissioner of fisheries in dealing with natural obstructions in a lower portion of the river stated that "at present the river is of small importance as a salmon river."
Of course it was of small importance as a salmon river forty years ago. Those were the days when the salmon were so thick in the Fraser and Skeena rivers and their tributaries that the cannery men put a quota on the fishermen. They would take only 200 fish a night from each boat. After that they had to throw them overboard or stay in. Of course this river was of no importance as a salmon river forty years ago because the salmon could be caught more easily and in greater numbers in other rivers. That is a very poor argument to use to support the contention that they should abandon the river now when every river and stream is important.
As I have said, this ladder was washed away last December. I asked what steps had been taken towards replacing it, and I was told that the need for requiring replacement was under consideration. It has been under consideration for three years and we are not any further ahead than we were then. We have reports from two officials stating specifically that conditions as they are now could not be improved. If you are willing to abandon this spawning ground which has been stated by experts to be the best or at least as good as any in British Columbia; if you are willing to abandon this run of cohoe salmon which is so valuable for sporting purposes and to the working fisherman, then I suppose it is all right if you are prepared to accept that situation.
When the hatchery was abandoned some years ago, it was mentioned in this house that we should devote more and more time to natural propagation, to the encouragement of runs by natural means. This is the case in point and this is just exactly what we are not doing. I have no use for faultfinders who do not suggest a remedy. I have indicated what is wrong and here is what I think is needed. We need a fish ladder like the one they built some years ago on the Stamp river near Alberni. It was entirely successful. It has renewed the run of sockeye salmon, which is
British Columbia Fisheries

a very valuable asset, furnishing employment for 200 men, and of advantage from a tourist point of view as well. Put the ladder in at the right place, around the end of the dam, and it will be permanent and therefore effective. I have no brief for the colliery company. They have as little use'for me as I for them; but fair is fair, and if anything further is to be done it should be done at the expense of the government. The colliery company were told to put the ladder in the wrong place, and it was of the non-effective type. So much for that item.
Next I want to protest against the method of handling herrings in British Columbia. I am referring now to the reducing of herrings. To those not familiar with it I may say that reducing herrings is a method of squeezing the oil out of them, and by some process of applying acid they reduce the residue into what is called fish meal, which is largely used as fertilizer and to some extent for stock feed. I maintain that that is a waste of a valuable food fish. There is an ample market, if it was pushed, for putting up herrings in the shape of canned and smoked herrings, canned in oil, kippers, and so on. In that way we would give the largest amount of labour and get the most money value out of a given quantity of fish; but by reducing them we get the very least amount of labour, and it is the least profitable, and requires an enormous catch to make it profitable to operate. The result is that it depletes the herring spawning grounds.
There is an important industry there of reducing pilchards, which is very much more profitable for several reasons. They are much more full of oil, containing double the amount found in herrings sometimes, and that makes it more profitable. Pilchards do not spawn in our water, so we cannot take too many of them, so to speak. Pilchards are to a large extent not cannable, because they are so oily, and there is not a good demand for them.
The department will say; I have heard them say, that we cannot and do not deplete the run of the herring on the spawning grounds because it would be trying to dip out the ocean, so to speak, and you cannot do that. That is true in a way, but herrings do not spawn in the ocean like pilchards, but spawn in narrow, confined waters, in bays and inlets. I have seen seine boats like a procession of motor cars, one waiting until the other one pulled out of the only good place in the bay, and there would be a continual succession until the bay was cleaned out. You do not eliminate herrings. You cannot catch them all, but you can harass them until they go

away. I can name harbours-Nanaimo is one-where the herring were taken almost inside the town itself, almost at the door of the hotel. They treated them like that and the herring went away and did not come back for fifteen or twenty years. That is what herring will do if you harass them enough. It is not that you take all the herrings, but that they abandon the spawning ground.
There was a large run of herring last year, the department will say, due to taking in large new areas, and incidentally because of the incidence of the gulf stream, which in certain years comes nearer our shores and brings more marine growth, which the fish follow. The experts say that the size of the fish taken indicates that they are being depleted.
I have not yet mentioned the principal thing about the herrings. The principal thing is that they are feed for salmon, and are sought for by the spring salmon, as they are called. I have a quotation here from a fisherman. It is headed in big type "No herring, no salmon," and reads:
Prohibit the reduction of herring and good times will return to the salmon trollers. This is the considered advice of Pete Larsen.
He is a fisherman from Norway, well known on our coast.
According to Pete, the trollers have not even made expenses in the past month and lie blames it on the wholesale destruction of herring which provide the salmon's natural food. ^
"No herring, no salmon!" is Mr. Larsens firm conviction.
Even if they do not clean out the herrings, they break up the schools and then the salmon do not follow them so readily. I suggest that we should follow the system adopted in Norway. I have some data in connection with that. I do not think Norway reduces herrings at all. If it does, it is only from offal. Most of their herring go into canning, and they can them in sixteen different ways. I shall not mention them all, but they have smoked herring, unsmoked, herrings canned in oil, in tomatoes, and so on. They make the very best use of their herring in that way, and get the most money from them. Norway, with a population of sixty per cent less than the maritime provinces of Canada, including British Columbia, in that sense, in 1935 and 1936, the last two years for which records were available, exported 74,000 tons of canned herring, not raw herring, while we in Canada with all that much greater population exported exactly 1,428 tons-74,000 tons as against 1,400 tons, or about 6,000 per cent more. And Norway received $228 per ton for its herrings, while we received 8145 for

British Columbia Fisheries
ours-quite a difference. They get the most out of their herrings by putting them up in oil, in tomatoes, and so on. I suggest that we should develop our herring industry along the line of Norway's system. But the difference as between 8228 and $145 per ton is only minor compared with the difference between canning them and reducing them, and that is what I want to go into.
In British Columbia in 1937 we used approximately 84.000 tons of fresh herring for reduction purposes. That is a lot of fish to be converted into fertilizer meal and oil. We got a price that netted us for our fresh fish S9.50 a ton, of which the seagoing fishermen who caught them would get $2.25 a ton, split seven ways, and an extra share for the boat; so each fisherman actually got only one-eighth of S2.25 per ton for every ton he helped to catch; sometimes it would be $2.50.
I ask, Is it good policy to allow the reduction of herrings under those circumstances, there being very little profit to the producer owing to the low oil content; also it depletes the spawning grounds and destroys the food of the salmon, particularly that of the springs. A fisherman can go out at night or in the morning and troll for springs, and if he catches only one large spring he will get more for that one fish than if he went out in a herring seine boat and participated in a catch of five or six tons of fresh herring. I think we should feature Norway's way of doing it, and develop our industry along those lines. It uses less fish, and does not add to the output of pilchard oil and meal, because the market for that is somewhat restricted; the pilchard industry can take care of it in any event, and if you overload the market the price goes down. You would get $225 a ton as against $9.50 a ton-a far bigger return. Therefore I say we should stop reducing herrings. I think that is the logical and reasonable thing to do.
The next item on the list is the question of fish traps. We heard a lot about it last year in the committee, and I do not propose to take up the time of the house with it now. But I have the report in my hand, and it says:
That no more trap licences be granted in British Columbia waters except in the so called Soolce 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.
I might also say that that report recommended that the licence for each trap should be raised from $50 to $500, a little increase of a thousand per cent, the difference between $350 for the lot, and $3,500

which, most significantly, met no objection from the two
companies who owned and operated these traps. It also suggested that we should get certain data as to what was caught in the traps.
Some weeks ago I presented to this house a petition with approximately ten thousand names on it, petitioning against the further use of traps in British Columbia. I may say that it was no political device. Nobody was paid to go around and collect the signatures. It was a spontaneous movement. The total expense at least as far as I was concerned was three or four dollars for printing the petition, because I thought it would look better if we had it printed. It met with a very large and very quick response. In the light of the petition I thought that possibly the minister, the department or the government, whoever is responsible, would either stop the traps this year or send the matter to the committee to consider the data obtained. I have before me some of this data. I shall not go fully into it, but it is quite illuminating. They caught three quarters of a million fish, and one might almost say they caught everything, from whales to shrimps. That would be an exaggeration, but they caught one whale, one porpoise, a number of wolf fish, barracuda, sharks, sea lions, hake, herrings, ratfish, sturgeon, and of course, all kinds of salmon. It must have been a comprehensive operation when it took everything from a whale down to a herring. The minister, I regret to say, voicing the views of the department, refused either to stop the traps or to refer the matter again to the committee; their motto was that of the French war heroes, " They shall not pass"; he would not even discuss the matter. So far as my knowledge goes, that brings the matter to an impasse; it is impossible to go any further at the present time. I can only say that it must wait until the next general election, which I anticipate will take place this fall.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, well!


Alan Webster Neill: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon?


Ernest Lapointe: Has my hon. friend any information on the subject to give to this committee?


Alan Webster Neill: I would be prepared to go into that fully on some more appropriate occasion. If I did so now, it would break away from the line of my argument. At the present moment I am talking about fish. Like the man in the bible, I have observed "the signs of the times" with regard to a general election.
British Columbia Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: I see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not the times of the signs.


Alan Webster Neill: The nest item is one which comes home, or should come home, to every man and woman in Canada. It is the most vital thing in British Columbia fisheries; upon it depends the whole existence of the salmon, cod and halibut fisheries. It is not a question of cutting down overfishing; it is elimination, wiping them out. I allude to the destruction caused by the "Japs," if I may use that word, by intensive and unrestrictive fishing outside the three mile limit. Unfortunately, as far as we know, they are within their legal rights; they are outside territorial waters, where it is open to the whole world to fish. It was suggested that a Norwegian boat was coming around, and that a British boat intended to fish for halibut. Either representations were made or something else happened; for some reason or another they did not come.
But the greatest danger in any event would be from the Japanese, because they are best suited owing to their nearness, their experience, and the ruthless methods which they have never hesitated to employ. Their idea of fishing is to take every fish as long as you can see one, and then go somewhere else. They did that with their own fishing grounds off their own coast. Then, having by some means obtained fishing from the Russians, they proceeded to do the same thing there, and now they have come to Alaska and are carrying on in the same way. Later, British Columbia will be the victim. I might explain how it is done. They bring a great big mother ship across the ocean, able to carry launches like the schooners on the Atlantic carry dories; they anchor outsde the three mile limit, where the salmon runs are, and they fish intensively and relentlessly and with no regard to time, season or conservation. They put the fish on board, process them, can them, freeze them or whatever is required in the way of preparation, and then go home with, I was going to say, their bloody spoils, but their fishy spoils would be more correct. The United States government is seriously alarmed. They obtain an income of seventy million dollars from their salmon in Alaska, and they see it seriously imperilled. This is no wild idea of visionary men looking into the future; it is going on to-day; it has been going on for the last couple of years.
In an article published in Japan not long ago, it was stated:
The Behring sea has become an arm of Tokyo bay.

That must be nice reading for the Americans. A fleet of one hundred and one Japanese vessels this summer was strung along the coast of Bristol bay, Alaska, for two hundred miles. Think of it! Two hundred miles! Ostensibly they were after crabs. Yes, they said they were only prospecting for crabs. Their intentions were as innocent as regards salmon and halibut as their intentions as regards a certain nation alongside them are or were supposed to be. Unfortunately there are resources of modern science; the fishing people sent out aeroplanes from Alaska; they took photographs of twenty thousand fish on the decks of this mother ship; they went so close that they could even discern, not the signs of the times but the names stamped on the cases of packed salmon; they swooped down within a hundred feet. There is not a question but that that is going on. Now, as I understand, having their attention occupied elsewhere, they have agreed with the United States not to send any more ships over for the present, for the next year. They said that last year. I suppose that is one of those famous or infamous gentleman's agreements which are used only so long as it is profitable to adhere to them. One United States congressman has been asked to introduce a bill in congress declaring that any fish spawned in Alaskan waters belong to the American people, the same as we might say that any fish spawned in the Fraser river belong to us. It is rather a far-fetched thing, and it would not apply as regards halibut, for they do not spawn in our waters. The United States might perhaps establish a claim to shut off the Bering sea as a clausum mare, on the ground that the coast line is from headland to headland; but considering the enormous size of the Bering sea, which is not a bay but a sea, I am doubtful whether such a claim could be upheld.
We made a wonderful treaty three years ago with the United States. Under it the halibut fisheries have been built up; the catch is much greater and much more assured of permanence; but this is just going to be wiped out because the Japanese or any other foreigners can anchor off our banks

the fish are to be found in certain defined areas-and clean them up. Now there must be some way of stopping that. If it is not stopped, all our fishing goes; all our regulations, and the army of officials we maintain, our close seasons and restrictions all go by the board. If we are going to lose the fish anyhow, we might as well clean them out ourselves. There must be some means, diplomacy perhaps, of having a surcease in this matter. Speaking offhand and out of

British Columbia Fisheries
my own ignorance, I suggest this: The biggest market the Japanese fishermen have for canned salmon is in the United States and Great Britain. If the United States and Great Britain would say: If you are not going to cease this cutthroat policy, so ruinous alike to yourselves and us, we will not let a tin of your canned salmon into either the United States or Great Britain. That would bring them to time.
This is a most important matter, a matter for diplomacy rather than departmental action. Our ambassador to Japan might well enter into negotiations concerning it, instead of making himself a willing conduit for the dissemination in Canada of Japanese propaganda against, to us, a friendly nation. He would be much better employed in doing that. If he has been doing anything of that kind let him announce it; it would make him a lot more popular in British Columbia, where his stock is anything but high at the present time. If there have been negotiations going on, let us know the result. Anything would be welcome provided it was not in the form of a gentlemen's agreement. I say with all respect to the minister that he has rather withdrawn himself behind a wall of silence for the last three years; let him come out from behind that wall and use the ability which we believe he possesses to deal with these matters. Let us know the best and the worst. It is well to know the worst, because we have to know it sooner or later. Let him tell us what has been attempted in these matters and what his future policy is, and we shall have confidence in him, and I am sure many hon. members, including myself, would be very glad to give him every possible support.
Just two other small matters. One is that the dominion has lately handed over to British Columbia the control of non-tidal waters as regards fishing. It is not clear whether they have handed over all the non-tidal fish or only the non-tidal sport fish; in that regard the order in council contradicts the Fisheries department letters. There is also difficulty by reason of there being such a divergence of fact in the matter. For instance, there are tidal sport fish and there are non-tidal commercial fish; so again the question arises, If the dominion is going to say, "We control the tidal fish and the province the non-tidal," where is the line to be drawn? I believe another difficulty has arisen in Quebec; there I do not think the term used is non-tidal so much; I think it is the waters above the navigable portions of the St. LawTence. However, there again is opportunity for dispute and doubt as to where the dividing line is.
I am told that according to the British North America Act the province could demand control of its non-tidal fish. Possibly so, but surely the British North America Act is not responsible for the anomalous situation which I am now going to describe. It seems that the dominion still has control of the regulations, because apparently under the British North America Act we control the regulation and catch of fish, while the province can claim the right in the fish in non-tidal waters. To suit the province apparently, the department, I think rather weakly, agreed to pass whatever regulations the province asked them to do. Now there is going to be trouble about that, and very soon. Some day the province is going to ask for some foolish, ill-advised regulation. Suppose they took it into their head to put poison in a lake in order to get rid of some predatory fish, and in doing so poisoned the run of valuable fish; or suppose someone ate some of those poisoned fish. Who would be responsible? We would. We have the responsibility under the British North America Act; we cannot evade our responsibility. The department must in some way have sensed that danger, because I see in a recent Gazette, in giving out some regulations in connection with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, they say it is done at the request of the department of agriculture of the provincial government. They are going to try to get out of their responsibility by saying, Bill Jones in Alberta or Tom Smith in Saskatchewan asked us to do it, and therefore we are not responsible. I think the lawyer members of the house will say that we cannot divest ourselves of our responsibility, and if anything wrong is done we would be responsible. I think the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour will agree that they have had sad experience of the inadvisability of the dominion government handing over either its authority to act or its cash for any province to use or spend.
Suppose, for instance-a more likely thing, and I have such a case in my mind-the province took a certain lake in its efforts for the encouragement of sport fishing. I could name a place where it might well happen. Suppose the dominion government have gone to great expense putting in a fish ladder and large quantities of fish fry to facilitate the run of sockeye salmon and have developed them in that lake, and they are proving valuable, a couple of hundred fishermen getting a livelihood from them. But suppose the province says, We are not concerned about your commercial fishing; all we are concerned with is sport fishing, and we are going to put sporting trout into this lake, which will live

British Columbia Fisheries


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) did not give me any previous intimation that he was going to take up these matters at this junction, so I am sure the house will not expect me to reply to everything he said or to give all the details in regard to the several matters which were mentioned by the hon. member. However, he is to be congratulated upon his noble effort and his appeal to the minister and the department for a statement of policy with the hope that something may be done to remedy the conditions of which he is complaining.
If we consider soberly the questions raised by the hon. member we must admit that they are in the main matters of detail, over which there have been differences of opinion in British Columbia and throughout Canada for a great many years, matters which it seems impossible to adjust in such a way as to satisfy all concerned. My hon. friend began by complaining of officials of departments who take upon themselves the responsibility of issuing statements which might be interpreted in some quarters as explaining or laying down the policies of the department or the government. Of course, in the Department of Fisheries, as in every other department of the government, we have human beings as officials, and they are liable to err and make mistakes. In this instance I find that it has been the policy of heads of branches in the areas in which they are stationed, particularly in the east and west, occasionally to make reports^ of what has been going on, covering their activities during the period of a year.

British Columbia Fisheries
The other day the hon. member brought to my attention a matter in regard to the annual review made some time ago by the supervisor of fisheries for British Columbia. I have looked into this matter. I asked for the report which was made, as I informed the hon. member, without being first submitted to the department. I find that it was a very general statement of facts, with the possible exception of one matter upon which a wrong interpretation was placed by some of the newspapers in British Columbia. The matter will be further explained when the exact words used by the official come before me and have been studied. Judging from the newspaper reports, however, I think some of the newspapers, as well as the hon. member, jumped to conclusions which were not warranted by the facts as reported in the press at the time. I may say at this point that these statements are not generally submitted to the minister before they are given out, because they are supposed to be statements of facts. If sometimes the imagination of the officials carries them away and they become too enthusiastic over their work, I suppose they will have to be disciplined or reminded that in future they should refrain from attempting to commit the department or the government to any policy.
Another matter of which the hon. member complained is the old question of the Punt-ledge river fish ladder. I find that this has been under consideration in the department ever since 1920. It appears that in 1913 Canadian Collieries Limited built a dam on the Puntledge river to develop water power and generate electricity to serve the people in that vicinity. It may be stated that from the information before me the dam is not at the mouth of the river but is some distance from Comox lake, which would be a suitable ground for spawning purposes. My information is to the effect that around 1917 some people thought a fishway should be built in that dam in order to facilitate the entrance of the fish to Comox lake. Since 1920 three attempts have been made to construct suitable fish ladders, not always at the same location; but unfortunately they did not hold; they were washed out, and at the present time there is no fishway in that dam. So far as I can judge from the records of the department, since 1920 every official charged with the administration of the regulations in that part of the country has tried to meet the situation as best he could. Many opinions have been offered by officials and by independent persons, but I believe the situation is very well expressed in the reports of the 51952-146J
district supervisor of fisheries and the chief supervisor of fisheries for British Columbia. Those reports have been made after many years of observation and study.
It is represented to the department by our engineers and officials who, we believe, are competent in such matters, that to. build a fishway at the place where it is suggested it should be built, namely on the left side of the dam, would certainly jeopardize the efficiency of the dam. If the fishway were cut through the rock at the side of the dam, there is no assurance that the salmon would use it, or that it would assist in any way to increase the run. Such a fishway would necessitate blasting pools in the rock on the left side of the stream, which would undoubtedly weaken the structure of the dam.
The towns of Cumberland and Courtenay, with populations of 2,371 and 1,219 respectively, as well as the towns of Comox and Royston, and the territory wtihin a radius of thirty-five miles, are dependent upon this source for power and light. It seems that there is not much evidence to show that above the power dam, to Comox lake, these waters have been frequented by large numbers of salmon. It is represented, and has been ascertained by officials of the department, that the different varieties of salmon frequenting these waters are being well maintained, and that there is sufficient room in the Puntledge river below Comox lake for the spawning of all salmon coming to the stream in recent years. In the opinion of the Courtenay-Comox boards of trade, and the affiliated fish and game association of Vancouver island, Comox lake is more valuable from the standpoint of sport fish than for salmon, and the latter association have asked that salmon be not introduced into Comox lake.


Alan Webster Neill: When did the board of trade recommend that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am not sure exactly of the date, but I can find out the exact date that the recommendation was made.


Alan Webster Neill: While the minister is looking for it, he might look for one dated last year, in which they recommended that the ladder should be put in, and the run of cohoes protected.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I have a copy of it.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It goes to show that this is a difficult proposition, and that there is room for a wide difference of opinion. According to the hon. member, even the same people
British Columbia Fisheries

change their minds about the efficiency of building a ladder along the lines recommended by some people. Some think the plan would not be feasible and would jeopardize the efficiency of power development at that place.


Grote Stirling: Can the minister say how high the dam is?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not think I have the information here. This matter has been considered by various officials, and by my predecessors, since 1920, and we have all tried to give our best attention to the problem. It is our conclusion that it is not worth while to incur the necessary expenditures, and to jeopardize the good water power, in order to increase the spawning facilities in Comox lake, particularly when we feel that every facility is offered below the lake and below the dam, from the mouth of the river.
However, we are still looking into the matter and we hope some day to find a solution which will meet with the approval of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and of the board of trade.
Another matter which has been brought up has been the criticism of the method of handling herring in British Columbia. I admit that it. is a fish which is hard to handle in that province. We are told it would be much more profitable to can and smoke the herring rather than reduce it to fish meal. Well, that is another matter in connection with which there is room for great differences of opinion. I am not an expert in the matter, and I would not give my own opinion; but I find that for the last fifty years people from British Columbia, in this house and out of it, have given opinions, and have widely differed in their suggestions. But it seems to me that if it was so much more profitable to can or to smoke the herring rather than reduce it, there would be a sufficient number of intelligent people in British Columbia to go into that business. They could, or should, see the advantages of changing the method of handling the herring catch.
I am informed that about ten years ago the same proposition was advocated, and that some people tried canning rather than reducing the herring. It was found most unsatisfactory and unprofitable. However, I hope the hon. member will be able to convince people in the fishing industry to change their methods of handling that kind of fish, and if he is successful I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, there will be no obstacles raised by the department.


Alan Webster Neill: Before the minister leaves that, would he permit me to speak on a question

of privilege? I have in my hand the communication to which I referred. The resolution passed by the Courtenay board of trade, after setting out various whereases, contains the following:
Therefore be it resolved, that the Minister of Fisheries be requested to see that an efficient fish ladder be installed at the Bevan dam.
That is dated January 12, 1937.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Has my hon. friend the other letter in which the other alternative was advocated?


Alan Webster Neill: What date?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have not the date.


Alan Webster Neill: No. Has the minister the
letter?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Not here, but I shall
bring before the house the information on record in the department regarding this matter. In connection with fish traps my hon. friend stated that the minister refused to discuss the petitions which were presented by him to the house and which he alleged contained the signatures of ten thousand people. This matter was referred last year to the committee on fisheries and every opportunity was given to those who wanted to get information to obtain what they wanted. That committee made recommendations to this house which were implemented in full by the department. When the petitions were presented to the house by the hon member for Comox-Alberni, I raised no objection as it was not my duty to pass upon them or to state what should be done. Some petitions containing the same heading were forwarded to my office, I suppose inadvertently. These contained the postal addresses and occupations of the people who signed them and I found that they contained the signatures of more chicken farmers than fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly. The fisherman
population is quite small as compared with the total population of British Columbia, and it will be still smaller if these traps are permitted.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not true when the hon. member says that the minister refused to discuss the matter referred to in the petitions.


Alan Webster Neill: I have the letter here.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The letter does not say that I refused.


Alan Webster Neill: Here is the letter.

Supply-Finance


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Will the hon. member read it?


Alan Webster Neill: I wrote to the minister on February 28, 1938, in connection with these petitions, and I said in part:
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?
The answer was dated March 4, and reads:
Replying to your letter of the 28th ultimo with reference to the question of fish traps at Sooke, B.C., I beg to state that at the present time I am not disposed to give any notice that traps will not be allowed in the future. Further, I do not think that the petitions presented to the house should be referred to the fisheries committee inasmuch as they do not appear to disclose any new arguments besides those which were brought before the committee last year and inquired into.
I did not ask that the petitions should be referred to the committee; I asked that the data which the committee recommended last year should be gathered should be referred to it. I have that in my hand and I ask that it be referred to the committee.


Joseph Enoil 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.
Regarding the other matter that was brought up, the wholesale destruction of fish by Japanese outside the three mile limit, I am sure my hon. friend knows that is an extremely delicate international matter. He must know that matter is being taken up by the United States and Canadian governments.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend should have enough confidence in the government to know that matters of such importance will be considered as they should be considered. That is a matter Which can be remedied only by international treaties or agreements.
My hon. friend referred to the handing over of the jurisdiction over fisheries in non-tidal waters in British Columbia. I do not think he quite understands the situation. We have no jurisdiction to hand over anything that does not belong to us. What we did was to discontinue the administration of the sports fisheries in British Columbia. This was done because of recommendations made by representatives of the provincial government and officials of the department. We handed over all facilities that had been developed in that
respect. The exact limit of jurisdiction is a moot question and has been such ever since British Columbia entered confederation. Case after case has been submitted to the privy council and neither party has seemed to be satisfied with the decisions. However, I believe we have come to some understanding as to where the jurisdiction should end, and I think *the regulations have been amended so that they will meet with the approval of the provincial authorities. I shall deal with advertising later on when the appropriation for that service comes before the committee.
I was not given any notice of this matter, but I should like to say that when the items of the department come up for consideration I shall provide all the information in the possession of the department. I shall do my best to satisfy my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the Minister of Fisheries is dealing with his estimates, I would ask him to have available the necessary information to enable him to give the names and addresses of the persons concerned and the amounts received in connection with the appropriation of half a million dollars that was made last year and that was stated to be of great urgency to assist the distressed fishermen of Canada. I understand also that a report is being prepared in connection with possible markets for fish in South America and some parts of the West Indies, and I should like to feel that that report was before us before we consider further the matter involved in that expenditure, or in any expenditure which may be provided for in the estimates dealing with market conditions and the marketing of fish products.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $218,080.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There are a few questions that might be asked with respect to this item. What additions have been made to the departmental staff since the year ended March 31, 1937? I know there are three, but for what purpose have the additions been made? While it does not arise directly out of this item I will ask now, because it will enable the minister to give me the information later. What are the net proceeds of the last guaranteed Canadian National loan and what was the disposition made of the funds? The minister will remember that no information was given the house or the committee as to how the proceeds were distributed. It
Supply-M iscellaneous

was said that it was for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures that had been made by the dominion government. Of course, it would have a direct effect on the budget itself, and before we reach that stage perhaps the minister at the appropriate moment could state what were the proceeds of the loan and its distribution.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): With respect to the first question, while I have not my documents before me, there has been very little if any change in the departmental staff under this vote. The amount of increase is just sufficient to take care of the statutory increases in salaries. Any changes that I can at the moment recall are with respect to other votes, such as housing and so forth, and do not relate to this departmental administrative vote. The increase in the vote is some $6,000, and my right hon. friend will understand there could not be an increase in the staff for such a small amount.
With respect to the other question I shall be pleased to bring down the details at the appropriate time. I shall not attempt to do so now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not expect them to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is better to be accurate about a matter of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one other point. I assume that the entire finance department staff that formerly dealt with matters connected with currency is now part of the staff of the Bank of Canada, although they are housed as yet in part, until the new building is completed, in the finance department.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the work of signing bills still goes on in the finance department, but as a matter of fact it is done for the Bank of Canada. Is that correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just wanted to be sure because I was asked that question the other day.


Grote Stirling: What is this item of express on coin shipments? There is a considerable increase.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will be good enough to reserve his question until that vote is called, we shall have the information. The only vote I am calling to-night is the one relating to departmental administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $137,145.
Ernest Lapointe: This is exactly the same amount as last year except for an increase of $5,000 odd for the restoration of the salary deduction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This would be the appropriate item under which to discuss the whole question of the administration of the Department of Justice, but it will serve my purpose if the minister is in a position to state when we may expect the report of the penitentiary commission. It is a document that will take some time to consider carefully, and I was hoping that it might be in our hands a reasonable time before the penitentiary estimates are considered.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. As a matter of fact the report is now complete and is in the hands of the translators and printers. I expect to be able to table it in the early future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In regard to the act commonly known as the padlock law, I understand that the date for review is July 7. Will the minister be good enough to say when the government will come to a decision as to whether it is to be referred to the courts?


Ernest Lapointe: The decision will be reached at the appropriate time. I shall have to work pretty hard on it because, as my hon. friend says, there is not much time left for study and consideration of such an important matter. But the decision will be reached in good time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These philosophical cogitations and disputations that are so essential to determine the validity of the padlock law must necessarily involve a good deal of consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: A good deal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $95,775.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The small increase of $5,000 in this item is due in part to the restoration of the five per cent salary deduction, and partly to statutory increases and a certain readjustment in positions. It will be observed from page 192 that there has been a reduction in the amount for temporary assistance. Otherwise there is no change.

Elections and Franchise


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just one questioi which arises out of the consideration of that item, and that is as to there being a congestion of work in the patent office, which some have alleged is so serious as really to invite public criticism. I promised I would bring the matter to the attention of the minister in committee of supply so that he might make a statement. I have no reason personally to believe that the situation is anything like as bad as it is said to be.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is a vote later on for the patent office, and I have in my hands a report on the situation, which, as my right hon. friend says, shows the situation is not as bad as it has been depicted in some quarters. But this vote deals merely with departmental administration-correspondence,	registration
office, remission branch, library and the accountant's branch. There is a separate vote for the patent office, and then will be the proper time to make the report to which my right hon. friend has alluded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No part of the patent
office expenditures for administration or otherwise is included in the vote which we are now discussing; is that correct?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
Wednesday, April 27, 1938