1939-03-02

Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege and pleasure to receive a communication from the Reverend Clarence Halliday, chairman of the session, and Thomas McLaren, clerk of the session of the Montreal West United Church, enclosing a copy of a petition to be presented to parliament and to the government in connection with the placing of an embargo against shipments of war materials to Japan. I desire now to present this petition to the house.



PRIVILEGE-MR. SLAGHT ADDRESS DELIVERED BY HON. W. D. HERRIDGE IN OTTAWA ON MARCH 1

Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I desire to direct the attention of this house to an address purporting to have been delivered last evening in this capital city by a man named W. D. Herridge, and published in a newspaper known as the Ottawa Citizen, a paper to whose subversive activities it was necessary for this house to refer yesterday. I shall explain in a moment my question of privilege. Let me say, sir, that it affects the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and his entire group, the Prime Minister of Can-' ada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and our entire group, the leaders of the other two groups opposite, and every one of the 245 members of the House of Commons.
This newspaper contains what purports to be a verbatim report of the speech, and among other things this gentleman said this:
The first thing that Canadians have to do is to give their country a free parliament. Because to-day the parliament of Canada is not free to serve the people.
The second vile slur he cast upon this parliament and every member thereof is contained in this language:
You must choose between the old parties and democracy. If the old parties are left in control of parliament, I believe they will unite. After the next election, or perhaps before-
That affects the members of this house.
-the Liberal and Conservative parties will become one party. Its government, in name, will be a national government. In fact, it will be a fascist government.
Those are ugly words in Canada to-day. Lest there should be any doubt as to his charge of conspiracy-


Mr. LANDERYOU:: How about McCullagh?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: If my hon. friend will bear me out in this matter of grave importance, I believe he will agree with me in what I propose.
So that he might leave no doubt in the minds of the people of Canada that he was charging conspiracy of a criminal type and character, he used this further language:
When this conspiracy for national government is a little more advanced, the element of crisis will be introduced. There will be a good deal of imperial flag waving. Elder statesmen will be uncorked to take their part in it, little understanding that their venerable voices will be urging empire destroying practices.
That indicates to me, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman, a new found Moses in his own eyes, a gentleman who is in my view a political mountebank, has charged every member of the House of Commons with being ready to conspire to form a fascist government. He has said that every member of the House of Commons is serving here not in a free parliament, and he abuses all parties and groups alike.
My friend who interrupted will find that he is taken care of in the course of the address. I quote further:
This is not the proper time to deal with that or refer to it.
This gentleman who joined the Conservative party in the year 1930 goes on to say that when he joined it he was sentimental about it, and then he rails at contributions for political purposes, and he rails at the evil of patronage. Let me ask this house whether there is a greater patronage monger in the Dominion of Canada than W. D. Herridge. He joined the Conservative party in 1930 for the first time, and he was a fast worker. He had been there but a few months when he received what is perhaps the greatest plum in the gift of Canada. I have taken the trouble to see what amount of patronage and public money he drew from our treasury. I find that from June 1, 1931, when he was appointed until October 23, 1935, when he resigned-


John Charles Landeryou: What about Colonel Ralston, who received S200 a day and expenses?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: You do not like your fascist friends being exposed do you?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I wonder if I had better suspect the hon. gentleman and say that there are 244. This gentleman who decries patronage in this country was appointed on June 1, 1931, and resigned on October 23,

Questio7is
1935, and if my arithmetic is correct-I have gone to the auditor general's report, which I have here for verification-he was in office in that important position, described in the Parliamentary Guide as His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington-


Mr. McINTOSH:: Extraordinary, all right.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: And his views are extraordinary, if I may be permitted to say so. This gentleman, in the first ten months of his office, to March 31, drew salary amounting to $10,000,


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, I should like to know where is the question of privilege that the hon. gentleman is raising. There may have been a question of privilege at the beginning, but there is none now. I would ask, sir, for your ruling.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Altogether he drew over $100,000 from the public treasury.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Do any other hon. members wish to speak to the point of order?


John Charles Landeryou: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If it is right for a member to make reference to the salary that may have been paid to an individual, and if we are going to discuss these matters, we might as well give the salaries paid to all officials of the government and show the patronage given under the Liberal party.


Walter Edward Foster: I consider that there is no point of order.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I shall take only two or three minutes more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Perhaps my hon. friends did not hear the Speaker say that he does not consider there was any point of order.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Let me conclude by saying that this fastidious gentleman, who criticized the representatives of Canada as a whole in this house, the members whom the people from every riding sent here to represent their views, drew down from the public trough- ate the bread paid for by the taxpayers, drank the wine paid for by the taxpayers in his house in Washington for four and a quarter years at the expense of this country-in excess of $125,000.


John Charles Landeryou: So has the Liberal party.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Let me suggest that if there is a gentleman in this house who approves of his subversive, vile, slanderous imputations
on Canada and our parliament, let him rise in his seat and support it.


John Charles Landeryou: Right here-I do.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr,
Speaker, I did not want to raise a question of privilege, but since the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) has done so, may I say this. There was a sentence in the speech as it came over the radio last night- I had the misfortune to be indisposed and I heard the speech-which struck me at the time, and which I read now in the Citizen:
You will never get prosperity until you get into parliament men who love this country better than themselves.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a mean, slanderous statement, and I repudiate it for all my colleagues in this parliament.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my word of protest against the address of last night. Allow me to say to that new Moses that he will not be able to cross the Red sea without drowning himself.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, rising to a question of privilege about this unfortunate incident, may I remind you of what happened one day in connection with a former postmaster-general who was supposed to be very mean. He went .to a tailor to have his coat turned, and the tailor said, "It is most unfortunate, sir, but I cannot turn it because it has already been turned." That is what happened to Mr. Herridge, who is a false prophet.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Walter Edward Foster: The incident is closed. The house will proceed with questions.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MARSH:: How many people were employed at the arsenal at Lindsay, and what was the amount of the yearly payroll for 1938?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
answer is:	(a) Twenty-five in 1938-	(b)


$5,934.70. OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. NEILL:: How many people in Canada are presently receiving the old age pension and who are:
(a) over the age of 90 years, male and female;
(b) over the age of 80 years, male and female?
Questions


Mr. DUNNING:: This information is not available. The administration and granting of old age pensions is under the jurisdiction of provincial authorities and the lists submitted by the provincial authorities are pay lists only for audit purposes. Detailed information regarding age and sex of pensioners is on file only in the offices of the provincial authorities.
FISHERIES VESSEL "mARMAT"


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Is there a boat in the service of the Fisheries department called the Mar mat ?
2.	If so, is she owned or leased by the government ?
3.	If leased, from whom, and what are the terms of the lease?
4.	Has there been any increase in the amount paid under the lease since December 1, 1935?
5.	If so, how much?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Chartered.
3.	Chartered from McKenzie, Irish and MacDonald of Pictou for approximate season May first to October twentieth at charter rate of S300 per month, department supplying men, gasoline, oil and fuel.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by no. 4.


WHEAT IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat did Canada import from the United States during each of the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	How many bushels of wheat did Canada export to the United States during each of the said years?


Mr. EULER:: 1.
Calendar	
years	Bushels
1936			 98,053
1937			 1,077,071
1938			 5,637,644
2.	
Calendar	
years	Bushels
1936			 23,952,478
1937			 1,160,408
1938			 20,144,466


DISTRIBUTORS' DISCOUNTS
Mr. LAWSON:: Have any general distributors' discounts, cancelled since January 1, 1939, detailed list of which is set out on page 2 of sessional paper No. 166, tabled in the House of Commons, on February 22, 1939, been reinstated or temporarily reinstated after cancellation?


Mr. ILSLEY:: No.


TORONTO PARCEL POST SERVICE
Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	Has the contract for carrying parcel post in the postal district of Toronto expired? If so, when?
2.	Was such contract extended at the date of expiration?
3.	Were any tenders called before such extension, if any, was granted?
4.	If such contract is to expire at an early date, will tenders be called before a new contract is awarded ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes-14th January, 1939.
2 and 3. It is being carried on temporarily, pending the drawing up and printing of specifications preparatory to the invitation of public tenders.
4.	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the dominion government grant to the Oka Sand and Gravel Company the right to dig sand from the shores of Lake of Two Mountains, near the property of Reverend Trappist Fathers, Mr. Laurent Desjardins and others?
2.	If so, on what date and in what year was such right granted, and for'how long?
3.	If not, will the government protect the shores of riverside owners against damages or possible damages from the digging of sand from such shores?


JAPANESE INTERESTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Have interests in Japan acquired control of extensive timber limits on Malcolm island, on the Queen Charlotte islands and on Vancouver island, south of Cowichan lake?
2.	Have interests in Japan acquired control of mines at Sidney inlet, Louise island, and at Ikeda bay?
3.	Have dredging operations with construction of tunnels suitable for oil storage been undertaken at the Surf inlet mining camp, Vancouver island, under the supervision of a former officer of the Japanese navy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As it will take some time to procure the information necessary to answer this question, I suggest that it be made an order for return.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Did the Justice department or any other branch or department of the government during the years of 1935 to 1938, purchase photographic equipment for the Royal Mounted Police in Regina, or for any part of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so: (a) from whom was the equipment purchased; (b) what was the nature of the equipment; (c) through what dealer was it purchased, and (d) what was the price paid?

War Munitions and Materials


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as this is a very long answer I desire that it be made an order for return, now tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government a question, and this is the only way I can bring it up excepting upon a motion to go into supply. In view of what has been said in and outside this house and in the other house, will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the government and the house give consideration to a redivision of the work of the two houses so as to increase the efficiency of parliament to meet modern conditions? I do not like to bring this question to the attention of the hard working Prime Minister in this way, but it is the only opportunity I have to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the best way for me to answer is to say, yes.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. PELLETIER



QUESTION RESPECTING RULE AS TO QUOTATIONS FROM NEWSPAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I have no desire to revert to what the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slagbt) was discussing, but I should like to point out to your honour that some time ago one of our members spoke on a point of privilege concerning a newspaper, and I simply desire to say this: I hope that what has been done to-day will be taken as a precedent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that Texas beets, cabbage and carrots are being carried by the Canadian National railway from Chicago to Toronto and Montreal at a cheaper rate of freight than from Windsor, Ontario, to these points. The railway rate oil Texas beets, cabbage and carrots has been established by the United States railways on a package weight of 34 pounds, although the 7U92-93
actual weight is around 60 pounds, without ice. This means that the Canadian National railway is carrying these products from Chicago to Montreal on the United States rate. If this is correct, will the government take immediate steps to eliminate this unfair competition?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are getting from the sublime to the ridiculous when it comes to asking a question of this kind on the orders of the day. I suggest that it be ruled out.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.



WAR MUNITIONS AND MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) if he will shortly table any other contracts which may have been made with contractors by the department for the production of munitions or armaments within Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I shall be glad to dc that. Last year the leader of the opposition confined his question to contracts over $5,000. Do I understand-


Robert James Manion: That will be quite satisfactory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Up to the 13th of January I have tabled 283 contracts, and I shall be glad, as soon as the copies can be prepared, to table the rest of them. I want every one of them to be referred to the committee on public accounts.


James Earl Lawson: Lest there be any misunderstanding of the definition of the word "armaments," may I ask whether contracts for gas masks and other materials of the kind will be included among those tabled?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly -any equipment of any kind of a value of over $5,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: And life savers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
inform my hon. friend that all departmental contracts of over $5,000 up to a certain date have already been tabled.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go
[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries Commission
[Stage Direction]
into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a commission with power under the Minister of Justice to administer, control and manage the penitentiaries; to provide for salaries of the commissioners and assistant commissioners; and, generally, to repeal and reenact with consequential amendments the Penitentiary Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is to precede the introduction of a bill which will be similar to the one which went through this house last session, and which could not be adopted in the other place because of alleged lack of time. The legislation had been introduced only at the end of the session because the report of the commission did not come in until after the Easter recess. I suggest that I should be allowed to introduce the bill, and if any hon. member wants details, they can be discussed when the bill is before the house. It will be the Penitentiary Act substantially as it is today in the statute, except that it provides for the establishment of a commission of three to replace the superintendent of penitentiaries; the inspectors become assistant commissioners; and in the various sections of the act where the word "superintendent" has to be replaced by "commission" the necessary amendments are provided for.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are any outstanding amendments of the Penitentiary Act to be provided for by this measure?


Ernest Lapointe: No-just for the establishment of the commission.
As I stated last year, amongst the recommendations of the commission there are some which may be carried out by way of regulations, and no legislation will be necessaiy. There are others where legislation will be necessary. But my purpose is that the commission which will be appointed under this law should get acquainted with the conditions, and that any necessary legislation be approved by them.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, under this resolution the responsibility for the solving of this problem is on the government of the day, and not on the opposition. Four years ago this matter came up in the elections and in this house. When the present government was returned four years ago it appointed a royal commission, which toured the world and made its report late last session. The matter went to the senate, and the bill was laid over because, they said, they had not sufficient time to deal with it.

This social and domestic problem is probably one of the most important of our national problems. Just recently the minister's department issued a blue-book containing prison statistics and showing how large is the number of young people who are in these institutions owing to the failure of parliament to help solve the economic problems of unemployment and many other domestic problems. These young people are roaming the country; many of them are high school students who have never before been in such institutions. Some are sent to the county gaols for vagrancy, and then escape, and finally they land up in the federal institutions. I invite attention to the figures concerning these young people to be found in part II of the departmental statistics recently issued in blue-book form by the bureau of statistics. The number of young people in these institutions, many of them through no fault of their own, is surprising. Here one sees the cause and effect of unemployment in this country.
In England about half of these institutions have been closed. They have learned modem ways of prison reform. I have here reports which were made by the secretary of state for the home department in Great Britain, where they have been investigating this problem for the last four years in numerous ways. Here are four government books dealing with this matter. One has to do with the problem of youth and unemployment. Another relates to summary jurisdiction reform concerning the non-payment of fines and other sums of money, because in Canada there is still imprisonment for debt. The report shows that a large number of people were sent to these institutions because of non-payment of debt, and that some of them were put there without bail-an evil which was supposed to have been abolished years ago. Here is another report of an interdepartmental committee in Great Britain on the employment of prisoners inside and outside the institution, the care of their families, prison reform on a large scale, and the Borstal system. Why do we not do something? There is a national service program for youth in England; why not here?
As regards those who suffer through the delinquencies of persistent offenders, the wives and children at home, what have we done to meet the problem of taking care of these unfortunate people? Absolutely nothing. I pass one of these institutions in the train every week-I refer to the one at Collin's Bay-and I have been wondering what steps have been taken to improve conditions there. I do not blame the present

Penitentiaries Commission
minister at all. He is a humane man and like his predecessors, has done the best he can to better the conditions that exist in our federal penal institutions. The responsibility is not altogether on the minister; it is very largely on this parliament. This is a problem that must be dealt with.
I suggest that those who sit in the chamber at the other end of this building should have some work to do. If they followed the practice in the senate at Washington they would be up and doing and not on holidays all the time. They are the body that threw out the bill last year and they should be here now to deal with this matter. Why are they on holiday? They can find lots of work here. It seems to me they should be studying this problem. I should like to see the bill introduced over there first.
We find in the provincial institutions the same state of affairs that exists under the federal department. There is also there an enormous increase among those who are classed as youths. We have had no results from the $4,000,000 spent since 1900 on commissions appointed to deal with various national problems. I am opposed to the appointing of any more such commissions. As I say, the responsibility is on the minister and on parliament. I have faith in the minister and I believe that he would administer the affairs of his department in a very satisfactory manner if he were given a free hand. I have no doubt that he could get along very well without commissions. It is a social, not a political question, of real importance.
Owing to the increase in the number of inmates some of the institutions in the province are overcrowded, with the result that last month, in the depth of winter, 131 men had to be taken by train from Portsmouth to the west, under conditions which should never have been allowed to exist. This is no time for any such policy as that. If the department has not the necessary buildings in the province, then those buildings should be immediately erected. The conditions that are reported in the newspapers-helpless men being shackled and tied to railway seats-are not conducive to law and order. These conditions are subversive of good government; they cause criticism and resentment. It is not fair to the wives and children of these men. If the country can spend $3,500,000 on a federal supreme court building in Ottawa- so far we have spent some $8,000,000 here on new buildings-surely some money can be found to carry out the recommendations contained in the report of a commission that has cost so much.
71492-93J
I believe that the minister himself would have carried out some of the suggested reforms had be been given a free hand, because I have every confidence in him. Most of the reforms could be effected without delay. The minister is the dean of the House of Commons and has taken a great interest in this problem. May I offer him another constructive suggestion. Why is not something done in regard to first offenders who are sent to these institutions? A great many of them are sent there for insufficient cause. For instance, a man was found selling magazines on King street, Toronto, and was picked up and charged with vagrancy. He said to the magistrate, "Do I look like a vagrant?" The magistrate replied brusquely, "Yes, $30." One wonders whether there is any Magna Charta. left. No wonder there are so many such trials in our courts. More care should be taken in appointing magistrates.
It seems to me that there would be fewer men in these institutions if the government took steps to reduce unemployment. The time has come when men should no longer be herded into gaols in Canada as they are to-day. I am surprised that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is not here, because the problem we are discussing at this moment is largely wrapped up in unemployment. It is simply a matter of cause and effect. As to turning it over to a commission, I suggest that we have had enough of commissions in Canada. We have had a radio commission, a railway commission, a coal commission, and others, and I fail to see how this problem can be solved by passing the buck to a commission, because that body would be largely political. The commissions that have been appointed since confederation have merely prevented the House of Commons from dealing with problems that are thus sidetracked. We have almost entirely divested ourselves of responsibility in this house in respect of many national problems, yet when the reports of these various commissions are submitted they are pigeon-holed.
Is it any wonder that there is a decay of parliament and a decline of the House of Commons? The only branch of government that has increased in popularity in the past thirty years is the crown, as unquestionably it has in the dominions and in the old country; but the decay of the House of Commons is evident all along the line, simply because we.have divested ourselves of authority. High school teachers, clergymen and others have been asking for reforms in our penal institutions; they have urged that the problem be dealt with in a comprehensive national way. I do not subscribe to any of the " sob stuff "
Penitentiaries Commission

that we read in some newspapers on certain aspects of this problem. I believe that the minister wishes to have these institutions conducted in an efficient humane manner for the benefit of the community as a whole and I hope that he will be given a free hand. Men should be trained and equipped for this work. I am sure that some really practicable solution would be found if the minister took the matter into his own hands and had power to act at once. Value would be given us for the money expended. I venture to say that if the minister looked carefully into the records of the first offenders in provincial, municipal and federal institutions, at least one-third of the first offenders would be let out on parole and sent home. I hope this will be done during the royal visit, as has been done in England on different occasions. Certainly some steps should be taken to relieve the congestion by restoring to their families those first offenders who have got into trouble largely through riding the rods, and for less serious infractions of the laws respecting motor cars, petty thefts, escapes, and so on; and this should apply also to minor offenders who reform.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I regret very much that the resolution is so restricted in scope. It is a very good thing to appoint a commission, but the royal commission which reported made a study of a great many reforms and brought in a large number of recommendations, and it seems to me that this would naturally be the time to give effect to a good many of those recommendations. I regret that apparently the Minister of Justice does not propose to bring about any very radical changes in the legislation. I do not think anything useful could be accomplished by my spending half an hour covering the ground already covered by the royal commission or directing attention to some things to which they directed attention; but I should think that this commission, however able the personnel, will not be able to do all that should be done under the existing statutory arrangements. For example, I think of just one matter which I might mention now. Representations have been made to me recently with regard to the adoption of something in the form of the indeterminate sentence. I am not sure-perhaps the minister could enlighten us-that this commission once it is appointed would have discretionary power to decide on questions of indeterminate sentence, something which I think a great many social workers have now come to regard as very desirable, especially as applying to younger boys and girls and those who cannot be regarded in any sense as hardened criminals.

I wonder whether there will be opportunity, when the act is open, for the introduction of other changes that the house may consider to be desirable.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
following the course which has been recommended by the commission itself. With regard to any changes which might involve new legislation, they recommended that such legislation should first be carefully considered by the penitentiaries commission, and further that the progress of reorganization should proceed gradually and in accordance with a well planned program. I really believe that what my hon. friend has at heart, and what I also have at heart, will be better served by taking the first step, which is the appointment of the commission, a step which the investigating board not only recommended but insisted upon. Of course some of the recommendations have already been put into force. I shall be pleased to give details when the bill is before the committee or the house.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) complained that this bill had not been introduced in the senate. I am sure he will admit that it was at least safer to introduce it first in this house; or I may be excused for having thought that the bill would have a better passage in this chamber, having regard to the fact that it was refused there last year, although I admit that there was reason for the complaint that they had no time to consider all its provisions and the changes that were made. But speaking generally as to the complaint which has been made not only in this house but in another place with regard to government measures not being introduced in the senate, I believe every hon. member will agree that it is only human nature that a government which has measures to introduce which it considers important should prefer to introduce them in a house where there is a sympathetic majority rather than in a house where the majority is on the other side.


Mr. STEVENS:: The minister is pretty
nearly out of order. He is skating close to the edge.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
only on the fringe of being out of order. Perhaps there are some measures which could be introduced there, but generally speaking government measures ought to be introduced in the House of Commons where the representatives of the people are.
My hon. friend referred to the fact that 130 convicts were transferred from eastern to western penitentiaries a few weeks ago

Penitentiaries Commission
because of overcrowding. This happens occasionally. I suppose there may be strength in the argument of my hon. friend that we should have a larger penitentiary in Kingston to receive all those from Ontario who are convicted. On the other hand when there is space in other penitentiaries, where we have an efficient personnel, I suppose it is more economical to use it. Under the conditions as they are, at any rate, it is the best way for the administration to solve the problem.
I was not surprised but rather pleased to hear the hon. member for Broadview suggest that we should release on parole at least one-third of the present penitentiary population. It so happens that in the legislature of Quebec yesterday we were accused of having released too many persons on parole. The two statements cannot be reconciled. We are doing our best to serve the needs of society, having regard to the possibility of rehabilitating young offenders who are not in the class of hardened criminals. When this can be done my hon. friend may be sure that I and my officers would rather err, if at all, on the side of humanity.
As I said at the outset, I shall be pleased to give any details which hon. members desire when the measure comes before us in the form of a bill.


Alan Webster Neill: How many penitentiaries are there in Canada, and what is the approximate number of employees in them?


Ernest Lapointe: If my
hon. friend does not object I will take note of all these questions so that I may give an accurate answer when the bill comes in. As far as penitentiaries are concerned, there is one in Dorchester for the maritime provinces; St. Vincent de Paul for Quebec; Kingston for Ontario; Stoney Mountain for Manitoba; Prince Albert for Saskatchewan and Alberta; and New Westminster for British Columbia. As to the number of employees, I should prefer to give the details later and be accurate.


Alan Webster Neill: The answer the minister has given is sufficient for the moment. There are six penitentiaries. I suppose the number of employees at each would not exceed thirty or forty?	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: More
than that, particularly at Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul.


Alan Webster Neill: At any rate they would not come to a very large number. In that regard, or partly because of that, I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Broadway-


Ernest Lapointe: Broadview.


Alan Webster Neill: That is more characteristic of him. He says he does not want any more commissions, and I am heartily in accord with that. We have too many commissions in Canada to-day; there is an ever-rising tendency to adopt that form of government. They are expensive; they immediately start to build up a large body of officials under them. These positions are not filled by the civil service commission; they are to all intents and purposes political appointments. That is not so important. What I do say is that this is a ready means of avoiding responsibility. How often have we seen this happen here: we have a grievance concerning some department and the minister in charge, apparently with the best intentions in the world, says, "I am sorry, but that is run by a commission and I am not responsible. I am only the mouthpiece of the commission. I will tell the commission what you say, and if they care to pay attention to it they will do so; if not they will not."
I do not want to see the government lose its responsibility. Why do we not have a commission for each of the fifteen or seventeen portfolios, if we are going to develop along these lines? As the hon. member behind me said, the present Minister of Justice has conducted his department for many years with credit and distinction to himself; his administration of the penitentiaries, the parole board and so on, which I have had some occasion to look into, has been excellent, and the same could be said with regard to the previous minister, Hon. Mr. Guthrie. Then why do we want to get away from that system and put in a commission, certainly not as able as the present minister and more or less political in character? Above all, why should the government evade the responsibility of dealing with the matter? The minister is perfectly capable of handling this branch of his department; why not let him do it? Why not a commission to administer the Post Office Department, which, instead of having only six offices, has hundreds and thousands of post offices to deal with? The Department of Public Works employs far more people and expends a great deal more money than the Department of Justice. Why not put a commission in there?
Since I have been in this house I have noted a growing tendency to appoint commissions of this kind, and with one or two exceptions they have all resulted in lessening the authority and freedom of parliament, about which we heard just a few moments ago from an hon. member on the opposite side. If we continue to hand over our duties and responsibilities
Penitentiaries Commission

to a commission here and a commission there, soon vve will not be a free parliament; we will be a parliament run by political boards calling themselves commissions. Even if I am the only one to vote against the bill I will oppose it for that reason.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not rising to offer any objection to this measure or to criticize the minister' particularly, but I do think there are a few things that should be said. Some of them have been said already, but I should like to add one or two observations.
The resolution before us provides for the establishment of a commission. While we have not the details of the bill before us, from the observations of the minister I gathered that he contemplates only such amendments to the act as will erect a commission which will in turn work out a policy for the improvement of general penitentiary conditions. If I am too restrictive in my definition I wish to be corrected at this stage. If that is the case I think parliament would be evading its responsibility at this time if it did not take cognizance of present day conditions, which are undoubtedly aggravated conditions having in mind misdemeanours by the youth of the country, and lay down at least in theory some principles which would guide this commission in the discharge of its duties. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because if the commission is only to manage the penitentiaries I think we are wasting our time here and, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, I would far rather see the penitentiaries remain under the Department of Justice. On the other hand, however, if the duties of the commission include studying the causes of crime and the alarming increase in crime, there may be some justification for its establishment, although I am not too enthusiastic about it even under those conditions.
It appears to me that parliament is taking notice of the congested condition of our penitentiaries and of the much advertised need of some reform in the method of dealing with criminals after they are convicted and incarcerated. That, it seems to me, is what parliament has focused its attention upon to the almost entire exclusion of any consideration of the causes of crime. I have before me a statement by Hon. Leslie Miller, governor of Wyoming, in which there are one or two things to which I think it would be profitable for me to refer and for the committee to hear. This gentleman, obviously recognizing his responsibility, made a careful study of crime in his locality, and he makes this observation:
The essence of criminality is an anti-social attitude on the part of the criminal. This rMr. Neill.]
is something that is acquired slowly, over a period of years. Case histories of thousands of prisoners reveal that invariably the criminal, not counting those imprisoned for crimes of passion, slipped into their criminal habits by degrees, with a long procession of crimes, each progressively worse.
_ This observation is not new but it is pertinent to the present situation. Criminals do not become such in an outburst of passion, except in a minority of cases. They grow out of a procession of habits or practices due largely to condition or environment. If that is true, my point is that parliament will not be properly discharging its duty unless it takes cognizance of that fact and of present day conditions, and at least attempts to make some provision for the correction or prevention of crime rather than merely an improved method of dealing with the criminal after he is created. There is an old adage which says, "Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do." I can remember that from my earliest childhood. The point, of course, is that idleness breeds crime. Of that there can be no doubt.
In the same article there is quoted an eminent French authority on criminology, Henry T. F. Rhodes, professor in the institute of criminology at the university of Lyons, France. He makes this pertinent observation:
It is modern industrial society which produced the modern slum, that worst of all mass-produced articles. We have mass-produced slums and education at the same time.
Then he goes on to point out this fact, which I think also is pertinent, that millions of dollars are spent on improving educational facilities for youth; children are given airy, healthful schoolday surroundings, but they go back from those surroundings to live in the slums. Then he continues with this observation :
They sleep night by night with three or four others in a stifling room. Often the living room is used for sleeping also. But overcrowding does not breed only the stunted and the anaemic. It breeds murder, sexual crimes and other abominations, things which are not mentioned at the public schools or in the homes of the subscribers to charity. The slums, plus an education fitting slum-dwellers for something better in a world which cannot afterwards give it, are the root of this dark problem.
What I .want to emphasize is that parliament ought to recognize that the increase in crime in Canada, as in other countries like the United States, France and Great Britain, is largely due to the economic conditions which have prevailed during the last ten or fifteen years. I should like the minister to give heed to what I am saying.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I am.

Penitentiaries Commission


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to delay the committee, but it does seem to me that this is an important phase of the matter.


Mr. REID:: Has the hon. member any figures to show that our penitentiary population increased during the years of economic distress as compared with when times were good?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will direct his question to the minister, he will get accurate information. However, I will hazard the opinion, without having the figures before me, that our penitentiary population has increased during the period of depression. As a matter of fact, during the last ten years crime has become a racket. While this has not been caused solely by the depression, it has been aggravated by it. Crime has become organized in our great cities, as was evidenced by the recent murder in Toronto of a man named Windsor. Crime is an organized racket, but I would go even further and say that it is an organized business. Those at the head of these rackets practise skilful business principles in their administration, and of course use criminal methods to enforce their will. This condition has been aggravated by the unemployment and idleness of so many young people, and it causes me a good deal of alarm. Perhaps later on when the bill has [DOT]been brought down the minister will give us accurate figures for Canada, but the figures for the United States-I am not holding up that country as a horrible example by any means-show that one out of thirty-seven of the population is in the criminal class. I think the percentage is much less in Canada, because we have not the congested areas they have in the United States, but the incident in Toronto, to which I referred, and the other incident in Windsor about six or eight months ago, indicate that this condition has spread into Canada in the same organized form as it has in the United States.
Perhaps the minister will favour the committee with particulars of the ages of our criminals. I again speak from more or less superficial knowledge when I say that the youthfulness of our criminal class is something appalling. I know from observation that there are many very young men in our penitentiaries to-day. It is a startling, an appalling situation, arising largely, although not wholly, out of idleness, out of lack of opportunity to work. Parliament must take cognizance of this phase of the situation. As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said a moment ago, the Department of Labour might very well be cooperating with the Department of Justice in an effort to eliminate the economic causes
which lead to crime. These departments should try to present to parliament measures which would serve not only to improve the condition of the criminal after he is convicted but also to prevent the making of criminals through lack of employment and other causes.
It is not my intention to speak in a critical sense. Along with other hon. members I have a good deal of satisfaction in saying that my long acquaintance with the minister has demonstrated to me that he has desired to administer this very difficult matter in a fair, just and I think humane manner. But we dare not disregard the preventive as well as the corrective side of the question.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has objected rather strongly to the appointment of a commission to replace the superintendent of penitentiaries. He says that we have too many commissions and too many officials. But may I say to him-probably he knows this already-that if there is a grievance in that regard, it certainly cannot be directed to the Department of Justice, which is undermanned in every branch. There have been no additions to the staff of the department, although the business has increased tremendously. Whether we call them commissioners or otherwise, these men are certainly needed to do the business which has to be done. This is a very important branch of the administration. I have the following on the authority of the commission which, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has said, made an investigation throughout the world:
In our present system the problem of penal administration is too large in scope and too serious in results to be left in the hands of one man. It is noteworthy, as a matter of record, that Canada is practically the only country where the penal system is not administered by some kind of commission or board.
Then at page 362 of its report, the commission states:
It is of first and immediate importance that legislation should be enacted to make provision for a prison commission.
They have had a prison commission in England since 1877, and they have had a federal prison board in the United States since 1930. As I have stated, the only difference will be that instead of one man there will be three. I can assure my hon. friend that these men will not be selected because of political affiliations. We will try to have men who are expert in this work. It has been urged for some time that there should be a medical man on the staff of the penitentiaries, an expert in mental diseases and that
Penitentiaries Commission

sort of thing. The idea is to have three men at the head of our penal system whose names and abilities will be a guarantee to the people of Canada that this very important branch of the administration is being looked after properly.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has taken the broader view of the matter. He has said that we should look into the causes of crime and methods of preventing crime and improving social conditions. Of course, penology, which is the subject matter of this bill, is only one branch of criminology, which itself is a branch of sociology, all having to do with human nature. Penology has to do with prison management. I am not sure that my hon. friend's remarks having to do with unemployment and the various temptations that come to young men who are idle, while most appropriate, should not be made part of a different study from that which should be conducted by the heads of penitentiaries. This legislation is to take care of prisoners. Of course the heads of penitentiaries are vitally interested in anything that would tend to cure existing evils and help reform the men committed to their charge, as well as to protect society against them. I assure my hon. friend that I am noting every one of his remarks, and he may be sure that anything that can be considered by the penitentiary commission or the officers of the penitentiary branch in connection with the points he has raised -yvill be most carefully considered. The statistics he has asked for with regard to the age of criminals in Canada and the number of prison inmates in various periods of prosperity and depression I shall be pleased to have prepared and give them to the committee when the subject is up again.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee will probably agree with me that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is one of the best and most conscientious ministers of justice we have had since confederation, and it is because I am firmly of that opinion, which is generally accepted by the committee, as we have just noticed, that I ask the minister not to insist now upon presenting a bill based upon this resolution.
Everyone knows that the Archambault commission was appointed mostly for sentimental reasons. One of those who advocated its appointment was a very dear friend of mine, a good Canadian and a prominent journalist, the late Harry Anderson, formerly of the Globe of Toronto. It is wrong I believe, to consider penal matters from the point of 
view of sentiment. Gaol should not be made too attractive, although undoubtedly prisoners should be treated not only with justice but with humanity.
The Archambault commission, as the minister said, travelled throughout the world, mostly like Isaac Laquedem, the wandering Jew. They visited several countries and inspected several penitentiaries in the United States, when they could have got the same information by reading books published by the warden of Sing Sing and by other people.
In the last portion of the report we have twenty pages of bibliography, which means that the members of the commission must have read at least four hundred publications before they produced one. A well known book, My Prison, by Sylvio Pellico, published in Italy at the end of the eighteenth century, before Italy was a fascist country, unfortunately is not included in that list.
There is a reference note at the bottom of page 389 of the royal commission's report which takes away a lot of the credit from the report itself. At the foot of the first page of bibliography appears a reference note and I want the members, if the minister decides to go further with this legislation, to read these twenty pages of bibliography; then I am sure they will wonder whether any member of the commission read all these books. The reference note says:	.
This material is, by no means, a bibliography of penology, nor does it include all the printed material studied by the commission. Much of the reference material studied by the commission has come from private sources and public libraries and is not included here.
This bibliography lists only such books, pamphlets, and other material as is at present in the offices of the commission and which will be available for the use of those who are to be entrusted with the administration of Canadian penal institutions. It is hoped that this collection will form the basis of a reference library on penology and criminology in the offices of the prison commission.
Well, I do not believe any more in penology as understood by these gentlemen than I believe in phrenology and technology. It is a splitting of hairs. Of course phrenology is an interesting science. It is based on the lumps a man has on his head. But penology is a different matter. It is the study of crime. There are detective stories that are very interesting-Sherlock Holmes, for instance. I wonder if the adventures of Sherlock Holmes could worthily be included in the alphabetical list of publications appearing at the end of the commission's report. It is surely more interesting than all the books mentioned there.
Another interesting book which does not appear in the bibliography is one which was

Penitentiaries Commission
written by a man who has given his life to improving the character of youth. I refer to Magistrate McKinley, who lives here in Ottawa. He is a very capable man, and I am surprised that his book, which is a small one, does not appear in this list.
I agree fully with the minister that the penitentiaries branch is one of the most important branches of his department. He said that Canada was one of the few countries in which there is no penology board to look after penitentiaries, and he suggests experts. It has been the practice of the dominion government since I have been a member of parliament that when a commission is created the men who are appointed to it are considered experts, whether they are or not. Judge Archambault was the chairman of the commission. He was a good lawyer. He is an ordinary judge, neither very good nor very bad, just the average, and a jolly good fellow. I suggest to the minister that if it is decided to appoint any other commission he select judges who are superannuated, because they are gentlemen of leisure; so long as they have their wits they can do that work very easily, and without delaying the hearing of cases. There are complaints that many lawyers, because of the lack of judges, have not the opportunity to have their cases heard; and when judges-I mean active judges-are on commissions of this kind it creates trouble in the administration of justice. I should like to see passive or superannuated judges selected to act upon commissions of this kind.
The two experts who were joined with Mr. Justice Archambault were distinguished lawyers -Mr. McRuer of Toronto and Mr. Craig of Winnipeg. I have looked in Who's Who to see what was the peculiar experience of those gentlemen in criminal matters. Both have been for short periods of time crown attorneys, one several years ago and the other lately. They may be good lawyers but they cannot be called penologists. Who is the best penologist? He is a man who has started young in an administrative capacity in the management or supervision of penitentiaries, and who has learned that profession little by little until finally he has become acquainted with the wThole thing. I must congratulate the minister upon having appointed as acting superintendent of penitentiaries Mr. Sauvant, a very modest gentleman who is no less able than modest, and who is doing exceptionally well. I should like him to be appointed superintendent of penitentiaries under the present able Minister of Jutice and he should be given full authority. That is my first suggestion.
When the commission is appointed, its members are regarded as distributors of words which are to be received on a silver tray. These men have the science of the matter on which they are to make suggestions. Of course the government is no more bound than is parliament by any suggestion or any recommendation made by any commissioner or by the three together. That is my humble view. They are experts. If the bill passes, the minister intends to appoint to the commission men whose names and abilities will be a guarantee to the people of Canada. He has some of them already; he has Mr. Sauvant; he has others.
For one reason or another Colonel Piuze, who was a very good appointee as warden of the penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul, left that position and now is head of the Quebec provincial police.


Mr. HEAPS:: He looks after the enforcement of the padlock law in Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is well known. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) knows him very well. He did quite well as warden. He left the service, and now he has another position. The title of his position is a matter of indifference to me, provided that he does his work well. On the other hand I wish to point out that the report is unfair to him. He made a personal study of the Borstal system when he was a delegate to a conference in Europe, and his travelling expenses were very small compared with those of Judge Archambault and Mr. McRuer and Mr. Craig. I should not be surprised if Judge Archambault has had to cut down the amount of his bill, because the figures were larger when they were first mentioned by the press than they are as they appear in the last report. I assume therefore that he reduced his charges as the result of some wise and sound recommendation. I do not know why these three gentlemen saw fit to abuse Colonel Piuze as they did. Is it because his report, although very small in size, was better than theirs?


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I venture to ask the hon. gentleman if he suggests that these judges cook, or falsify, their accounts?


Jean-François Pouliot: I suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) that he should be just as industrious as I am and put that question to the minister, who will surely be glad to give him the information. There is a French proverb which is kown to all: Dans les petits pots les bans onguents-in small tins, good ointments. I never judge a report by its size. This is a big one, and I wonder if it is better, because it is big, than another smaller one.



I8ED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries Commission
[Stage Direction]
Of course it is interesting reading-upon one proviso, that you read it all, to find the oases in the desert. I have found not only oases, but the Dead Sea, a dead sea in which there is not the salt of wisdom. Here it is, at page 323, where it speaks of Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. Cooper, warden of the Saskatchewan penitentiary-not precisely of him, but of the administration there:
The discipline in this penitentiary is poor. The guards do not appear to respect the senior officers, and the attitude of the senior officers toward the guards does not appear to merit respect. The effect on .the prison population is bad. The whole institution seems to be seething with distrust and intrigue. Members of the staff appear to believe that they are constantly being spied upon, both by their associates on the staff and by the prisoners, and that senior officers are willing to accept the stories that are told by prisoners about them. The prisoners are convinced that a system of espionage exists among them, and that certain prisoners are rewarded for bearing tales to the senior officers and that they are punished as a result of such information. The deputy warden admitted that he had received tales from prisoners and had accepted them, but he contended that it was his duty to do so. The warden also admitted that in certain instances ne took action against prisoners on the strength ot information conveyed to him bv other prisoners.
And so on. This is very bad if it is true. I take the word of the commissioner on this point, although I candidly confess that I have not read the evidence. It seems to me that if those grave charges are substantiated, the only thing to do is to fire that warden at once and replace him with a man who has never failed to maintain order within a penitentiary.
I am not opposed to government legislation.
I am such a staunch supporter of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that I will not vote against his resolution, or his bill if he presents one. On the other hand, I adjure him in the name of the principles in which we both believe to abandon the idea of submitting a bill based upon the resolution. We have enough commissions. I am against commissions. I am against commissions on principle and I am against this proposal in particular. If you appoint an investigating commission it is all right provided that those who sit on it do not try to make it a permanent institution in order to ensure jobs for themselves for life. Of course, when someone is appointed temporarily in any capacity-I am speaking from my experience as a member of parliament-he is notified that his job will bo temporary, that it will last six months or one year or two years as the case may be, that it will cease some time; but he is never
(Mr. Pcmliot.]
convinced that it will. He expects it to be everlasting and he expects a superannuation besides. Every member knows that.
Who, therefore, is the nigger in the woodpile? Who has been so insistent upon the commissioners recommending the appointment of a penal commission composed, not of phrenologists, not of technologists, but of penologists? Is not the nigger in the woodpile one of those who received a fabulous amount of money-relatively of course; it is not a million dollars but quite a substantial sum-when the investigating commission was carrying on its work? And then did not the minister-I assume this; I may be all wrong- receive, from anyone who had served on the previous commission, an application for the position of secretary to the new commission? Was anyone who served on the investigating commission recommended by someone else to any member of the government to serve on the managing commission? Since those who were acting as commissioners on the previous commission have read so many books that none of us can digest, are they not by that very fact penologists and therefore entitled to be called as experts on the new administrative commission? I would not be surprised at all, because probably there is no one in Canada who has read that quantity of literature; and I would not be surprised if many of those who have written these books are, not in prison, but in other asylums of peace.
I therefore reiterate my request to the minister not to insist upon this proposal. I tell him in advance that I will not vote against it, but I warn him that we have enough commissions in Canada as a whole. There are many commissions and they become irresponsible bodies. I believe in responsible government. I believe in the old policies of responsible government, in virtue of which the minister is responsible for the expenditure of money under his authority. If the Department of Justice is under-manned, let the minister choose good men, and if in his department there are incompetent men, whoever they are, let him fire them and replace them with good men.
If the charges made by the commission against the warden or the authorities-not only the warden but the officers-of Saskatchewan penitentiary are substantiated, then the only thing to do is to dismiss those who are unworthy of the confidence of the Minister of Justice and replace them with good men. There are good men in Canada. The Minister of Justice is one of them; the acting superintendent of penitentiaries, Mr. Sauvant, is another. There are many of them. But if there are outbreaks in the

Penitentiaries Commission
penitentiary at Kingston and in other places, they are on account of the fact that those in charge were incompetent.
Now, what am I told? What is the rumour?
I want to warn the Minister of Justice about it. I want to tell him what is being said in Kingston, where there is a penitentiary. They say that the commission is only a smoke screen to fire some people and replace them with others. It was said at the time that General Ormond was fired, it was said by no less a man than the leader of the Conservative party in the senate. It is beyond my comprehension, and I do not believe it. But, because the Minister of Justice is thoroughly familiar with his own department, and because he is one of the most brilliant parliamentarians and a good Liberal, he will understand that I do not speak as I do to-day in order to displease him. At times we see that policies are enacted to please someone or to displease someone else. The great mistake is that in pleasing someone, one may do wrong; and one may be right in displeasing somebody else. Therefore in such grave matters as this, the main and, indeed, the only consideration should be not to try to please or to refrain from displeasing, but to do what is right and not to do what is wrong. That is all.
I know the Minister of Justice will not do what is wrong, in order to please anyone or to impart to the commissioners the importance which they believe attaches to them, by agreeing with their report, which only justifies the expenses that were paid to them by the country, but he will do what is right [DOT] and will proceed without instituting a new penitentiaries commission.
Mr. LACOMBE:: (Translation) Mr. Chairman, I avail myself of the opportunity offered by this discussion to make a few suggestions which I believe to be in the interest of the administration of justice.
As St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is situated in my constituency, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to the legitimate claims of the officers of that institution.
The time has come, in my opinion, to change the method of paying the salaries and wages of penitentiary staffs. They should be paid twice a month in the same way as other Canadian civil servants. For many years I have been repeatedly urging that this act of justice be done. In addition, our penitentiary staffs should be granted an eight-hour day, and in the interest of good administration their remuneration should be brought up to a reasonable level having regard to the type of 71492-94J
service performed. Indeed, a recommendation to that effect appears on page 353 of the Royal Commission's report, in the following words:
That the pay of officers be brought up to a reasonable level having regard to the type of service performed.
The Royal Commission also recommends that permanent status be granted to officers having one year of service or more. Indeed, why should penitentiary officers not enjoy the same privileges and the same protection as other civil servants?
Another aspect of penitentiary administration which I desire to emphasize is the important problem of the reformation and rehabilitation of the inmates. The staffs should never lose sight of their all-important mission of promoting the moral restoration of their charges. To rehabilitate without breaking should be the watchword of every penitentiary officer worthy of the name. In the performance of his high functions, the warden should never forget that firmness is often disastrous if it excludes charity and kindness. The combination of these virtues can work wonders with the most refractory convicts. Experience, moderation and sound management will enable our penal institutions to rid themselves forever of false conceptions of authority and achieve the fruitful results which the community is entitled to expect from them.
In closing, I desire to urge upon the committee the necessity of improving the training and education of penitentiary inmates, so that when released they may become useful citizens. The teaching of trades in our penitentiaries cannot be too greatly encouraged. Given capable and active instructors, prisoners will be able to learn carpentry, machine work, blacksmithing, shoe-repairing, clothes-making, binding, printing and numerous other trades which will enable them later on to earn their living respectably. However, I cannot over-estimate the importance of the theoretical and practical teaching of agriculture in penitentiaries. Discharged prisoners who go in for farming will be less likely to return to evil ways. The justice department has already achieved commendable results in the matter of education, training and reformation of prisoners. Some of our penitentiary officers have shown considerable ability in that regard; there is still room for improvement, however, as whatever is human is perfectible. In offering these few suggestions in the interest of penitentiary officers and inmates, I believe I am serving the community and the country.
Penitentiaries Commission


Mr. McIVOR:: I should have been well
content to have had this resolution pass upon the explanation of the minister, because when the bill comes down there will then be opportunity to consider it, and also because the proposal is very much like the one we had last year.
I have had some experience in connection with criminals and criminology, and I do not think "criminals"-those convicted-are much worse sinners than those who were too smart to get caught. I do not agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) that crime is due to economic conditions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that it was due to economic conditions. I said that present day economic conditions largely contributed to the increase of crime.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am sorry; I put down the word "due." But I would even say that present economic conditions are not largely the cause of crime. I would quote Judge Hamilton of the juvenile court of the city of Winnipeg, as well as James Mutchmore and James Shaver, social workers in that city. Judge Hamilton said that in sections of Winnipeg where boys and girls were trained in the four-sided life, by Christian leaders, crime was practically absent. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) will bear me out in that, because he knows something of it. Judge Hamilton has given his time and work to the upbuilding of the youth of the city of Winnipeg, in which work he has been very successful.
To me the cure for crime among our youth is organized Christian leadership among our boys and girls, training them in the four-sided life. There are hon. members who say that it is not the business of this house to deal with questions concerning morality and spiritual life. I say that if the cause of crime can be removed by training and Christian leadership, then we should take a hand in it, as I think every hon. member of this house does in one way or another. Therefore I am for Christian and moral rearmament among our boys and girls. I shall have more to say on this later on. I hope this will be the last speech at the present stage.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I rise to protest against any further commissions being appointed by this government. The appointment of commissions has come to be quite a popular mode of evading responsibility that should be taken by members of this house. These commissions have also come to be something of a racket. We find judges coming down from the bench to act as commissioners. I object to that, and I think the people of this country

object. We want to keep our judiciary on a very high plane; they should not be constantly leaving the bench and going out on political investigations. I am sure it detracts not only from their dignity but from the high respect in which they should be held. If commissions are necessary someone other than judges should be appointed. The fees that are charged by lawyers, generally friends of the government, are altogether out of keeping with the value of the services rendered. These commissions are expensive luxuries, and they have not been very successful in finding solutions for the problems that they were appointed to investigate. In the last three years the present government has spent almost one and a quarter million dollars on these commissions, largely in order to evade responsibility that should be taken by this government.
I was surprised to hear my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) state that he was opposed to the appointment of this commission, as well as that of other commissions. With this I heartily agree, but the hon. member went on to say that even though he was opposed to the appointment of this commission he would support it because his good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was introducing the requisite resolution in this house. I do not think it is conducive to the enactment of good legislation when hon. members will speak against a bill and then vote for it.
I rose, Mr. Chairman, only to register my protest against the appointment of any further commissions by this government. I agree with the other speakers who have said that the Minister of Justice himself, with his adequate staff, is quite capable of giving good service to this country in regard to any penitentiary reform that may be necessary.


Ernest Lapointe: I have
just a word or two to add, Mr. Chairman.
I must say to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that in spite of his fervent appeal and request that I withdraw this measure, I cannot do so, because conscientiously and on my responsibility as head of the Department of Justice I think this measure is not only important but essential for the good administration of that department. My hon. friend adjured me not to do anything wrong in order to please anybody, and it is just for that reason that I cannot do wrong even to please my hon. friend from Temiscouata, that I am unable to withdraw this measure. I can only add that he certainly has been misinformed if he believes that any of the members of the royal commission are candidates for appointment

C.N Jt.-Auditors
to the projected board. None of them is aspiring to that, and I can assure my hon. friend that none of them will be appointed.
With regard to the commission which investigated this matter, and for the appointment of which we were blamed by my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) who has just resumed his seat, perhaps he will remember that for a number of years the government has been asked by various public bodies, by members of this house and by people interested in this branch of sociology, to investigate conditions in the penitentiaries of Canada. I well remember when my fellow townsman Archdeacon Scott, the good padre, came to see me and besought me to join my efforts with his in order to try to persuade the government of the day to appoint a commission to investigate conditions in our penitentiaries, which I did at that time. Even during the campaign of 1935 the pledge was given that such a commission would be appointed, and that is at least one of the pledges which have been redeemed.
The work of the commission itself of course is open to criticism. It is not perfection; there is nothing perfect in this world. I see my good friend opposite who represents West-mount, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White). I once heard it said that perfection was in Westmount, but I do not think that is true. In regard to the work of this commission I may inform the committee that I have been in receipt of resolutions and letters from people and associations interested in criminology, including many who had been constantly in contact with the Department of Justice formerly, approving the work of the commission and endorsing most of their recommendations. I may assure hon. members that I would not feel I was carrying out my duty if I did not try to implement the recommendations of this commission. We shall, however, be able to discuss the matter further when the bill is before the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, respecting penitentiaries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. LOAN COMPANIES ACT



AMENDMENT RESPECTING PENSION AND INSURANCE FUNDS FOR EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note contained in this minor bill I think fully deals with the purpose of it. I should say again that this bill has nothing whatever to do with small loan legislation, but deals with the regular Loan Companies Act of the dominion. The purpose is to make it quite clear that such companies have the power to establish pension funds for their employees; and that furthermore, when they work in conjunction with trust companies, they may establish joint pension funds with respect to employees who are jointly employed by the two companies. That is the whole purpose of the measure.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
He said: The effect of this bill is to convey to trust companies the undoubted right to establish pension funds for their employees and to cooperate with loan companies, when persons are employed jointly, in establishing joint pension funds.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) (for the Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
He said: This is the annual 'bill necessary to appoint auditors for the Canadian National Railways. The firm of auditors, Messrs. George A. Touche and Company, are the present auditors, and this bill is intended to reappoint them for another year.
Robert James Manion: They were appointed in 1936, were they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: At the session of 1935 or 1936.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this motion is adopted, I should like to say I regret that hon. members of the House of Commons do not get all the '
City oj Ottawa Agreement

[DOT] information that is available to the auditors. When the auditors inspect the books of the Canadian National Railways they see everything, but hon. members who are asking for information do not have the same advantage. I lodge my protest with the house now, but there will be other opportunities for me to say more when the minister in charge of this department is present. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will not insist upon advancing this bill another stage until his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of auditors.
Charles Avery Dunning: May I say to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that ample opportunity will be afforded on the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and on other occasions for him to raise the question to which he referred a moment ago. In the meantime, I submit that the appointment of auditors should not be held up by an hon. member requesting information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Have the auditors already started their work, or will they start only after this bill is passed?


Charles Avery Dunning: The audit is continuous. They were appointed a year ago, and this bill is for their reappointment. I cannot state offhand the precise date at which their year of appointment terminates, but in any event they continue their work until parliament appoints their successors.


Jean-François Pouliot: I comply with pleasure to the request of the Minister of Finance.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Mr. J. A. PINARD (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, may I inform the house about certain questions in connection with this agreement. Certain criticisms have been made, both inside and outside the house, as to this $100.000 which is to be paid to the city of Ottawa On one occasion an hon. member from one oi

the Winnipeg seats told the house that we were not good sports in Ottawa. I should like to give some figures to show that this is not true. According to the last available figures for 1937, the value of government tax-exempt property in Ottawa was approximately $44,000,000. I understand that at the present time the value -is approximately $53,000,000, but I shall take the previous figures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that include the
parliament buildings?


Joseph Albert Pinard: Yes, and the hon. member should know that. He should have found that out before he spoke. This tax-exempt property is divided as follows:
Land, $8,332,375.	.
Buildings, $35,609,209.
The average tax rate is 42-5 mills. Public school supporters pay 39 mills, and separate school supporters, with many more children, pay 46 mills. This averages, as I said, 42-5 mills.
If this government were paying taxes like those our ordinary citizens have to pay, we should be receiving from the government $1,320,000 a year, whereas actually we receive only $100,000. Surely every hon. member knows, and, if not, I intend to make them aware of the fact, that eveiy time this government-and the same is true of any other federal government in the past-expropriates buildings, it is not to help the city of Ottawa, but for the purposes of improving this capital city of the dominion. Hon. gentlemen know very well that we give federal government property every protection possible.
Let me cite a few figures. From 1918 to 1937, the government took over property in the city of Ottawa assessed at $3,711,255, on. which we lost in taxes $137,692. From 1909 to 1937, expropriations by the government amounted to $5,659,555, which meant a loss in taxes to the city of $177,618. It must be remembered that these figures do not include properties owned by the federal district commission, which properties are also tax-exempt, and contribute no revenues whatsoever to the city. That is why I thought I would take time this afternoon to say a few words to inform hon. members on both sides of the house of the conditions that exist in our city.
During 1938 the government decided to expropriate practically all of Wellington street and Sparks street from Kent street, except the church. It costs so much for a church that they left that out. The properties expropriated were assessed at $920,720, and on these expropriations alone the citizens of Ottawa lost $36,000 in taxation. It has been contended that these expropriations and the con-

City oj Ottawa Agreement
struction of new government buildings increase the value of property in the city, but may I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. I have lived in Ottawa for sixty years; I know what has been happening here for the last fifty years at least, and whenever there was an expropriation, as on Sussex street, for instance, business went down to nothing; stores became vacant. When the government expropriated the north side of Wellington' street the same thing happened. Every store on the south side of the street became vacant or profitable to nobody. The few who kept their buildings kept them because it was cheaper to keep them than to lease them.


Mr. HAYHURST:: It would not enhance the beauty of the city to have stores near the parliament buildings or the new administrative buildings.


Joseph Albert Pinard: If my friend knew conditions in Ottawa he would not build a store on Wellington street or anywhere in Ottawa. The only buildings that have been erected on the south side of Wellington street in recent years are the United States legation; the Victoria building, owned by Edwards and company, and, of course, the Bank of Canada building. Outside these one cannot find another building that was erected following the expropriation of property. The situation was the same on Sussex street.
I am not making a plea here for myself, or making a speech for votes at all. I do not need them because my seat is safe, much safer than that of many of my hon. friends; and even if I am not here in another parliament, some other member for Ottawa will be. I am making a plea simply for what is right and for what should be done, and in my opinion Ottawa has always been too generous towards all governments, because we have had all kinds of governments in the last twenty years.
WTiat about the water service? We all know that Ottawa has probably the best water in the country. The city corporation has installed the most modern filtration plant, probably the best on this continent, at a cost of $1,500,000, and I have never heard a single complaint since then by any member that Ottawa water was not the best. It is better than one gets in Windsor. The ordinary business enterprise in Ottawa pays a flat water rate of 16-8 cents per thousand gallons, while the government enjoys a special rate of thirteen cents per thousand gallons up to two hundred million gallons, and ten cents per thousand gallons after that. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), when he told the house that we were not good
sports, must not forget that our water tax is 16-5 cents, while in Winnipeg it is 38 cents.
Let me give a personal instance. I am not making a political speech at all. I am simply pleading for fairness from the government to the city of Ottawa. When I bought a property in Ottawa thirty years ago my assessment was $3,500, and the taxes amounted to $68.90. At present my taxes on that property amount to $310 a year. So am I a good sport or not? Hon. members may call me something else, if they like, and I admit I am probably foolish. With conditions as they are, it is not profitable to own property in Ottawa. Property is a white elephant.
Here is another consideration. Everybody knows that the city gives the government fire protection, police protection, and the government uses our streets, yet no government has ever given the city a five cent piece for the maintenance and repair of our streets. We have to look after all that ourselves.
Furthermore, the city purchased properties on Elgin street from Albert street to Laurier avenue four or five years ago, and for that purpose had to issue twenty-year debentures amounting to $875,000. So the government has received back many times the $100,000 that is granted to the city. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) may say that the government has spent $200,000 or more in the city of Ottawa. That is all right. They can spend what they like. That is not my lookout; that was for the beautification of the capital city. It was not for me, not for the city of Ottawa, but for everybody in Canada.
So I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and the Minister of Finance as well, not to press the bill any further. Give us a chance. We lose every year $200,000 by the fact that through these expropriations we do not collect taxes, they are exempt every time, I believe it is only right that I should not have to pay to be a citizen of Ottawa, to be a resident of the capital city. I could go across to Hull, where I would be nearby; but I am considered to be a citizen of Ottawa, as I am, and when I speak for myself I speak for all taxpayers within the municipality. It seems to me that there is a certain lack of courage on the part of hon. members in not finding out what the country desires so far as the city of Ottawa is concerned. In 1912 a plebiscite was proposed to the citizens of Ottawa for the setting up of a federal scheme. It was voted upon and carried. At that time my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house, now the official opposition, were in power. That project never materialized; the old order has continued until to-day. If Ottawa were a federal district, nobody in this

City of Ottawa Agreement

house will deny that our taxes would be reduced. It is common sense. That is all I ask. It is useless to say any more.
I have been accused of not being in the house very often. I happen to represent a seat which keeps me elsewhere. If I were the member for Winnipeg North or the Yukon territory, I should be in this chamber all the time; I might be sleeping, sometimes, through some speeches in which I am not interested, but I would be here just the same. But it happens that I am busy outside the house, not in my own behalf but for the sake of those who are suffering. If members of the Social Credit party will listen to that they can make a good argument for themselves. I am trying to help the people, whether they are in the east or the west. I help them whenever it is possible.
After all, I repeat, why should the government not give us a fair deal? A fair deal would be to give us for ten years at least an annual grant of $200,000; and when I come here ten years from now I shall be ready to ask for more.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my support to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard). Since 1925 the amount of this grant has remained at $100,000; but I believe that if hon. members have listened attentively to what the hon. member for Ottawa East has had to say, they will have found convincing arguments in his statements. He has pointed to the expropriations which have been made, and which have meant a loss of revenue to the city of Ottawa. As this administration well knows, governmental costs have risen materially since 1925, and yet we are paying the city of Ottawa the same sum as we commenced to pay in that year. I think the hon. member's point is well taken. The only thing I would ask of him is not to press the suggestion that this matter be held over, but to allow it to go through, with the suggestion that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and the government take into consideration what he has said and see whether they cannot bring forward next year a measure which will commend itself to all those who are interested in Ottawa, and particularly those who are ratepayers of this city.
We all enjoy the benefits and amenities of Ottawa. As a member, of course I find myself frequently in the position of opposing government expenditures, but I never oppose government expenditures in Ottawa for the purpose of beautification or the erection of beautiful buildings in this capital city. It is one place
IMr. Pinard. j
where they should be built. The only thing I do oppose is not getting one hundred cents on the dollar for expenditures on improvements. I believe the citizens of Ottawa, and not only they but all the citizens of Canada and those who come into our country and find an opportunity to visit the capital city, are quite satisfied with what this government and other governments have done to help make Ottawa attractive.
I did not. rise just to place a few words on Hansard. I rose without any solicitation on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa East, to give him particular support, because I felt that the arguments he put forward were sound and should be persuasive as far as this government is concerned. If there is one point for which I can commend the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), it is his desire to do his very best for Ottawa. I believe he has done so and is still doing it, and I know he has the support of every hon. member in trying to realize the ideals which he holds before himself for the capital city.
I hope the Minister of Public Works will take into account the debate this afternoon and will give consideration to the possibility of some increase in the grant to Ottawa, to be brought down at the next session of this house or the first session of the next parliament.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard) has made certain accusations against myself which I think, upon a moment's reflection, he will find are unwarranted.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Not serious.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Not exactly serious, but he made certain statements as far as I am concerned which I think he should never have uttered. He has said that I accused the people of Ottawa of not being good sports. I never used any such language in this house. I did say, I believe, on one occasion, that they were lacking in a certain sense of civic pride- a statement which I think I would repeat this afternoon.


Joseph Albert Pinard: I wish to correct my hon. friend. If you did not say it, who said it? And if you said it-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Wait a minute. I-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should not address another hon. member.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Very good, sir. But I just want to make a correction. If the hon. member said it he had it corrected in Hansard before it was published.

City oj Ottawa Agreement


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think, when I make a
statement in this house, the hon. member should accept the statement.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Ido.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He can go through Hansard as much as he likes, because on occasions of this kind I do not even go into the office of the editor of debates to read my statements. What I said was that Ottawa was lacking in a certain amount of civic pride, and I need only remind the hon. member and other lion, members of the time which was spent in pulling down that old ramshackle building which they called the tourist bureau of this city. Anyone walking up and down Elgin street knows what an eyesore that was to any individual who had in his mind the thought of making Ottawa a much nicer city to live in than it was then. I have always supported the government in its expenditures on Ottawa and in its beautification schemes. I remember that when the old Russell hotel was being pulled down, and money was appropriated in the house for that purpose, there was plenty of opposition in this chamber, but I was one who rose in my place and supported the government in its efforts to make Ottawa a finer and more beautiful city to live in.
When the hon. member tells this house about the vast amounts of money which have been lost through expropriation proceedings, he is showing only one-half of the picture. I was sorry that the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) was so easily convinced by what the hon. member for Ottawa East said this afternoon.


Joseph Albert Pinard: He is intelligent. That is why.


Abraham Albert Heaps: For instance, when the Russell hotel came down, what happened? For many years efforts were made to erect a new hotel in some other part of the city. Finally, because no organization would come forward with an offer to build a new hotel in the city, the Chateau Laurier built a large addition, on which the city of Ottawa now receives a considerable amount in taxes.


Joseph Albert Pinard: How much?


Abraham Albert Heaps: As much as it got from the old Russell hotel; perhaps more.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Oh, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want to engage in any personal dispute in connection with this matter. The facts are a matter of record. While it is true that, when the federal government expropriates property, the city of Ottawa may lose taxes on the property expropriated, there is very often an enhancement in the
value of adjoining properties. One cannot ignore that fact. Take Elgin street. Since the government expropriated properties there, other properties have become enhanced in value and the assessment has increased. If statements such as we have heard are to be made ex parte in this house, there should be a full and complete statement showing on the one hand what the government expropriated, and, on the other, the extent of the enhancement in values of adjacent properties.
We are told further by the hon. member for Ottawa East that this government should exist partly for the benefit of the people in the city of Ottawa-or words to that effect.


Joseph Albert Pinard: I did not say anything of
the kind.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said, words to that effect.


Joseph Albert Pinard: The hon. member is dreaming.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We should pay for the
privilege of walking the streets of Ottawa- and things of that kind.
I suggest that my hon. friend should read Hansard and see what he really did say.
If it were not for the parliament and other government buildings in Ottawa there would not be very much of a city of Ottawa. The parliament buildings alone are assessed at probably S15.000.000 to 820,000,000 by the city. How much in the way of tourist traffic comes to this city by reason of the fact that these buildings are here? Is it fair for the hon. member to say that we should pay taxes on these buildings? Can he show me any provincial capital that pays taxes on its legislative buildings? If this government is to be expected to pay taxes on the property it owns in Ottawa, then every other city in Canada has the same right in its own municipality.
I do not know of another city in Canada which to-day is financially any better off than Ottawa, if as w'ell off.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Because we have a good
administration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When it comes to municipal financing, Ottawa is much better off than practically every other city in Canada, because when you take the unemployment situation you find that Ottawa has been able to finance it mostly out of revenue, whereas nearly every other Canadian city that I know of has to finance its unemployment problem out of capital expenditure. The unemployment situation has been adding enormously to the capital expenditure of other municipalities.
I could deal with this matter at considerable length from the point of view raised this
City of Ottawa Agreement

afternoon by the hon. member for Ottawa East. Let me assure him and other citizens of Ottawa that I have no objection to these grants being given to the city. All I want is some degree of equity between Ottawa and the federal government. I spoke a moment ago of the capitol buildings being here. In addition to that, there are other undertakings that are an asset to the community. For example, the government maintains the federal district commission.


Joseph Albert Pinard: They do not pay taxes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. gentleman
seriouly suggest that because the government maintains parks and boulevards for the people of Ottawa, and in addition to maintaining them provides capital expenditures, it should also pay taxes on them? I have never heard such a suggestion made in this house before. We maintain these parks and driveways, open playgrounds and other places of the same sort, and there is no other city in Canada where the government provides the same service for the people. Have I ever objected to these expenditures? Never. I have always supported them and I will continue to support them. I say to my hon. friend, however, that if we took away from this city all the work that has been done in beautification and so on, initiated and carried through by the federal government, there would be hardly anything that he could show to the credit of the city. Practically everything has been done by the federal government.
I am in favour of this grant; and if it can be shown that it is not sufficient, that the city of Ottawa is suffering a hardship because of expropriations, that it is losing vast revenues, then I am prepared to consider that aspect of the matter sympathetically. I have never objected to doing so, but I want to be shown first that the situation is as has been suggested before I can support an increased grant. But so far nothing has been shown that would warrant an increase even because of expropriations by the government. I am, however, in favour of this grant going through, and if Ottawa has anything further to submit-I hope it will be published if that is the case- and if it is shown that the grant is inadequate,
I am prepared to consider the matter sympathetically.


Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: The argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) is entirely beside the point with reference to the vote for services in Ottawa. I commend the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard) and associate myself with him in the plea that he has made for this city. I do not agree with the hon. 
member for Winnipeg North in his statement that the expropriation of properties for government purposes enhances the value of adjoining property. That is certainly not so in connection with Elgin street. Elgin street was primarily a business street; now if it is to be used for any purpose at all it will be used for residences.
I think Ottawa is entitled to greater and more generous consideration by this government in payment for services rendered. It is true that this city is not an industrial centre. It is a capital city, and for purposes well known to those in charge of civic government in Ottawa it has never been intended, nor have they made any concerted effort, to make Ottawa an industrial city. The largest employers of labour in Ottawa are the government of Canada. They have practically 12,000 employees here. If there were an industrial concern in Ottawa employing 12,000 people, would such a vast corporation get away with $100,000 in taxes a year?
It should not be forgotten that Ottawa supplies the employees of the government with all those services which an up-to-date city renders to its citizens. We have in Ottawa, hospitals, schools, fire protection, police protection, water services and all the other things which in a city go to make up the public service rendered to the employees of any great organization. I submit that Ottawa loses thousands of dollars every year in rendering this service to the government and government employees and is not compensated fifty per cent therefor. This matter should receive more consideration. It has taken the form of a bill introduced from year to year, and I doubt very much whether the services rendered are given any more consideration than they were a few years ago when they cost considerably less. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East that Ottawa should get at least twice the amount it is receiving now. And I think it is up to him and the local civic government to press for further consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: There is one question I wish to ask, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard) has said-because he is a member for the city as well as for the constituency. There has been nothing said in this debate this afternoon or in the discussion the other night which would alter the fact that these municipal services which the city of Ottawa is giving to the government of Canada-fire protection, police protection, water-are exactly the same as are given free by every other large municipality in Canada. I hope some-

City oj Ottawa Agreement
thing will be done by the government to deal with this problem, which has been dealt with in the United States, England and Australia by grants and subventions as compensation for loss of taxes on government tax-exempt property, for services given to the federal government by the municipalities. The government has at present a program for the expenditure of some $8,000,000 on public buildings in this city, and in connection with these votes revenue and income should be considered. With all due respect to the federal district commission-we seem to have commission government in Canada now, and federal affairs seem to be administered somewhat at provincial capitals instead of at Ottawa-many buildings have been torn down in this city, a procedure which is interfering with the continuity of business streets and depriving the municipality of revenue.
In connection with the program which the government have for the unveiling of the great soldiers' memorial next May, they will surely have to consider a re-location of the various monuments on parliament hill to the fathers of confederation. Some are away in the back-yard, for example, D'Arcy McGee, Alexander Mackenzie; and even the great founder of our national system, Sir John A. Macdonald, is down at the end of this building. His monument should be moved to the forefront of the grounds, and the minister should take up the problem of re-locating on these grounds all the monuments of those who have done so much for this country. I hope he will also consider the matter of some payment to the larger municipalities which are giving to federal government buildings the very same service that the city of Ottawa is giving here.


[Stage Direction]
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 the title.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Before this bill is carried, I asked the Minister of Public Works the other day for certain information in regard to this matter. Has he that information now?


Mr. CARDIN:: The information I promised to give my hon. friend the other day has been given by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Pinard).


Abraham Albert Heaps: I listened attentively to what the hon. member gave; it was only one or two items. I asked for an itemized statement showing the land and buildings in Ottawa belonging to the federal government, which are exempt from municipal taxation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the assessment commissioner of the city of Ottawa the figures as of March, 1938, the latest we have, were:
Land	$ 8,332,375
Buildings	 35,609,209

That is the total assessed value of government properties in Ottawa. I am informed unofficially that this valuation will shortly be increased substantially.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What does the $8,000,000 land assessment comprise. There must be a number of parks and playgrounds included in that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not give that information, because the federal district commission is not under the control of the Department of Public Works but comes under the Department of Finance. Probably when the estimates of the finance department are before the committee the information can be obtained, but as far as my department is concerned, we do not have that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I assume that included in the figures which the minister has just submitted is property under the control of the federal district commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that figure exclusive of property held by the federal district commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then could we have also the value of federal district commission property which is exempt?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That can be ascertained.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What I am trying to ascertain for my own benefit and perhaps that of others interested, is what the federal government is doing for Ottawa. Until I have a fairly accurate statement showing what these exemptions are, whether land or buildings, and what the assessment on the adjoining buildings is, I am not able to judge properly as to the claim made on behalf of the city that $100,000 is not sufficient.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit, me, instead of suggesting that the question be left until the estimates of the federal district commission are before the house, I would suggest a more expeditious and perhaps more complete way of getting the whole matter clarified, that is by means of a question on the order paper, which could
City of Ottawa Agreement

be answered by both departments concerned, either on an order for return or an answer to the question; giving (a) the assessed value of land and buildings owned by the Department of Public Works in Ottawa, and (b) the assessed value of federal district commission properties in the city, which are exempt from taxation. There are, of course, some properties of the federal district commission outside Ottawa, but I take it my hon. friend is speaking only of those within the city.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Within the city.


Charles Avery Dunning: A question on the order paper will bring that information, and it would be then a matter of record.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I shall follow the suggestion of the minister, but we want more than that. When we get the figures before us, I shall want to know what use is made of these lands, and perhaps we can get that only when the estimates of the Minister of Finance are before us.


Mr. FACTOR:: The hon. member could go to the assessment department of the city.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But I think our own department should have that information. I know that the federal government has laid out a number of parks here, and open spaces used for playgrounds. To get a fairly accurate understanding we should know what use is being made of these open spaces in order to find out whether or not Ottawa is receiving a square deal from the federal government. We cannot get it entirely from the figures.


Charles Avery Dunning: We can give only what we have. Assessment values are the only values available. Take for example, certain properties of the federal district commission surrounding Dow's lake. What was their actual value before the federal district commission built them up and turned them into the beautiful park which now exists?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is why the figures do not tell the whole story.


Charles Avery Dunning: The only basis of value we have is the value assessed by the city. I might not agree with it, or my hon. friend might not agree with it; but if he asks for facts, that is the only approximation of fact we can possibly give. It is quite impossible to arrive at the present day commercial value of the properties of the federal district commission. The question of the value of a park has been a moot question in connection with assessment in many cities and many countries for many years. I do not believe we could
[Mr. Dunning.)
get any better figure or any more accurate data upon which to form conclusions than the city assessment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: If that is the case; if that is the only figure the minister has, how was it possible to arrive at the figure of $100,000 and to know whether it was either too little or too much? There must have been some method adopted.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because the S100.000 bears no relationship whatever to the assessment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was that amount not arrived at by agreement between the government and the city of Ottawa?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932- Mr. Michaud-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. MICHAUD:: On the last occasion this bill was considered, it was approved and reported, but there was some question as to the legality of the procedure adopted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in trying to amend other provisions of the Fisheries Act by adding to the bill a suggestion which he called an amendment. Since then I notice the hon. member has introduced a bill of his own which apparently covers what he intended to accomplish by the amendment he had offered, and I thought he intended either to abandon or to withdraw his amendment in view of the fact that he has introduced a separate bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, the minister is mistaken when he says this bill was reported previously. What actually happened was that someone moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Had it been reported, the next step would have been the third reading.
With regard to the suggestion that I should withdraw my amendment, that would put me under a handicap, because "to-day is ours and to-morrow is not". We have before us a government bill, on which I maintain-and I think the authorities bear me out; I should like an opportunity to argue the point before a ruling is given-that it is fully competent for me to introduce an amendment such as I have suggested. If I should drop my amend-

Fisheries Act Amendment
ment and trust to the vague, distant, fortuitous possibility-for that is all it is-that a private bill, or a public bill introduced by a private member, to be strictly accurate may be reached, I may find myself in the position that my bill may never come up. Private and public bills can be considered only twice each week, for an hour at a time. Private bills come first, and no doubt a large number of these, in the form of divorce bills, will soon come from the other house. In addition, the order paper indicates that, in any event, there are quite a number of bills ahead of mine, and it might well happen that under the conditions I have mentioned my private bill would never be reached. I introduced it only in order to do what a good general does, prepare a position to which he may retire if he is driven from his present one. Since I have looked into the merits of the proposed amendment and its relation to the bill now before the committee, I have become fully satisfied, from the best authorities, that my amendment is in order, and I should like to be allowed to go ahead with it.
I suggest that it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. If it is your wish I can go ahead and debate the point of order; it is up to you.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was giving my reason why I preferred that my amendment should be discussed now rather than in connection with the bill of which I have given notice. Being half dead with the popular epidemic which has decimated the membership of the house, I missed giving the most succinct argument for haste in this connection. The legislature of the state of Washington is now meeting at Olympia, and in that state the vested interests which are behind the use of traps are moving heaven and earth, and some other places as well, to have repealed a law which was passed by initiative and referendum some four years ago to prohibit the use of traps in those waters. That action was not taken by legislation; it was done by what is called initiative and referendum, that is, any one can have a certain action taken by obtaining a sufficient number of votes. That action would never have been taken by the legislature. The vested interests have been laying for this legislation in order to have it repealed. They failed two years ago, but the matter is up again.
One of the greatest arguments that they advance is that the Dominion of Canada has not kept faith with the written agreement and understanding between our fishermen and theirs. They contend that they have taken out 219 traps, while we have not taken out our four or five. This is the reason for the urgency. The scope of this matter is comparatively small, but I do not know of anything that has provoked so much ill feeling in the western states and British Columbia. It has become a matter between the common people and the vested interests. During the last few weeks the feeling ran so high, according to the reports in the press, that they had to bring in the equivalent of our sergeant-at-arms to clear the galleries in the legislature. That is why I am so urgent and insistent that we should pass this amendment to-night rather than wait for six, eight or perhaps twelve weeks hence, even though the bill might pass at that time, in order to get action. If we pass it now, the argument of those who want traps restored to United States waters would be gone. The opponents of traps would be able to say that now the conditions are fair. If we do not do this, the chances are considerable that they will put back their 219 traps as against the four or five on this side.
For the sake of some of the new hon. members, I should like to explain how this thing works. The largest and most valuable run of salmon in our waters is the sockeye salmon run, the greater portion of which approaches our shores from the southwest corner of Vancouver island. Then, for some unknown reason, the fish proceed across to Puget sound, which is United States waters and where there are no spawning streams. They circle round Puget sound and many of them are taken there before they can come back into the tributaries of the Fraser river. They go up the Fraser river for a thousand or fifteen hundred miles to spawm in all the creeks and rivers. We breed the fish and the Americans capture them. Prior to the passing of this initiative legislation, they took seventy per cent of the run. The proportions could be easily calculated because the fish are coming from one place and going to one place. Since the Americans removed their 219 traps, our share of the catch has run as high as eighty-six per cent. It would pay us as sharp-dealing people, let alone for reasons of fairness and humanity, to pension off the forty-one employees who are engaged to operate these traps, although I think the number is less than that, in order to retain
Fisheries Act Amendment

such a high proportion of the salmon. This is quite apart from the extra employment that would be given if these traps were removed.
I should like to explain just how a trap works. I have a sketch of one which I exhibit. The fish come round a headland and make for the Fraser river. The instinct of the homing salmon is just as great as that of the homing pigeon, and they cannot go anywhere else but around that headland. They go along the shore-line and they come up to a lead, as it is called, which may be 600 feet or 6,000 feet long. It is stretched out to a trap. They cannot get through there and they cannot get out on the shore, so they nose along until they come to the mouth of the trap. There are wings on each side of the mouth. They go through the mouth, and finally they reach a place with a little hole like the neck of those ink-bottles which you cannot upset. Once in there, they cannot turn round. They are then brailed out.
The law is that for forty-eight hours in the week this mouth or gate here must be closed. The gate may be closed; but as the fish come along on Friday and Saturday nights and find they cannot get through, they simply mill round and round. You or I would go down round one side or the other and get past the trap, but that is not fish nature. They simply mill round, and their instinct guides them until they start up again, when they again hit this lead. Then they mill round again. On Monday morning there are just three times as many fish as there were on Friday morning. Ninety per cent of the fish stay there. That is what the wing is intended for.
Then what is the net? The net has what is called a two-inch extension. It is two inches when it is extended. Consequently, the square of the mesh is exactly one inch each way, and that is the measure of the fish that can get through there. Anything which is less than an inch can get through. Last year or the year before we kept track of it. They caught everything-whales, barracuda, rat fish, porpoises-all down the line. I think they stopped at shrimps. We did not get any shrimps, but we got everything else. Nothing escaped them-mature, immature, day and night, in season and out of season. It is an enormously destructive method of fishing, and the whole idea that one man or two men should be allowed such a particular privilege is against all sense of common decency and what we call public policy. The people who advocate a thing like that are in line with the people who, if not to-day, not so long ago thought that the whole of Canada west of the great lakes-


Mr. HANSON:: It is about forty years since they started that. It is about time it was changed.


Alan Webster Neill: They have had forty years of it and have made fortunes out of it. As I was saying, people who advocate a thing like that are like the people who advocated that all Canada west of the great lakes belonged to the Hudson Bay company, or that India belonged to the East India Company because at one time it had huge territorial rights. But we are living in the present age, not in the past.
To cut a long story short, I shall try to meet the minister half way. This is a matter which will be settled only when it is settled aright. It will ring down through Canada's political record for a long time to come until it is settled. It is now becoming a provincial matter, though there is no need in the world for that; before we know where we are, it will become a national matter.
During the dinner recess I considered my position carefully, and in the interests of those whom I ostensibly represent I am going to take a great chance, which I am not authorized to take, on behalf of them, and make this proposal, which would almost impel, I hope and think, acceptance by the minister. I am going to move the following amendment, which is entirely different from the one I had the other night, and therefore should be in order. It cannot be held to be anticipatory.


The CHAIRMAN:: Do I understand that the hon. member is going to withdraw his amendment of February 16-


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: -and substitute the following? Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member, have leave to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Neill) withdrawn.


Alan Webster Neill: The one I propose to insert is this. I might as well say, just to contrast the two, that the previous amendment was that:
No one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada.
That is withdrawn. The amendment I now
propose is:
After the calendar year 1939 no one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada off the southwesterly shores of Vancouver island.
That will have the great advantage, if it passes to-night, that it will be telegraphed to Olympia and it will save the situation

Fisheries Act Amendment
there. That is the all important thing. The general principle, too, is urgent, on account of the work it will make for individuals- seiners, trailers, gill netters.
The cannery men with the exception of one, are in favour of the elimination of these licences. This is giving them another year of life, and one year of a privilege of that kind is valuable. It has been suggested that there is vested capital involved which should not be rudely dispossessed, but the whole fishery law is based upon the fact that you get a licence for one season only, and you are liable to lose it: even in the middle of the season you can lose it if the Department of Fisheries says, "We are not going to allow any more fishing in that area." You may have a cannery there, but you are out of luck; that is all. And it is all done in the interests of conservation.
The same thing applies here. No injustice will be done to these people. They knew their licence was an annual one. The traps are taken out every year. They are not yet put in for this year, and how is the time to tell these people they will not be given a licence this year. This is 1939. They cannot say they have not been given notice or warning, because in 1936 they were told in writing-I have it here-that their licences would not be renewed after 1936. This is 1939, and they are still being renewed. Can any great injustice be done to people who have had that amount of warning? I do not think so. So they will have had ample warning if they get a licence this year as well. They are being treated with more than leniency; they are being treated with favour. After they have had this privilege for some thirty or forty years and have made several fortunes out of it, I think they might well give way in the interests of conservation, in the interests of allowing employment to our fishermen, and above all in the interests of encouraging the Americans to keep their traps out-which means so very much to us.
At this stage I propose to stop, and hopefully suggest to the minister that he might accept that position. I have some other data on the subject; but it will be needless to give it if the minister can see his way, and I earnestly hope that he may do so. If it were necessary I would go down on my knees in sackcloth and ashes, humbling myself to the minister to urge him to undo this great injustice, not of his doing, but of his perpetuating. I know that the people of British Columbia, with very few exceptions, and those entirely of people who have got a very gilt-edged axe to grind, would be in favour of the course I suggest. I pause here to ask the
minister if he can see his way to accept this very much modified amendment which I have proposed.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The first matter to be
decided is whether this amendment is in order and whether under the rules of the house we can discuss this matter at this time. The amendment which the hon. member has moved is to a bill which has reference to-


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister permit me first to read the amendment. It must be read from the chair:
That the following be inserted as a new section. Section 32 is hereby amended by inserting the following as subsection 2 thereof:
2. After the calendar year 1939 no one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada off the southwesterly shores of Vancouver island.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The first point I want
to raise is that this amendment anticipates a matter which is already before the house by way of a bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), Bill No, 30 on the order paper. The hon. member suggests that section 12 of the Fisheries Act be amended by the insertion of the following:
12A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act or regulations thereunder, no person shall use, for the taking of salmon, any salmon trap net in any Canadian tidal waters of the coast of British Columbia.
Although the wording of the amendment now suggested differs slightly from the provisions of the bill which is on the order paper, the principle is the same, and I submit that, under standing order 31, paragraph (d) of section 6, no motion shall anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the house, or with reference to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn.
Second, this is citation 398, under standing order 48:
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of motion on the order paper.
It is all the same principle, Mr. Chairman, namely, that a matter cannot be brought up by amendment anticipating any other matter which is already down on the order paper and which may come before the house for discussion during the session. On this ground I feel that it would be out of order to accept the amendment or to discuss the matter at this stage.
Further, the amendment, I submit, is contrary to the rules and to standing order 76 because it seeks to add to a bill before the house a matter which is not dealt with by the bill. Bill No. 15 which is now under consideration is to amend section 57 of the
Fisheries Act Amendment

Fisheries Act. The proposed amendment seeks to add a new provision to the Fisheries Act, and to change altogether a section of the Fisheries Act that has not been brought before the house. Citation 781, under standing order 76, provides, with reference to amendments in committee:
An amendment must be relevant both to the subject matter of the bill. . . .
The amendment is not relevant to the subject matter of the bill because the subject matter of the bill is to amend section 57 of the Fisheries Act. Further, to quote from the same citation 781:
It must not be based on schedules or other provisions the terms of which have not been placed before the committee; it must not be beyond the scope of the bill.
The scope of the bill under consideration is the amending of section 57 of the Fisheries Act, and the proposed amendment seeks to amend section 12 of the Fisheries Act. It is, therefore, altogether beyond the scope of the bill now before us, and I submit that we are violating the rules of the house in proceeding in this manner.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
minister has raised two separate points of order. I think it would have been better if we had confined ourselves to one at a time, but possibly he is going on the well known doctrine that two weak arguments are better than one sound one, because taken separately there is absolutely nothing in them. But there is strength in union, just as it is more difficult to break a bundle of sticks tied together than to break the sticks singly, one by one.
As to the first point of order he raised, that I was anticipating a matter which has already been set down for the consideration of the house, he lightly passed over the obvious fact that the two matters are not related to each other except in a stepfatherly manner. I may be cautious and that is why to some extent I changed the amendment to this bill in order that it could not possibly be open to the objection which the minister raises. The original proposal was as the minister read it, to forbid once and for all, and forever more, all salmon fishing traps in the Pacific waters of Canada.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Of British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: The waters of the Pacific coast of Canada I think was the wording, but it does not make any difference. This is allcomprehensive, all-including, so to speak, and beginning from the moment this bill becomes law. But the amendment which I have now proposed, and which I do not think the min-

ister could have thoroughly studied is wholly different; for it says, "After the calendar year 1939." That is a whale of a difference. If some one is getting thirty or forty thousand dollars a year from a privilege, it makes a big difference to him whether he is to be cut off now or a year from now.
The second point of disresemblance, so to speak, is that the original amendment said: in all the Pacific waters of Canada-or it may have been British Columbia. The amendment I have proposed to-night is limited to a strictly small area off the southwest coast of Vancouver island, a distance of probably eleven to fifteen miles; I think it is eleven miles, as a matter of fact. There is surely a big difference there, Mr. Chairman.
As regards the second point of order which the minister dealt with, I was going to say that it was even more inappropriate, but there can be no degrees; for if a thing is out of order it is out of order. He said that my present amendment is not in order because he has introduced a bill to amend section 57 of the Fisheries Act, and therefore, if I move an amendment to his bill it must be relevant to and in some way connected with the subject matter of section 57. That is fine and dandy, if it were so, but it is not so. He did not introduce a bill to amend section 57 of the Fisheries Act at all. I ask you to look at it, Mr. Chairman. It is "An act to amend the Fisheries Act "-that, and that only.
I have right before my eyes an illustration that I have just picked up. The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Matlette) introduced Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code (sweepstakes). In other words, the criminal code is an act that applies to a great many things; to particularize and narrow his amendment down to the matter of sweepstakes his bill is entitled, "An act to amend the criminal code (sweepstakes)," and under that bill I could not bring in any amendment that was not connected with sweepstakes. Had he merely said, " an act to amend the criminal code," I or any other member could have brought in an amendment to do away with capital punishment, had it so pleased us. The distinction is clear, and what the minister has quoted refers to a case like that. He says that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill-"scope and title of the bill," those words which are found in the section he did not quote. Now the scope of the bill is to amend the Fisheries Act, that and that only. It is not my fault or his that he did not particularize it in the way the criminal code amendment bill did with reference to sweepstakes. The fact remains that he did not, and it is therefore the privilege of any member to

Fisheries Act Amendment
amend the act, provided he keeps within the scope and title of the bill which is to amend the Fisheries Act.
Let me quote from Bourinot. Some hon. members quote from May; but I prefer Bourinot as a Canadian authority, and at one time clerk of this house. The English authorities are not so familiar with our customs. Bourinot says:
The committee of the whole have now power to make amendments not within the scope and title of the bill.
The power goes further than I do. It covers even cases where the amendment is not within the scope of the bill:
But if any amendment be not within the title of the bill, the committee are to amend the title accordingly.
They can even do that if it is necessary, and there was a case in point. At page 534 of Bourinot this rule is laid down:
It is irregular to propose an amendment which is irrelevant to the subject-matter of a clause.
If I stopped there, as the minister did, it would be said I am introducing an amendment which is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the clause. But listen to the rest of the sentence-because one cannot take one's law piecemeal, reading half a sentence and leaving out the other half:
-but it-
That is the amendment.

should be submitted to the committee at the end of the bill, as a separate clause.
That indicates clearly it is contemplated that such action might be and can be taken. We have precedents, and lawyers love precedents. Let us look at them. Here is Bourinot again:
The house went into committee on a bill "to amend the general acts respecting railways"-
Just like the general title of such enactments as the act to amend the Fisheries Act.
-and a question arose whether it was competent to add a clause requiring the government to purchase goods for the use of dominion railways upon public tender and contract only; and the committee having arisen for the purpose of receiving instructions from the house upon the point at issue, Mr. Speaker Anglin-
A celebrated speaker.

decided that such an amendment would be regular without an instruction.
That is, a definite instruction. There is no question that it is held to be legal to amend a bill within the scope and title of the bill. The only condition imposed is that if you go outside the title of the bill you must amend the title as well. That is not
what I proposed to do. I hold that the point of order is entirely wrong. I have already quoted Bourinot. Further on he states:
A committee of the whole have now power-
Many years ago the situation was different, but we are living to-day not before confederation.
-to make amendments not within the scope and title of the bill.
But the amendment proposed was within the scope and title of the bill. I need not argue that point because obviously the amendment is within the scope and title of the bill. If it were not, my case would be gone. Now he is trying to build up an argument on something he wishes he had done but did not do. I submit that on both points the objection is out of order.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Anyone who is familiar with conditions on the Pacific coast will recognize the merit of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. There is a distinct difference between the terms of his amendment and the terms of the bill that now stands in his name for second reading. I say, there is an essential difference, and in that respect it cannot be held that the amendment which the hon. gentleman has just read and which is now before the committee anticipates in any respect the bill that stands on the order paper. Furthermore, I refer to citation 769 under standing order 76, page 221 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
It shall be an instruction to all committees of the whole house to which bills may be committed that they have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit; provided they be relevant to the subject matter of the bill; but that if any such amendments shall not be within the title of the bill they do amend the title accordingly and do report the same specially to the house.
The adoption of the amendment moved by the hon. member would not necessitate a change in the title of the bill, "An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act," and it is therefore properly within the jurisdiction of the committee to consider the amendment.
May I go a step beyond that and appeal to the minister not to press his point of order at this stage. This matter is of great public interest at the coast, and any attempt to block discussion at this time by invoking any rule of order might be misconstrued there as an effort to obscure public discussion of a question which is of such vital consequence to the fishing industry of British Columbia.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I rise to support the minister in his point of order, and I do so definitely by calling attention to
Fisheries Act Amendment

citation 781 on page 223 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms under standing order 76:
781. An amendment must be relevant both to the subject matter of the bill and the clause to which it relates.
"The subject matter of this bill''-it is not a question of the act-and the bill is that which is now before the house.


Thomas Reid: As one representing a district that is greatly interested in this matter, I would point out that the hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that this is not a bill in the strict sense of the word. The bill to which he refers is a new bill that is being introduced, whereas the bill before the house is an amendment to a certain act which is already on the statute books. I would say to the hon. member who introduced the amendment in committee I rvas sorry that he weakened his argument, as I thought, fey offering to wait one year. If his bill had come up for discussion, ample opportunity would have been afforded hon. members to go into the whole matter of traps, which I heartily agree should be done away with. But even the statement now that they will be removed next year is no guarantee they will be.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not hear that.


Thomas Reid: I said that the statement now that they will be eliminated next year may be no guarantee that they will be. I would rather have the bill proceeded with and discussed in the house so that we might have ample opportunity to express our views upon it.


Olof Hanson: A statement from the minister to the effect that the government will not favour the issuing of any more licences would, in my opinion, be satisfactory. Like the hon. member for New Westminster, I should like to see these traps abolished on the Pacific coast, and I would support a bill which had that purpose in view. I am strongly in accord with the argument of the hon. member, and I think they should have been abolished long ago. If, however, the minister declares that he will issue no more trap licences after this year, that should be satisfactory.


Frederick George Sanderson: The Minister of Fisheries referred to Bill No. 30 now on the order paper, sponsored by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I read from that bill:
The Fisheries Act, 1932, chapter 42 of the statutes of 1932. is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 12, the following section:
"12A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act or regulations thereunder, no

person shall use, for the taking of salmon, any salmon trap net in any Canadian tidal waters of the coast of British Columbia."
The amendment moved by the hon. member to-night reads:
That the following be inserted as a new section:
"Section 32 is hereby amended by inserting the following as subsection 2 thereof:
After the calendar year 1939 no one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada off the southwesterly shores of Vancouver island.
I quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 225, citation 792:
A new- clause will not be entertained if it is beyond the scope of a bill, inconsistent with clauses agreed to by the committee, or substantially the same as a clause previously negatived.
And Bourinot says, at page 523:
In the session of 1875 the house went into committee on a bill "to amend the general acts respecting railways," and a question arose whether it was competent to add a clause requiring the government to purchase goods for the use of dominion railways upon public tender and contract only; and the committee having arisen for the purpose of receiving instructions from the house upon the point at issue, Mr. Speaker Anglin decided that such an amendment would be regular without an instruction.
After giving this matter careful consideration, since the first amendment was moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and refreshing my memory to-night on that amendment-which is now withdrawn by the hon. member

I am of the opinion that the amendment moved to-night is in order.


Alan Webster Neill: I regret very much that the minister took the point of order which he did, thereby suggesting that he would in that way evade the responsibility of meeting the situation, and the more so because it will be within the recollection of the committee that a few weeks ago when this question of the action in the legislature at Olympia first came up, I brought it up on the orders of the day, asking whether he was prepared to take the responsibility of continuing the traps on this side; and he said on that occasion-I will not take the trouble to read it-that the matter of reciprocity, that is keeping out our traps as long as they, kept theirs out, was still under consideration. I could think of no more appropriate moment than the present to make an announcement of his policy. Not only has he not seen his way to give a favourable decision, but he apparently lacks the intention to make that decision at all. Now time goes on. The minister has apparently not yet made up his mind. I wonder when he is going to have it made up, because the prepara-

Fisheries Act Amendment
tions for building the traps have already begun. We are told here that the matter is being considered, but work is already going on in preparation for putting in these traps. Are they doing that with some whisper in their ears, "Go ahead, it will be all right"? I have a letter under my hand dated February 22, which reads:
Perhaps you do not know that they have started the usual procedure a week ago putting piles in the water off the spit where they keep them in the winter. I live here 250 yards from where they are working and it seems that they are sure of putting the traps in. I understand they are putting in five traps this year.
So now it comes down to the one brief moment that the advocates of freedom in this matter can have to discuss the merits of this question. I have put it before the committee at some length already, but I am going to clinch it by an indisputable and most reliable authority. I hold in my hand six letters, five of them signed by the deputy minister of fisheries and one by the minister himself. I may have put the case badly, ignorantly, incompletely, and laoking the eloquence which it requires, but I will take the written word of the minister himself as to whether or not these traps should be taken out. I will read only one letter, the one addressed to myself, but there were five others to different fishery associations and others. The one addressed to myself is dated February 7, 1936, three years and almost one month ago. It reads: Dear Mr. Neill:	.
I wish to revert to your letter of June 25 last-
That is 1935, when this matter was brought in its immediate form to his attention.

endorsing a petition by the Kyuoquot Trollers' Cooperative Association, urging that licence for salmon trap-nets in the portion of the southwest coast of Vancouver island be discontinued.
The question has been receiving careful consideration and, in the light of all the circumstances, it has been decided to continue such licences, for 1936. Notification is being given the licensees, however, that thereafter such licences will not be granted. If trap nets are reintroduced in the state of Washington-
Which is what I have been talking about.

the question of reallowing them in the above area will again be considered.
That is signed by the deputy minister, and the minister now assumes the responsibility. Substantially the same letter, except that the name was different, was addressed to W. R Gray, secretary of the British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association, New Westminster, and the Fishing Vessels Owners' Association of British Columbia, Vancouver, and a letter to the chief supervisor of fisheries, giving him orders to carry it out.
The last letter, from which I want to quote briefly, was addressed by the minister to J. II. Todd & Son, one of the owners of these traps. Evidently Mr. Todd had telegraphed a protest when this notice was served on him by the chief supervisor. I shall not quote the earlier part of the letter unless the _ minister asks for it, but this is the pertinent part:
Your company may rest assured that the above decision-
That is the unfavourable decision against them.
-was reached only after carefully weighing all factors in connection with the matter.
The important part is, the minister states that he felt it was necessary to take the steps he had taken, but this is the postscript:
There is the further very strong argument, that the continuance of traps on our side will operate as an incentive for rescinding the prohibition of traps in Washington state.
Is that not what I have been preaching here? That is his own opinion. The minister says that:
In the light of these conditions, the urge was very strong that trap licences should be renewed by my department for the present year-
That was 1936.
-but in view of the investment in these traps and the preparations already made for their operation for the coming season, it was finally decided that in the public interest-
"In the. public interest."
[DOT]-the traps should not be discontinued then but should be allowed for the present year so that fair notice should be given to the owners and operators thereof; and it was stipulated that should traps be reintroduced on the United States side their prohibition in the Sooke area would be reconsidered.
That is no ex parte statement by me; that is the statement of the minister himself. He says that his department have carefully considered it, and that was their serious and considered decision, but as a concession to the vested interests they would be allowed to continue for 1936 but the licences should not be renewed thereafter.
We had this matter up before a committee of the house, and I remember very well one member of the committee said, "Mr. Minister, you changed your policy, you refused to issue these licences beyond 1936. and you have now changed your mind or your policy or both; will you explain the reason for this change of mind." But we have not heard that reason yet, and I hope we may get it to-night. It will need to be a pretty sound and substantial reason to combat the decision, carefully arrived at, as the minister himself says, after full consideration and in the light of all the circumstances, backed up by his officials, that these traps must not be per-
Fisheries Act Amendment

mitted after 1936, that they would be allowed until that year as a concession to the vested interests. In that committee I made the same suggestion that I made to-night, that they should be permitted to continue for 1937 as well, in order that there might be no possible chance for the vested interests-always so dear to the heart of any government-to say they had not been fairly dealt with. Now we have the attitude the minister has exhibited to-night, that he is not going to accept any suggestion or compromise at all, that the traps are going to continue and will continue, I suppose, as long as he has control of them.
I can tell the minister that this is a very unpopular move in British Columbia. It is not a question of thirty, forty, fifty or two hundred fishermen; it has become an issue between the common people and the vested interests-and in this case the vested interests are very small. It is not a question even between the fishermen and the cannerymen, who themselves are against these traps, with the exception of this one man. One hon. member of the house rose in the committee and said: "Gentlemen, I am getting a -little tired of this. As most of you know, I am a canneryman, and if I could have a trap at my door, as this man has, I could get all the fish I needed with fifteen or twenty men. But I am quite willing to do without a trap and use between two and four hundred men in order to preserve the fish, in order not to have them taken out at all stages of their development, and in order to make work for the fishermen." But he very properly added, "I cannot see why, if thirty-six canneries can get along without traps, the thirty-seventh cannery cannot do the same thing."
' There is the issue. It is not the fishermen versus the canneries; it is the common people versus one gigantic, firmly entrenched, allembracing monopoly. The people of British Columbia will call their members and the government of the day to account when this question comes before them in the next election.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. My experience since this matter was last discussed in the house has strengthened my conviction that traps should be abolished. These traps always were a menace to the fishing industry in British Columbia and, by reason of the situation that has developed in the state of Washington, they are a still greater menace to-day. I believe it is in the public interest that no further licences be issued for the operation of stationary fish traps.

It is not to-day so much an issue of threatened unemployment in the fishing industry or violation of the principles of conservation. The issue is that the policies pursued by the minister will result in turning over to United States operators the business that properly belongs to Canadian operators. The fishing industry along the coast of British Columbia is important to those of us who reside in that province. The minister is well aware, as are other members of the house, that certain legislation is now pending in the state of Washington, sponsored by Senator Edwards who has openly stated time and again that it is his purpose to restore the fish traps in United States waters immediately south of Point Roberts and the international boundary. He intends, he says, to rehabilitate the ghost town of Blaine, Washington.
It is well known that, prior to 1935, United States operators had something like 219 traps, and that by reason of the fact that they operated traps in those waters they obtained an average of between sixty and seventy per cent of the Fraser river sockeye salmon pack. For reasons of conservation, and because there was a gentleman's agreement in this respect between the Canadian and United States authorities, the state of Washington abolished their traps by legislation which became effective in 1935. What was the result? The average Canadian share of the Fraser river sockeye salmon pack prior to 1935 was about thirty per cent. In 1936 our average rose to fifty-three per cent; in 1937 it was about eighty per cent, and I am reliably informed that last season it was over sixty per cent. Surely that is an important point. The chief reason for the agitation in the state of Washington in favour of the proposed legislation is that the Canadian government has continued to permit the operation of stationary fish traps at Sooke, in disregard of the gentleman's agreement and, may I say, in disregard of well established principles of conservation.
I do not wish to traverse all the ground covered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. but the house should fully understand the position in which the government finds itself in regard to this issue. These traps have been operating under licence since 1918 at the southwesterly tip of Vancouver island, where they may intercept the main migration of the sockeye before they pass through United States waters to the mouth of the Fraser river. It is an extraordinary monopoly; these people are permitted to operate under conditions that are denied thousands of

Fisheries Act Amendment
commercial fishermen who stake their livelihood on the operation of their vessels and gear in the coastal waters of British Columbia. These traps, as the reports of the department indicate, catch everything from herrings to whales while they are fishing, and usually they fish from April to November. They catch sockeye before the ordinary gill netter can put out and catch sockeye. They catch immature fish. It is true they say that they donate the immature fish to the hospitals of Vancouver; but surely that is no justification, and certainly it does not cover up their crimes in that regard. When I think of all the restrictive regulations imposed upon the ordinary commercial gill netter, purse seiner and troller in the waters of British Columbia, I think I have a right to feel indignant at the extraordinary privileges enjoyed by the operation of the Sooke traps. The ordinary fisherman is penalized if he attempts to moor his gear to shore or to the bottom. He is prohibited from operating a drifting trap-net. He is compelled to observe certain stipulated closed seasons. It is true that the regulations in regard to closed seasons apply to the Sooke operators as well, but it is a well known fact that on account of the type of construction of the traps which, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has explained, extend two or three thousand feet out to sea, the fish are held under favourable tidal conditions, waiting until the apron of the trap is lifted at the expiration of the closed season.
There is a marked contrast between the conditions under which the ordinary commercial gill netter, purse seiner and troller operate and the privileges extended to the Sooke operators. At Sooke they employ something like forty-one men; they can winch up large quantities of fish in nets of dose mesh into waiting barges for convenient transport to the Empire cannery at Esquimalt. According to the evidence given before the committee, that was the number of men employed; but it was never clearly or satisfactorily explained why they could not put that many or more men in employment if they were willing to adopt the same type of vessels as those used by the United States operators who fish further out in that area.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has made it clear that the minister promised the organized fishermen of British Columbia that he would discontinue the issuance of these licences in the public interest, and the fishermen have been at a complete loss to understand why the minister has not fulfilled his promise. I have taken pains to meet the organized fishermen. I think all the organizations on the coast, with two exceptions, discussed this matter this season when they met in convention, and they say this amounts to nothing but a double-cross on the part of the dominion government. They say, "We have been double-crossed. We were promised that the traps would be wiped out, but they are still being operated, and we have evidence that it is intended to continue them in operation for the season of 1939." We all know very well what happened. After the minister gave his promise, some officials of the British Columbia government, the operators in question and their financial backers organized a high pressure, costly lobby, to which we were exposed in the Canadian House of Commons.
The minister indicated clearly to the committee which sat on this matter that it was his intention, no matter what the report of the committee might be, to issue licences. No one can understand clearly the minister's attitude in this matter, unless he is determined to protect the profits of the privileged interests at Sooke and disregard completely the interests of the large fishing industry of British Columbia. It is now clearer than ever before that the fishing industry of British Columbia is menaced by the continued operation of the traps at Sooke.
I cannot be too emphatic with regard to the traps. They violate the regulations under the act, as was shown in evidence; they violate the principles of conservation, particularly with regard to catching immature fish and the mutilation of fish which are held when milling round within the spiller and the heart of the trap. Piracy is sometimes described as an act of depredation on the high seas, but these traps are committing acts of depredation on the fishing industry just as much as if they were boarding Canadian fishing vessels and looting them. It is piracy on the high seas. I think at this time the minister should make clear his intention to discontinue the issuance of licences for the stationary traps at Sooke.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, I rise to join
the other two hon. members in protesting against the use of traps on the southerly point of Vancouver island. Most of the points with regard to this matter have been covered, but there are one or two matters I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and the committee. It is true that the Americans use traps in some of their fishing grounds, but they are up in the north. In the great areas on Bristol bay where the salmon run, no salmon traps or power boats are allowed, so great is the care taken by the Americans to preserve the salmon run. We should take similar care in connection with
Fisheries Act Amendment

the salmon fisheries of the Fraser river. The last speaker referred to the traps catching anything from herring to whale. I have before me a list of the varieties of fish caught in the traps, and I know it will surprise some hon. members to be told that some twenty-two varieties of fish are caught. However, the most striking thing is the catch of sockeye salmon which is taken early in the month of May and the beginning of June, before the sockeye fishing really commences on the Fraser river.
For a moment I can speak as a member of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, which is doing everything possible to rehabilitate the great salmon runs on the Fraser river. The one variety which we are endeavouring to rehabilitate is the early run of the sockeye. Immediately upon leaving the strait this run heads for the waters of the Fraser, but the fish are caught long before the fishermen on the Fraser river have commenced fishing operations. The traps do catch immature fish and in that way are destructive. Every fishermen's organization that I know of, with the exception of perhaps one in Victoria and Nanaimo, are in favour of the elimination of traps.
Last fall I took occasion to go down to Bellingham with a view to finding out what the United States fishermen thought of the Canadian traps. I found the opinion of the United States fishermen was similar to that expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). They felt that the retention of traps in Canadian waters was being used by the United States interests as an argument to again have traps in the United States waters. That fight is going on at the present time. I say in all seriousness that if traps are again brought into use in United States waters they can point to the traps in Canadian waters as something that helped to bring that about.
I do not intend to traverse the ground which was covered last year and again to-night. I rise in - my place to join with other hon. members in protesting as strongly as I can against the operation of fish traps at Sooke. I thought we would have had a better chance to discuss traps when the bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-AIberni was before the house for discussion, but as the matter has come up to-night I feel it incumbent to place myself on record as being entirely opposed to the operation of traps at Sooke. I ask the minister to reconsider the amendment offered by the hon. member, which at least contains a loop-hole for the minister, in that

it asks that they remain this year, but that notice be given that no traps will be allowed next year in the strait of Juan de Fuca.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind the minister and the members of the committee that this somewhat vexed subject was considered some two years ago by the standing committee on marine and fisheries. The resolution which was referred to that committee reads:
That the question of the advisability of the government issuing trap fishing licences in British Columbia waters be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for study and report.
In other words, that the committee deal with the whole question of whether or not there should be traps, not only in the Sooke area but anywhere on the Pacific coast. The committee held fourteen sittings and heard several witnesses including representatives of the Department of Fisheries, the trap owners and the fishermen. I quote from the report:
In considering this question the committee has had in view the great importance of the salmon fishing industry in British Columbia waters, and the necessity for the conservation of the fish supply, the preservation of the quality of the pack and the furnishing of the greatest measure of employment.
Further, being satisfied of the great need for conservation of the fish and the avoiding of all wanton and useless destruction of this great food resource, your committee recommends that the Department of Fisheries continue to work in cooperation with the authorities in the United States with such object in view.
Right here let me say that I think the Department of Fisheries should know exactly what is being done in the state of Washington If they have not kept in touch with the situation they should be censured. They should find out at once what the position is. The committee then went on to say:
We also submit the following recommendations :
1.	That no more trap licences be granted in British Columbia waters except in the so-called Sooke area, and concerning which we are unable to come to a decision as to whether they should be continued or not, without the opportunity of securing further information.
I think the minister will agree that in principle the committee were against fish traps. They felt that there should be no fish traps on the Pacific coast and there was strong feeling against them in the Sooke area. The committee then went on to recommend:
2.	That, if the said traps are allowed in the so-called Sooke area, the licence fee for each trap be $500 per annum for each trap licence, commencing with the year 1937.
3.	That an opening of suitable size be made in the lead of such traps in order that the fish may have a better opportunity of passing on towards the spawning grounds when the trap is closed.

Fisheries Act Amendment
4.	That the department should be careful to see that the regulations providing for the closing of traps in use, for forty-eight hours per week, be rigidly enforced, and that the traps be subject to the same regulations as regards opening and closing seasons as prescribed for all varieties of fishing under the Fisheries Act and regulations.
5.	That all inspectors or guardians employed by the Department of Fisheries be independent of all fishing companies or fishing plant owners.
6.	That for the next year or two the check made in connection with the catch, as well as the escapement of sockeye and other varieties of salmon in the Sooke area be made with great care and detail so that the records expressed in both cases and numbers may be as accurate as possible.
That was the unanimous finding of the committee. Two years have passed, and I suggest that at the present time the government should know just what is the position in that area.
Personally I think the traps should be abolished. I do suggest to the minister that the question should not be left in the air. The government have the power by regulation to prevent the use of traps to-morrow, and I submit that the problem should not be allowed to drift along any further. Apparently there has been nothing done in the last two years. If anything has been done, the minister should explain to the committee to-night just what steps have been taken. If the government will not act now to stop this fishing by traps, I suggest that they at least send this bill to the marine and fisheries committee this year for consideration in detail.
' Mr. PELLETIER: Mr. Chairman, I desire to associate myself with the hon. members who have already spoken on this question. I was a member of the committee which considered this matter, and I feel it is necessary that our stand should be made quite clear. Although we may not know very much about the technical details of fishing traps, there is a principle involved that should not be ignored. It is quite clear that licensing to operate these fishing traps must to a certain degree discriminate against the fishermen of British Columbia. Although we are not so much concerned with the technical details of these traps, we do insist as a matter of principle that the government should live up to the policy laid down by the minister in 1936, and I join with other members in urging the minister to state clearly and definitely why he has found it necessary to change the attitude he took in 1936. As a member of the committee I desire to take this opportunity to make it plain that I am in entire support of the attitude taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and other hon.
members who have spoken, because there is a principle involved, the protection of the fishermen of British Columbia.


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Chairman, since the introduction of this bill into the house I have been tempted many times to rise in my' place on a question of privilege to draw attention to an outbreak of a peculiar disease in British Columbia. One form of this disease it is quite true is endemic everywhere among fishermen, wherever one type of fisherman finds himself in competition with another type. The gill netter gets a fever the moment he experiences contact and competition with the purse seiner, and both of them are very much disturbed when they have to come into competition with a trawler.
But this particular disease which is rampant in British Columbia is epidemic; every type of fisherman appears to be in a state of fever against one particular type, and it is that to which I want to draw attention.
Fishermen, their whole families and friends, will join together and become afflicted with this disease, infected from one to the other. The strange thing about this peculiar disease is that it creates high fever, foaming at the mouth, and an absurd desire to run around signing petitions whenever the word "Sooke" or "fish-traps" is used. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this disease should be called "fishtrapitis." Though it is not a very infectious disease, it does have allergic reactions, and I have noticed in British Columbia that a group of woodworkers in the centre of Vancouver island who know nothing about fishing except that a few of their number take to fishing during the season -this group of woodworkers, affiliated with the International Woodworkers of the World, a communist guided Committee of Industrial Organization, have suddenly caught the fever and babbled against the hon. member for Nanaimo in a way in which they would not have attempted to do had they realized his attitude towards organized labour.
The whole trouble is that people not connected with the fishing industry have also become suspect. The people in the interior of British Columbia find themselves suddenly seized with fever the moment they hear the word " trap." To many people " trap " has a sinister sound. They cannot recognize the similarity between the word " trap " and the word " net." It has a sinister connotation in their minds, and they are consequently apt to become infected with this peculiar disease. As a matter of fact, they pity the poor fish and try to put themselves in its place, and by considering the tragic death of these fish in
Fisheries Act Amendment

the Sooke fish traps they lament that the fish should come to the dinner table from that direction.
The whole thing is something that has to [DOT]be taken very lightly. The light of truth must be brought into this whole matter, and the breezy air of a common sense understanding of the situation must solve this question and bring relief to this terrible fever. But we have had this thing so often, one time after another, that I want to refer to a petition that was introduced into the house at this time last session.
As reported at page 683 of Hansard for last year the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) presented a petition signed by one man and 9,594 other persons. If every item in this petition were true, we should have to take serious account of it; but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that many statements in this petition are exaggerated just sufficiently to make an emotional and effusive appeal, and I said so at the time.
The petition begins in poetic fashion:
Since time immemorial large runs of soekeye salmon have passed the southwest coast of Vancouver island thence passing into American waters in Puget sound and then back to Canadian waters to spawn in the Fraser river.
From time immemorial! These people know exactly that since beyond living memory these fish have been doing this thing. As a matter of fact, the Fraser river is a comparatively young river, geologically speaking, and we do not yet know how the spawning of fish in the Fraser river acquired the peculiar conditions attaching to it which we know to-day. The petition goes on:
That for many years we have maintained in the neighbourhood of Sooke on the southwest coast of Vancouver island four or five fish traps and the Americans maintained in their waters in Puget sound several hundreds-
That is not correct.
-with the result that our percentage of the joint catch of that run would run about 30 per cent, while theirs would be 70 per cent.
That, three years ago, the Americans took out all their traps in Puget Sound numbering 219, while we retained ours, with the result that our proportion of the joint catch jumped from 30 to 50 per cent and even 80 per cent.
I want to challenge those statements definitely. Much of the material which I have obtained for the refutation of these claims of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and his other friends are found in official records, the Department of Fisheries report 1937-38, and bulletins of the Department of Fisheries, Washington, Nos. 37 and 38.
The moment this matter was brought up in the house I referred it to Mr. Charles F. Goodrich, president of the Sooke Harbour Fishing and Packing Company, Limited, and I told him that if he had any matter to bring before me he should do so immediately. I did not do this to bolster up a monopoly. I did it to acquaint a gentleman conducting a legal business in British Columbia with the conditions that were obtaining in this house as concerned his business. Therefore, if I make quotations from the letters that he has sent me, I trust it will be understood that I personally believe every statement to be correct, and in any event they are open to the judgment of hon. members. He states:
As to Puget sound having sacrificed 219 pound nets, it should be understood that this number represents the number of licences issued, not the number of trap nets or pound nets actually in operation. Under the state of Washington regulations, it was only necessary to construct a trap net once in every four years. Consequently there were always many more licences issued than trap nets operated. In 1934, the last year traps operated there, there were some 215 licences issued and about 75 traps actually operated.
For the sake of accuracy, therefore, we should use the number 75 instead of 219.
Were the statements included in Mr. Neill's question correct, can anything be more absurd than to suppose that the continuation or the discontinuance of the five traps at Sooke would be any material factor in deciding the question in the state of Washington of whether they do or do not amend their Initiative No. 77?
Now, then, as to the question of thirty per cent having crept up to fifty and even eighty per cent, as has been repeatedly stated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, let me quote from official sources showing the pack of Fraser river sockeyes caught in Fraser river, Sooke trap nets, and Puget Sound for the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938:
Pack of Fraser River Sockeyes Caught in Fraser River, Sooke Trap Nets and Puget Sound Years 1935 to 1938, inclusive [DOT]
Combined
Pack	Fraser	Per	Sooke	Per	Puget	PerYear	Cases	River	cent	traps	cent	Sound	cent1935	.. 117,499	57,212	48-7	5.610	04-8	54,677	46-51936	.. 227,750	164,408	72-2	3.837	01-7	59,505	26-11937*	. . 166,889	100,382	60-1	6,152	03-7	60,355	36-21937f	. . 132,994	66,583	50-6	6.152	04-6	60.259	45-31938	.. 311,536	168,702	54-1	3,770	01-2	139,604	44-7Total.. ..	.. 823,674	490.704	59-6	19,369	02-3	313,601	38-1
* Pack-regardless where oaught; f pack-regardless where canned. 

Fisheries Act Amendment
We have had the plaints and the complaints of hon. members here that the Sooke traps are absolutely destroying the soekeye fish for the Fraser river. Nothing could be more ridiculous in face of the actual figures presented.
A great plaint has been raised that if we give the United States the chance to put in traps again, they will not hesitate to do so and take back from us eighty per cent. But there is at present an international soekeye commission, a fact-finding commission intent on discovering-


Olof Hanson: And they have recommended the abolition of traps.


James Samuel Taylor: -the actual
circumstances surrounding the passing of sock-eye salmon from the waters of the north Pacific.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member knows
nothing of what he is talking about.


James Samuel Taylor: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of speaking when I have finished.


Olof Hanson: I say the hon. member
does not know what he is talking about.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


James Samuel Taylor: I should be
glad to listen to the hon. member when I have finished. That fact-finding commission is at present gathering facts for the purpose of making recommendations in connection with the rehabilitation of the salmon industry on the Pacific coast, and any interference with their activities can only prejudice the case beforehand. I want to assure hon. members that very free use was made last year of the Sooke traps in tagging live salmon and setting them free in order that the commission might discover where these fish ultimately found their way.
But we come back to the petition:
The fact that we have not taken out our traps has been used and will be used as a very strong argument by the American trap owners for permission to reintroduce traps on the American side.
Let me counter that by reading a statement from Mr. Goodrich under date February 21, as follows:.
We have tried to keep in touch with this situation and so far as we can learn the decision does not hinge in the slightest degree upon whether the five trap nets at Sooke are continued or not. Up to the present time they have scarcely been mentioned. It is possible, of course, that they will be mentioned, and that it will also be mentioned that the United 71492-95
States federal congress after thorough investigation decided that there was no good ground for discontinuing the trap nets in Alaska.
The outcome, however, does not hinge upon the action of either the Canadian fishery department or the United States congress. The governor of the state of Washington and the state supervisor of fisheries both favour the restoration of trap net fishing, at least so far as the area in which sockeyes and pinks form the principal part of the catch. The only thing which may deter them is the attitude of the purse seiners, who are seeking to monopolize the business of commercial fishing of sockeyes and pinks, and the attitude of the sport fishermen who are willing to sacrifice all forms of commercial fishing and canning in order to make Puget sound a sportsmen's resort. The strange thing about the situation in the Btate of Washington is that the state supervisor of fisheries clearly shows in the annual reports of his bureau that it is the trollers, not the trap nets, who have in the past taken the major part of the springs and cohoes.
Again we turn to the petition:
There is no truth in the allegation that traps are the only means by which salmon can be taken in our waters in that neighbourhood, as it has been demonstrated that it can be fished by seines, gill nets and trollers, to which the Americans would have no objection as they use the same gear themselves.
It is rather a sinister comment on this, that the hon. member for New Westminster should bring in a bill designed to prohibit the purse seiners from interfering with gill netters at the mouth of the Fraser river. The fact of the matter is, as I have already indicated, that one type of fishermen is continually fighting against the other types.
To continue the quotation:
The above refers to the soekeye run of salmon, but traps are as undesirable as regards the spring and cohoe runs. These fish are heavy in spawn making their way to their spawning ground, swimming in shoals, following the coastline, keeping in shallow water and close inshore, so that they fall an easy prey to the traps, and comparatively few get by.
And yet in 1938 only a trifle over one per cent of the total catch in United States and Canadian waters were taken by traps.
The whole fact of the matter is that it is entirely incorrect to make the statements as made in the petition. The salmon do not hug the shore. They do not run in tight shoals. They come in from the Swiftsure banks some eighteen miles away and swim along the broad line of twelve miles of open water in the strait of Juan de Fuca, and the portion that find themselves on the left hand shore are naturally closed in by the southerly reach of Vancouver island. What other conditions drive them into Puget sound waters I am not in a position to say, but if any member of this house will travel by boat in the daytime from Vancouver to Victoria he will see the amazing

Fisheries Act Amendment

extent to which the fresh waters of the Fraser river penetrate into the salt waters of the strait of Juan de Fuca. It is entirely possible that the fish, recognizing that they are not yet ready for the biological urge that drives them up the fresh water rivers to the spawning grounds, keep away from the fresh water and travel down into the salt water of Puget sound, where there are not many big fresh water rivers. The petition continues:
Traps are the most destructive form of fishing known, as they are open day and night and catch every species of fish, large or small, that comes along whether they happen to be out of season or not. Nothing escapes them or gets through.
And I make this solemn declaration that there is not a single net of any kind that is free from that castigation. The purse seine catches everything it can possibly get hold of. It surrounds every fish within a certain area. Gill netters and all the others do precisely the same thing, and when we talk about immature fish, it has not yet been determined why immature fish run with mature fish. But the fact is that immature fish do run with mature fish, and, doing so, they are bound to be caught with them.
As to the Sooke traps being more destructive, I should like to find out what proportion of fish caught by the trollers leave their jaws on the hooks, having their bodies torn off by the force with which the trollers pass through the water. Trolling is known to-day as the most destructive form of hook-line fishing.
The petition states further:
The abolition of traps would lead to the revival of fishing and employment of many local fishermen as was formerly the case, but who, finding their livelihood gone, have had to find other work, often on relief.
I defy anyone to say that the community of Sooke is a relief community. These people are self-respecting workers and have been for years, many of them owning their own homes, and if every fishing community were like it we should have little relief difficulty in British Columbia.
I could warn the committee about those who act as carriers for this disease I spoke of earlier in my remarks, who consciously or unconsciously infect others, but I sincerely hope the warning is not necessary.
May I read something that has to-day come into my hands. We have been pleaded with to settle this matter, because in Washington they are now sitting to determine whether they should place traps again in the waters of Puget Sound. I quote from the Victoria Times of February 28, and lest anyone should 
wonder how that newspaper of February 28 could reach me to-day I will tell the committee that it was sent by air mail. It reads:
Fish Traps Voted Down in Washington.
Fate of Governor Martin's three fish bills hung in the balance to-day as a result of action of the Washington state legislature late yesterday in voting 69 to 27 to kill house bill 193, permitting return of fishing traps to the Columbia river and Willapa harbour.
The vote on the bill was regarded as a test of the legislators' attitude towards the fish measures and administration leaders to-day refused to say whether they would bring the remaining two bills on to the floor or permit them to "die en route."
Let me quote from Mr. Goodrich:
The state legislature has voted down the first of the three fish trap bills, and the other two will probably never come up at this session at least. The legislature adjourns on March 9 and will not reconvene for two years. We understand that the fact that Canada had five fish traps was deemed of so little importance that it was not even mentioned.
We have heard the plea of the hon. member that it was the one thing that would return 219 traps to Canada. I have proved that the 219 had dwindled down to seventy-five.
The action of the legislature was not a surprise. The purse seiners were well organized as were the sport fishermen, and the trap operators were very much disorganized through jealousies and petty polities.
However, now that the legislature has acted finally it is obvious that nothing Canada does either way will affect the result.
I want to read one word further before I deal with the bill. Mr. Goodrich, criticizing the statement of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, as reported on page 215 of Hansard, has this to say under date of January 30:
As a matter of fact it is safe to say that the minister does not know that the result of continuing to issue our five (not four) trap licences will be to reinstate the pound nets on Puget sound. Indeed, the precise contrary is true. The state of Washington may or may not reinstate this mode of fishing. The purse seiners of course are well organized

This was written long before the statement in the Times of February 28.
-and are opposing the repeal or amendment of initiative No. 77 as they wish to retain the monopoly they have at present of the supply of sockeyes and pinks. However they frankly admit that their catches have dwindled since the abolition of the traps, due to the fact that the fish do not school up as well as they did when the traps were in use. For that reason they are asking permission to build dummy traps in the vicinity of Point Roberts to assist them in making better hauls.
The governor is also much perturbed over the loss sustained by the abolition of the pound nets in the way of loss of employment by fishermen and cannery workers alike.
The director of fisheries finds his department hampered through loss of revenue and is urging amendment to the act.

Fisheries Act Amendment
The cannery men have so far failed to come to any agreement among themselves as to the distribution of the licences in case the pound nets are reestablished.
Sport fishermen are as a rule opposed to all forms of commercial fishing.
It is therefore problematical what action, if any, the legislature will take; but one thing is sure, and this will be apparent to anyone discussing the matter with those most vitally interested, that whatever action they take will be based on what will best serve the interests of the state of Washington and not whether five fish traps at Sooke, B.C., are continued or not.
That I consider to be the crux of the whole situation. We have had plenty of talk about the trade agreement between ourselves and the United States. The United States is entirely justified in looking after its own interest, and Canada is entirely justified in looking after her own interests. If our interests are joint then we have done the right thing in bringing together the international sockeye commission and in being content to rely on their findings. Only by such methods of give and take can we ever reach any satisfactory conclusion on this problem. I say now, without having discussed the matter with anyone, that if it is found that Canada is receiving more than fifty per cent of the fish that come through the strait of Juan de Fuea, then arrangements must be made by which the United States shall get the same quantity as we do, unless they are willing to recognize that the Fraser river is the breeding ground of these fish, and classify the pack accordingly.
Coming to the bill itself, I find that in the seventy-six sections of the Fisheries Act every section is general and common; not a single section is particular and proper. This amendment sought to be placed in the act is a particular amendment. Provisions are made whereby the governor in council and through him the fisheries overseers have power to deal with that act as to administration. Consequently I consider that the essential feature of this amendment is out of order in its application to the general act, and for that reason I am definitely opposed to it. The matter should be left, as it was intended to be left after the finding of the standing committee on fisheries in 1937, at the discretion of the minister. If the minister will use his discretion I am perfectly satisfied. This is a legal business, and just as a department store is able to transact a great deal of business with few people, so in the general apportionment of the industry of the people, one type of fishing is less costly in the way of labour than another. If we are to destroy the fish traps it would be an excellent reason for destroying purse seines and still more for destroying trawlers and gill netters;	and
71492-95J
ultimately we should have to go back to the single hook and line, but for the fact that the sockeye salmon will not take the hook.


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to interrupt
the hon. member, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Angus MacInnis: I did not'intend to speak on this matter. I had listened to other hon. members from British Columbia who are more familiar with fishing than I am, and who have made an excellent case against the continuance of these fish traps at Sooke. But when I heard the last speaker (Mr. Taylor, Nanaimo) refer to all who oppose fish traps as having contracted some pernicious disease, I decided that I would say a word in opposition to the traps even at the risk of being considered as one who has that disease.
The salmon fisheries of British Columbia are of great importance to that province. They are one of its natural resources. Many years before I went to British Columbia I used to see in the schoolbooks pictures showing that the rivers of British Columbia were teeming with salmon. But that is not the case to-day. A great deal of work and study has been given to the question how best the salmon fisheries in the province can be preserved. Through various causes, sometimes accidental and sometimes arising from ruthless exploitation, the salmon fisheries have been largely depleted. But in recent years vigorous action has been taken to try to re-stock the rivers of British Columbia and to make it easier for the salmon to reach the spawning grounds.
The hon. member for Nanaimo knows a great deal more about fish than I do. I do not know know whether the fish hug the shore or whether they hug anything else; but I do know that the traps at Sooke are so strategically placed as to intercept the greatest number of fish possible.
The hon. member for Nanaimo thinks hon. members may wonder how he got the Victoria Times of February 28 so quickly. He did not tell the committee that Mr. Goodrich, one of the partners in the company that operates the fish traps at Sooke, supplied him with that part of the issue of the Victoria Times. When the hon. member came to this house, I understood him to be representing not the exploiters of labour but the working fishermen who took the fish out of the sea. At that time he was not in such close cooperation with the owners and operators of the fish traps.
All the fishermen in British Columbia are opposed to the fish trap, not because of the fact that it is a trap but because it is an
Fisheries Act Amendment

unfair way of fishing, because it takes an undue share of the fish, and because it operates free from regulations which other fishermen must observe. As a matter of fact, I think it was fairly well substantiated in the marine and fisheries committee a few years ago that employees of the company were appointed as inspectors to see that the rules were observed. I see no reason in the world why this one company should be given an opportunity that is not given any other company or any other individual in the fishing business in British Columbia. If the amount of fish they catch is so small, so insignificant, as the hon. member for Nanaimo would have us believe, that is no argument for keeping the fish traps in operation and fostering envy and hard feelings among the fishermen of British Columbia. Rather it is an additional argument in favour of discontinuing the traps, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to put a halt to a method of fishing which is opposed by ninety per cent of the people of British Columbia.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Mr. Chairman, the importance of this matter is shown by the great interest being taken in it by hon. members representing constituencies in British Columbia. It is a somewhat complicated problem, but it is not a new one. Fish traps, so called, have existed for a long time and have been licensed by the dominion government continuously since 1904. No government and no minister of fisheries has ever wanted to assume the responsibility of exercising the discretion that he has under the Fisheries Act by refusing to grant licences when they were applied for. There are at present, as there have been during that number of years, from three to five licences. These traps which are licensed are stationary fixtures which require quite an investment. I understand that it costs $15,000 to instal each trap, and the people who have been operating these traps and supplying their fish canneries in Victoria have done so for a long period of time and have been successful in placing a superior product on the market.
It may be said that the minister, who has the discretion to refuse or grant the licences, has been protecting the vested interests. I accept either the compliment or the reproach contained in that statement. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has tried to show that I have changed my mind since assuming the responsibility which I am now discharging. I admit that I have done so. When I came to the department towards the end of 1935, I found that

an agitation had been going on for some time in British Columbia seeking to remove these traps, and that the officials of the department had considered recommending that this be done. Representations were made to me; I looked over the records, and on the representations that were made and the evidence that was before me I thought they were right, so in the early part of 1936 I wrote to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni the letter which he has read this evening and which was before the committee.
In the summer of 1936, however, it was my privilege to visit British Columbia, and I attempted to become acquainted with the problems which existed on that coast, and which were new to me. I studied the various methods of fishing-trolling, purse seining, gill netting and catching fish by means of traps. I walked all over those traps; I covered the whole territory, I believe. I inquired from people in Victoria and Vancouver who I thought were capable of giving advice on the matter, and I found that the agitation arose from competition between those practising the various methods of fishing. Naturally the largest number think they are entitled to rule. The traps are operated by the capitalists, those who have invested, I understand, over a million dollars in an industry which is a credit to the country. They have kept that industry going and have developed around it one of the most creditable villages that can foe found on the coast of British Columbia. I visited that village, which depends entirely upon the fish traps at Sooke. I interviewed the fishermen. I received a delegation from the returned men and another from the wives and daughters of the returned men. I interviewed the clergyman, and after listening to all the representations that could foe made I came back convinced that if that industry were interfered with, the village at Sooke would have to go on relief, because they had no other means of support.
That was in the summer of 1936. When I returned to Ottawa I decided that I could not conscientiously exercise any discretion, but that I must renew the licences for 1937. In 1937 the matter was referred to a committee of this house, and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has quoted the recommendations of the committee which have 'been lived up to in every instance. As recommended by the committee, the licence fee has been increased and there has been no increase in the number of licences granted. We have seen that those operating traps shall observe all the regulations, and that no employee of a company operating a trap shall be appointed as supervisor or inspector on the

Fisheries Act Amendment
trap. We have kept in close contact with those interested in these traps and in the conservation, development and preservation of the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. No representations have been made which I thought were sufficient to justify me in changing my mind and refusing to grant from year to year the licences which were applied for.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated that when he made an inquiry in this house not long ago I replied that I had not made up my mind as to what was to be done this year. Of course I had not, because at that time no applications for the renewal of licences had been received. These licences are issued each year, and the decision in the matter is arrived at when applications are before the department. At that time no applications had been received from trap operators, and I had not made up my mind or reached a decision. That goes to show that I am not prejudiced in connection with the issuance of these trap licences.
It has been stated there is grave danger that if we continue to allow traps to be operated, the state of Washington will revert to that method of fishing. That may or may not be so. We have information that the fact that we allow five traps in our waters had no effect whatever on the decision reached on February 28 in the legislature of Washington to turn down the proposal to renew that method of fishing. No representations have been made, either officially or unofficially, by those interested in the state of Washington.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the minister say that no application had been made by the state of Washington?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, I said that no representations had been made to me, either officially or unofficially., by the state of Washington.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister hardly expected that, did he?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, but some hon. member, I think the hon. member for Vancouver South, asked me to state if any representations had been made since the report of the committee of 1937 had been received.


Howard Charles Green: I did not ask if representations had been made; I asked the minister to state whether or not the department had been cooperating with the state of Washington, as was recommended in the report of the committee.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We have been cooperating with the state of Washington. Last year a delegation of representatives of the state of Washington and the government of
the United States came to Ottawa and we had a pleasant conference. No representations were made that we should help them by refusing to grant trap licences for Canadian waters. Not long ago I had occasion to meet officials from the Department of Fisheries in the city of Washington, and no representations were made. Since then this government has appointed a commission known as the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries commission to study the best methods of conservation. One hon. member of this house, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), is a member of that commission. The commission is made up of three members from the United States, two of whom I believe, are from the state of Washington, and three Canadians. The commission has already commenced its work of studying the best methods of conserving sockeye.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the commission jurisdiction over the types of gear used in Canadian waters?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They have no jurisdiction over the types of gear used in Canadian waters, but they can make representations to their respective governments as to what they feel should be done in the matter. No representations have been made as yet by the Canadian commissioners that traps should be removed. The hon. member for New Westminster, speaking as a representative of the fishermen on the Fraser river, has stated that in his opinion these traps should be removed, but the commission as such has not made any representation to the department or to the government. I am sure the work of the commission has not advanced sufficiently to justify it making any such representation.
Further, I understand that the people operating the traps at Sooke have offered every facility to the joint commission to make a study of the effect of these traps on the conservation of our fish in the Fraser river. It has been stated that the removal of these traps would save our fish, but figures speak for themselves. The sockeye is the most valuable salmon on the Pacific coast, and the percentage of sockeye caught last year in the Sooke traps was 1-2 per cent of all the sockeye caught in the Fraser river. The percentage of sockeye caught by Canadian fishermen by other methods of fishing was 54 T per cent, and the percentage caught by fishermen of the state of Washington was 44-7 per cent. There is not much danger that the operation of these traps will cause the destruction of our fish when the percentage of fish caught by that method last year was only 1-2 per cent.
Fisheries Act Amendment


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that percentage relate to the total pack on the Fraser river or merely to the Canadian pack?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The total pack on the Fraser river. My hon. friend will understand that if it referred to the Canadian catch only, the percentage would be practically nil. After all, last season there were only 3,652 cases of sockeye salmon packed from the fish caught in these traps. Looking over the statistics, I find the percentage has not been over five per cent, except in the year 1919, and was varied from six per cent down to one per cent.
I have been told that I should exercise my prerogative and refuse to renew the licences for the operation of the traps this year. But one has only to take into consideration the effect of such action on my part, and then I think hon. gentlemen can well understand why I should hesitate. On the other hand, we have an investment of over one million dollars there made by people who have supported this community for many years. We have a community of good people depending on that industry. We have also the good name of our canned salmon fishery at stake, because these people put up the best grade of goods on the market. Then we have also the right of these people to enjoy their privileges just as other people do.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, on the facts that have been presented so far, that I cannot, just to please one set of fishermen because they are more numerous than another set, take the responsibility that I am being asked to take to-night. I have no personal interest in the matter, nor has the government any. The people who operate these traps are no friends of the government. I am looking at the question purely from the point of view of justice and equity. It is possible that some facts which I have not been able to understand or which have not been placed clearly before the government may exist; but I am sure that no one in this house who does not come from British Columbia and live close to the coast, and who is unfamiliar with the local situation, would take upon himself the responsibility of accepting this evening the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and making it the law of the country. I feel that if in the public interest these traps should be removed, more information should be given to members of the house in order to enable them to come to a decision in the matter.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this matter be referred again to the committee on marine and fisheries; and if any

sound reasons be advanced beyond what has already been advanced, there is every disposition on my part and will be on the part of the government to weigh them as carefully as possible. I would accordingly suggest that this bill be not passed in a hurry but be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries where it can be looked into thoroughly, and where every member will have an opportunity to find out the facts upon which to come to a decision in the matter. For that reason I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Alan Webster Neill: Before the chairman puts the motion, may I say a few words?


Frederick George Sanderson: The motion is not debatable.


Alan Webster Neill: It has not been put yet, Mr. Chairman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. member is in order, Mr. Chairman,
because I understood the minister had not finished his motion.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood him to finish it.


Alan Webster Neill: The suggestion of the minister to send this matter to a committee has in it this promise at least, that it gives us a further opportunity to debate the question, but I am entirely unhopeful of any good coming out of his suggestion unless the minister accompanies with it his assurance that he will take off the government whip and let the matter be discussed on its merits, and not on its political aspects.
The minister spoke about the little settlement of Sooke being put out of existence. That is not so. The employees of that company signed the petition. It is admitted to be signed by them all, containing forty-one signatures. They include the employees of the cannery as well as the trap fishermen, about half and half. But the cannery will go on, even if the traps are taken out, so the men absolutely thrown out of employment would be from twenty to twenty-five people employed on the traps. But it would take two hundred fishermen to fill their place using seines and gill nets, and so these twenty men will easily and readily get more extensive employment.
I do not want Hansard to go out to-morrow without some word of contradiction or correction of the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor). I want the committee to know what we in British Columbia understand, but which the committee gener-

Fisheries Act Amendment
ally does not, that Mr. Goodrich, the gentleman from whose statements he quoted so fully-he practically read his letter-was one of the partners in this transaction, and naturally his statements are very, very much ex parte statements. I could make even better statements than Mr. Goodrich made if I were going to lose $35,000 a year graft. I would certainly make a better stab at it than that. The committee saw how quickly the hon. member for Nanaimo got his information. It came here in only two days' time. He is simply the mouthpiece of that gentleman.


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to a point of order. I am here representing the people of British Columbia of the federal electoral district of Nanaimo, and the whole of the citizens of Canada, and if I cannot see the justice of my case I do not want to be heard. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is going to make insinuations, then I am going to oppose him definitely and directly.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know if that is a
point of order, Mr. Chairman. I attended a meeting of fishermen in the constituency of the hon. member, and I had a little difficulty in persuading them not to bum the hon. member in effigy.
I was going to say about Mr. Goodrich that he is a party to the deal; he is one of the partners, and he swore before our committee two years ago that he paid income tax every year over a period of nineteen years; it might have been twenty-nine, which suggested, because you know a man's income tax gives a vague idea of his income, that he must have been getting an income of $30,000 a year net profit. Some member of the committee, not myself, asked him what his total investment in the company was, and he swore it was $24,800 altogether, and the gentleman who had asked the question sat down with the remark, "Kind of sitting pretty, aren't you?"
Just to finish up the record of the hon. member for Nanaimo, I might quote a letter. I quoted it before, but there are new members here. It is a letter that he himself wrote. It is a record of the house, brought down in correspondence, and cannot be denied, although the hon. member tried to deny it in the committee. I shall not read it all, but I shall read the pertinent part.


James Samuel Taylor: Again I rise
to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not deny that letter.


Alan Webster Neill: I will refer the committee to that Hansard record wherein hon. members will find that he did seek to deny it and I said, "Here is the record," and he spent the remainder of the sitting trying to explain it away. I will read it. He does not deny it now. It was addressed to one of these men at Sooke who had evidently written to him protesting against the traps being stopped, at the moment that the government and the minister had ordered the traps stopped:
You see, therefore, that the anomaly of the trap situation at Sooke must be grappled with from the general public interest. If the Sooke traps are allowed to remain, excellent excuse can be advanced by the United States fishermen for the reestablishment of American traps.
That is not I saying that, that is the hon. member who has been talking ex parte for Goodrich this evening.
The Sooke workers appear to be falling between two stools, and I say in all kindness there is no commercial justification for my advancing any arguments to destroy the position taken by the fisheries department.
At that moment they were against traps. Now listen to this:
They are-
That is the fisheries department.
-manifestly doing their plain duty when they protect the larger interest in the community, and it would appear-
That is his remark.
-that the economic necessity of 48 men at Sooke cannot weigh against the economic necessity of 5.000 fishermen definitely affected by the elimination of the trap system.
"Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength," says Scripture. Out of the mouth of the hon. gentleman himself have I condemned his argument this evening.


James Samuel Taylor: I do not deny that letter. That letter was the reply to the Sooke community, pointing out that the minister had made his decision to eliminate the traps. It was a jait accompli, and as such I had to justify the condition. But when I went into the whole situation afterwards and discovered that there was a real reason for this; when I found that it was a legitimate business acting in a legitimate way under the regulations of the government, I turned right round and acted for the Sooke community and for the Sooke traps-


Alan Webster Neill: "Turned right round" is right.


James Samuel Taylor: -not caring
one whit whether they burned my effigy in Nanaimo or anywhere else. If I have an opinion about a thing, anyone is welcome to know it, and my opinion about the Sooke
Fisheries Act Amendment

traps is that they are filling a real purpose in the community of Sooke and in the industrial and commercial life of British Columbia. If they are doing wrong it is up to this parliament to see that they do right. If the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) is not acting according to the instructions given to him; if the governor in council has not told him things concerning this business which ought to be corrected, then it can still be done. But I understand that all the regulations imposed against this company have been kept. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has always adopted the argumentum ad hominem, and I detest it. I want to tell him here and now that it is not good business to use it. If he cannot argue about the thing itself, then let him leave the argumentum ad hominem alone.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I protest.
Only two languages, English and French, may be used in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Scotch.


James Samuel Taylor: If and when I am privileged to sit in the house as long as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has done,
1	hope I shall be equally facile in the use of my tongue, but I do hope above all things that I shall use my arguments against the thing itself and not against members of the house.
Progress reported.
Mr. Michaud moved that the bill with the amendment (Mr. Neill) be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 13, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Power-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 2-" Medicine," " cosmetic," "manufacture."
Mr. POWER:: On the last occasion on which this bill was before the house, some objection was taken to a number of clauses beginning with clause 2. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) was not quite satisfied with the definition of "medicine" as found in section
2	(j). The definition as laid down in the section is:
"Medicine" means any substance or mixture of substances that may be used in restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions.
I Mr. J. S. Taylor.]
The hon. member for Nanaimo suggested that we use the word "stimulating" instead of "modifying." The officers of the department and I have had some discussion with him about it, and I understand that he now withdraws his objection to the clause and is prepared to allow it go through as it is.
With respect to paragraph (1), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) objected to the definition of "manufacture" as meaning "manufacture for sale." On the other hand, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) suggested the other night that the word "manufacture" should be used in its fullest dictionary sense. The reason for putting in the definition "manufacture for sale" was to permit persons engaged in scientific research to dispose of their products gratuitously in order that experiments might be carried on. I do not think we could reasonably accept the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East, who suggests that we say "manufacture for sale to the public." That would permit of manufacturers disposing of these articles direct to the medical profession without the department having any control. A large number of products which it is intended to cover by this bill are those which really need some scientific analysis, and medical men generally, particularly in the rural parts of the country, have not at their disposal the apparatus or the laboratories which are necessary for them to assure themselves that the products which they receive for distribution are absolutely non-deleterious. My technical officers advise that it is preferable that the words "manufacture for sale" be kept in the bill.
On the other hand, should I follow the advice of the hon. member for Brandon, who, as is known in this house, is a medical authority of the highest standing, I would strike out altogether "manufacture for sale" and we would be back to the dictionary definition of "manufacture," which would cover a very much wider range than is proposed to be covered by this bill. This bill, I should point out, deals with food, drugs and cosmetics. If we took "manufacture" in its dictionary sense I should be forced to inquire into the gastronomic concoctions which are made in the householder's kitchen, which, after all, would be to some extent a process of manufacture. I might even have to look into the subtle art of mixing cocktails and other concoctions of that kind which, however, pleasant they might be, would perhaps keep the department pretty busy. Under those circumstances I suggest that we allow the definition to stand as it is.

Food and Drugs Act


Mr. MASSEY:: Has the minister received our regulations being published, and I would
representations from various- manufacturers with regard to the point on which he has been speaking?


Charles Gavan Power: The corner-store druggists
of Canada have descended upon me to make representations with respect to section 5 of the bill, paragraphs (j), (k) and (m), and I hope to be able in a degree, probably entirely, to meet their wishes and the wishes, I am sure, of a large number of hon. members who have also been circularized by this propaganda. I do not believe, however, that there have been any serious objections to this section.


Denton Massey: What degree of authority does the minister think this act gives the department in this matter?


Charles Gavan Power: In regard to manufacture
for sale?


Denton Massey: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend is referring to the numerous letters that have been received by members of parliament protesting against undue powers of regulation being given the department. Those powers are assumed in other sections of the act. At present in the matter I am discussing the department is actually limiting itself to the control of certain articles manufactured for sale.
Mr. RO'SS (St. Paul's):	Some of these
articles for experimental purposes might be sold to doctors, and they would be manufactured just the same.


Charles Gavan Power: We do control the sale to doctors and hospitals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Regulations.
Charles Gavan Power: It is with respect to section 5 that the most serious objections were raised. As regards paragraph (j) I have an amendment which meets the representations made in this circular, but before I come to that I should like to revert to section 3, which was passed, in order to add a section 3A at the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In the course of his observations he stated that the powers conferred upon the department to make regulations were perhaps rather wide and that it might be well if all these regulations were published in the Canada Gazette. At the present time, under the Food and Drugs Act, only certain regulations with respect to a limited class of products must be published in the Canada Gazette. I stated at the time that I had no objection to all 71492-96
therefore ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to move an amendment in this regard.


Mr. CRERAR:: I move.
That the bill be amended by adding thereto another section, 3A, to read as follows:
"3A. Subsection 2 of section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(2) All regulations made under the provisions of this act shall be published in the Canada Gazette'."


Mr. BARBER:: I have had some correspondence in this regard, under paragraph (b), respecting the declaration of net contents of any package containing cosmetics. What arrangements are being made with regard to cosmetics already in retail stocks throughout the country?


Charles Gavan Power: In order that there be no serious disturbance in business, it is provided that the act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. It is not proposed to bring it into force immediately, and I can give an undertaking that stocks now in the hands of retailers will be protected.


James Earl Lawson: Was section 3 carried as printed in the bill?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Regulations.
Charles Gavan Power: The first objection to section 5 was in connection with paragraph (j). The objection was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). This paragraph reads:
Providing for the licensing of manufacturers of cosmetics specifying such terms and conditions as may be deemed advisable in the public interest and prescribing a tariff of fees to be paid for any such licence.
The hon. member for Kootenay East suggested, very properly I think, that there should also be some control over importers. Whatever control we have over Canadian manufacturers should be extended to other manufacturers, and in order to meet his suggestion I have had an amendment prepared, that this paragraph be amended by inserting after the word "cosmetics" in the twenty-ninth line the following:
whether such manufacturers carry on business as such within or without Canada.

Food and Drugs Act

The paragraph would therefore read:
(j) providing for the licensing of manufacturers of cosmetics, whether such manufacturers carry on business as such within or without Canada, specifying such terms and conditions as may be deemed advisable in the public interest and prescribing a tariff of fees to be paid for any such licence.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I move that amendment.


James Earl Lawson: I understand that the minister has an opinion from the Department of Justice. Possibly it is not on the point I am about to raise. I cannot hold up the section unless I raise it here. By that amendment the minister is purporting by order in council to require a foreign subject carrying on business in a foreign country to take out a licence in Canada. Now it is not sale that you are licensing; you are licensing the manufacture. To me it is an unheard of thing for any parliamentary jurisdiction to undertake to do that beyond its own territorial limits. Such a suggestion is anathema to my legal mind.


Charles Gavan Power: My own opinion was
absolutely that of my hon. friend. I suggested to my officers that we add the word "importers"; in fact that was the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay East. But the officers of my department were not quite satisfied with the word "importers" because they feared that some injustice might occur, in that an importer might have a fairly good sized shipment of valuable cosmetics in his possession and for some reason we would turn them down because they had not satisfied all our requirements in regard to health. So they said, "We had better licence the foreign manufacturer." I could not quite agree with that view and suggested that the matter be referred to the Department of Justice. I have received from them a pretty long opinion, which perhaps I had better read into Hansard because, as I say frankly,
I am not quite convinced myself. But as the Department of Justice is the legal adviser to the government and, therefore, to all departments, I suppose I must accept its opinion. The statement reads:
To eliminate any doubt that parliament intended paragraph (j) to extend to manufacturers without as well as within Canada, I would suggest that there be inserted in the paragraph after the word "cosmetics'" the words "whether such manufacturers carry on business as such within or without Canada."
The words of the amendment.
I am given to understand that if the power contained in paragraph (j) set out in section 5 of the bill be given, resultant regulations, following the practice of your department in other similar matters, will require the label attached to the article to carry the licence

number of the manufacturer. If so, any articles
not so labeled will be misbranded within the meaning of the act by virtue of paragraph (g) of section 7 of the act. Section 10(3) prohibits the admission into Canada for use as a food or drug of any article seeking customs entry of import which is reported to be misbranded. I am further given to understand that the close cooperation enjoyed by your department on the part of the customs authorities assures, as far as can be reasonably expected, the prevention of admission into Canada of articles of food or drug misbranded within the meaning of the act.
I may say in passing that we have that close cooperation, and we do check a large number of importations at the border.
I gather from the discussion on pages 830-831 of Hansard-[DOT]
That is the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East.
-that those questioning the proposed paragraph desire to see the legislation cover articles of foreign manufacture as adequately as it covers those of domestic manufacture. In my view the proposed authority to license foreign as well as domestic manufacturers of cosmetics coupled with the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act above referred to and the cooperative effort of the customs authorities will not only prevent admission of misbranded goods into Canada but will furnish to the department authority to require and secure information as to ingredients that an importer, other than the manufacturer, is not in a position to give.
So far as power to license foreign manufacturers is concerned, Canada's right to say what shall come into the country indubitably carries with it the power to set down conditions under which a given article shall enter. Consequently I think that adoption of paragraph (j) as set out in section 5 of the bill, changed as above suggested, would vest power in the department to license foreign as well as domestic manufacturers of cosmetics.
That is signed by the acting deputy minister of justice. In face of that opinion I do not think I can do much except propose the amendment which I have proposed.


Robert James Manion: Does that mean that the foreign manufacturer would apply for a licence?


Charles Gavan Power: He would have to. As a matter of fact, I am informed by the officers of the department that with respect to drugs they very often do. In fact, they even go so far as to allow us to visit their factories. The point is that unless the package is properly branded with the licence number of the manufacturer it could not come in here at all. Apparently the officers of my department and the justice department are satisfied that this will be an effective way to prevent foreign manufacturers or importers from obtaining an advantage in this market, and with that I have to be satisfied.

Food and Drugs Act


James Earl Lawson: I speak just from having heard that opinion read once. Down to the last sentence or two I can readily agree with the opinion, and I assume that the minister as a lawyer could also do so, namely, that by a back-handed method you can force a foreign manufacturer to come to you of his own volition and ask for a licence. But that opinion winds up by saying that by putting those words in that paragraph of this act you vest in the department power to license a foreign manufacturer.


Charles Gavan Power: It does not quite say that.


James Earl Lawson: Even though it be the opinion of the Department of Justice, with great respect I wish to record my disagreement with that opinion, because I dislike to see something going on our statute books which I am firmly convinced will not stand up in the courts.


Charles Gavan Power: The criterion, I suppose, is that they think it is going to work.


James Earl Lawson: I think it will, by a backhanded method.
Amendment (Mr. Crerar) agreed to.


Charles Gavan Power: There is another amendment, to paragraph (k).


James Earl Lawson: The amendment to paragraph (j) is carried, but not paragraph (j) itself. I want to ask the minister something before paragraph (j) is carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: Paragraph (j) was
carried.


James Earl Lawson: No, it was just the amendment that was carried.


Charles Gavan Power: Go ahead.


James Earl Lawson: What I am getting at is that, as the minister said, quite a number of letters of protest were received in regard to the extraordinarily wide powers-


Charles Gavan Power: That is under paragraphs (k) and (m).


James Earl Lawson: I was going to ask the minister, when we come to them, to tell us his views in connection with that matter and whether he proposes any changes by reason of those representations.


Charles Gavan Power: I do; I am now about to move an amendment. I will read one of the letters, which is the type of letter sent; they were nearly all the same. It says:
Paragraph (k) gives the governor in council the power to make regulations "prohibiting the sale or defining the conditions of sale of any substance . . . etcetera." Now since the adjective "any" is used, regulations could at any time be passed by orders in council pro-71492-96J
hibiting the sale of a substance which is quite harmless, just as one could when it is dangerous.
The explanatory notes accompanying this section give as the reason for this inclusion in the bill "certain substances .	.	. may be
dangerous to life." We therefore desire that the words "dangerous to life" be inserted immediately following the word "substance" in this paragraph, or if preferred, "deleterious to health" could be inserted.
I am not proposing to insert the words "dangerous to life" except perhaps in conjunction with something else. I might be obliged to go to the graveyard to prove my ease, and I do not want to wait until someone is dead in order to be able to say a substance is dangerous to life, but the amendment I am proposing would be "which may be injurious to health when used as a food or drug," which will come to the same thing. If any hon. member wished to insist on the words "dangerous to life" I could add them, but it would not be of much value. But I must at least keep the words "injurious to health." It would be impossible to operate the act as efficiently as we should like if the criterion were to be that something was dangerous to life, as that would be difficult to prove in any court unless someone actually died, and I do not think it is the intention of this committee that we should allow the manufacturers of these products to go ahead making guinea-pigs of the people of Canada until a fatality occurs. So I think, by the amendment which I have asked my colleague to move, I have met the objections which have been suggested; in fact I have practically adopted the phraseology suggested in all these letters.


James Earl Lawson: "Injurious to health" seems satisfactory.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems as good as "deleterious to health." So I would ask my colleague to move that paragraph (k) be amended by inserting after the word "substance" in the thirty-fourth line thereof the words "which may be injurious to health when used." The section would then read:
(k) prohibiting the sale or defining the conditions of sale of any substance which may be injurious to health when used as a food or drug or restricting in like manner its use as an ingredient in the manufacture of food or drug;


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I so move.


Mr. KINLEY:: Why say "may be injurious?" Why not be definite?


Charles Gavan Power: There are many things about which we are not quite sure. Since I have not my technical advisers before me, perhaps my hon. friend the leader of the opposition
Food and Drugs Act

(Mr. Manion) would tell me if I am right in my medical terms, but I think there was a glycol substance which we refused someone the right to use in flavouring extracts because we feared it might be injurious. While negotiations were going on and I was being bombarded with representations about it, two people, one in Nova Scotia and one somewhere else, died as a consequence of using this substance. Well, at the time the officers of the department were not in a position to prove that this substance was injurious, but the deaths indicated it definitely was. I think we should be given some leeway, because with the advance of science we cannot say definitely that these substances are dangerous, but we may have reason to suspect that they are.


Robert James Manion: I think that is true; I
think the matter should be left open.


John James Kinley: There is this about it.
You say "a substance which may be injurious to health." Why not say "a substance that is injurious to health"? Some substance might be injurious in one instance and not injurious in another.


James Earl Lawson: Is that not the very
reason why there must be. some discretion left with the officials? This section merely gives power to prohibit by order in council the use of something which may be injurious to health. In other words, they may wish to prohibit the use of this glycol product in an edible food and not prohibit it in something else.


Charles Gavan Power: In antifreeze, for instance.


James Earl Lawson: I think we have to leave
them some discretion.
Amendment (Mr. Crerar) agreed to.


Charles Gavan Power: Representations were also
made with regard to paragraph (m). I am reading now from one of these circulars I received:
Paragraph (m) as it reads would allow the regulation of any claim whatsoever. We desire that the words "false, exaggerated or misleading" should be inserted before the -word "claims," as this is obviously the intent of this clause, and we do not feel that power should be given to prohibit true statement of fact.
I will ask my colleague to move that paragraph (m) be amended by inserting after the word "respecting" in the forty-first line thereof the words "false, exaggerated or misleading," and deleting in the same line the words "which may be made."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I so move.


Robert James Manion: What is the purpose of taking out the words "which may be made"?


Charles Gavan Power: I think it is better English.
If it is a claim it must be made in some way or another, in writing, verbally or otherwise.


Harry James Barber: Who determines that this
is misleading; the officials of the department?


Charles Gavan Power: I would imagine so.


James Earl Lawson: If it came to court there
might be a question. If it were not misleading the department would have no power.
Amendment (Mr. Crerar) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Department may require declaration by manufacturers.


Charles Gavan Power: I think this section was
held over in consequence of the discussion with the hon. member for Kootenay East in regard to manufacturers and importers. The section reads:
The department may order that the manufacturer of any article of food or drug shall furnish a declaration in prescribed form asserting that the article in question-	.
And so on. It also states that if importation is sought, a similar declaration will be obtained. I think, in view of the amendments to the previous section, this section might carry now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Offence.
Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member for Vancouver South thought the section as drafted was possibly a little too wide. I am inclined to agree with him. Section 32A, which is the offence section, reads:
Every person shall he guilty of an offence under this act who advertises any food or drug in a manner which is in any respect misleading-
My hon. friend thought the words " in any respect " should come out, and I am quite willing to meet him in that respect. I will ask my colleague to move that section 7 be amended by deleting the words " in any respect " in the twelfth line thereof.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Earl Lawson: What is the penalty
prescribed for an offence under the act?


Charles Gavan Power: Section 23 of the Food and Drugs Act itself reads:
Every person who by himself or his agent or employee manufactures for sale, sells, offers for sale or exposes for sale, any article of food or any drug which is adulterated or misbranded, shall be guilty of an offence, and . . .

Loan oj $760,000,000
liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs, and not less than fifty dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment, and for each subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs and not less than fifty dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


James Earl Lawson: That is for that particular offence, but in section 32A you are prescribing an offence for which there is no penalty. I am wondering whether there is a general penalty section in the act.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite sure there is, though I cannot point it out at the moment. I am under the impression that it is section 32, which says:
Every person who
(a)	attaches to any article or package of food or drug sold or offered or exposed for sale any label or mark containing any untrue or misleading name, device or statement; or
(b)	neglects or refuses to label or mark any article or package of food or drug in accordance with the requirements of this act;
shall for a first offence be liable, upon summary conviction-


James Earl Lawson: That makes it a rather dangerous section, because it reads, " every person shall be guilty of an offence under this act who advertises any food or drag in a manner-"


Charles Gavan Power: There is another section which I have found now. Section 33 states:
Any person failing to observe any requirement of this act for which a specific penalty has not been provided shall for a first or subsequent offence incur in each case the penalty provided in section twenty-seven of this act.
Then section 27 provides for a fine not exceeding $200 and costs and not less than $50 and costs.


James Earl Lawson: Fifty dollars is a rather large minimum fine for doing anything " likely to create erroneous impressions regarding its value, composition, merit or safety." " Puffing," using the word in the legal sense, for purposes of sale would be an offence under this act. We are getting away from the old maxim of caveat emptor. I do not like that kind of legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: This is the last section of the bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the Minister of Pensions and National Health proceed to-morrow
with his bill to amend the Pension Act, or will he allow it to stand until a decision has been reached with regard to other recommendations of the organized ex-service men?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall not be bound by any suggestions, but I shall not go on with the bill to-morrow.
At 11.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 3, 1939