BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT

Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: On
behalf of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), I move for leave to introduce Bill No. 45, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am sorry that the only copy I have of the bill I have sent to the Speaker, and I am not familiar enough with the measure myself to be able to explain it. Perhaps the House will allow it to be introduced, and discussion may be had on the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

Andrew Ross McMaster: In
the absence of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), I beg to introduce Bill No. 46, to amend the Railway Act, 1919. The bill provides that a return ticket issued by any railway company between any two points in Canada shall be accepted by any other railway company whose line runs between the same termini.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

Andrew Ross McMaster: On behalf of the hon.
member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) ; I move for leave to introduce Bill No. 47, to amend the Criminal Code.
Should hon. members of the other side of the House wish for any explanations,
I am ready to give them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
SIR HENRY DRAYTON (West York):
I desire to refer to a matter that has already been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. leader (Mr. Meighen). It is a question that deeply involves the fair fame and good name of Canada, and for that reason I bring it forward again. I refer to the attack made by The Outlook on Canada and Canadian institutions. When the matter was before the House on the previous occasion, the Government took a position similar to that taken by the leader of the Opposition; but I regret that, apparently, they have not been able to make very much headway in dealing with it. I notice that The Outlook, ifar from desisting or apologizing, has returned to the charge, according to The Globe of Saturday, April 8. For the first time now we have an opportunity of studying this article. The Outlook is printed in London, I think, but I do not know anything regarding its standing, and I am perfectly convinced that both the British Government and the English people would just as much resent the attack made upon Canada as this House ought to resent it. I shall! read one or two paragraphs from the article, which has been widely distributed through the press of Canada.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not know that the hon. member is strictly in order, but as the matter to which he refers seems to cast a reflection upon the honour of this country, I think it is of sufficient importance to warrant being brought 'before the attention of the House in order to elicit from the Government some statement regarding the facts. I would ask the hon. member, however, to refrain from reading any extract from the newspaper in question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Instead of reading, I may point out that the newspaper states that it is now more than two years since the previous government, by daring and unscrupulous trickery, befooled the railway organisation into an arbitration. The publication attacks the standing

Grand Trunk Arbitration
of the gentlemen who took part in that arbitration, and it is utterly at variance with the truth when it claims that iSir Thomas White, who was one of the members of the board, was a member of the "inner ring" of the Meighen government. Of course, every hon. member knows that he had nothing to do with the Meighen government, but had resigned from the House, if I remember rightly, before Mr. Meighen assumed office.
The article further goes on to say that, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in the cost of railway operation, the Canadian Government, for the purpose of forcing this railway completely into its power, steadily refused to give any rate increase until the fifteen per cent increase was allowed in March 1918. Well, as hon. members know, and as the fact is, there was no refusal by the Government of any application for a rate increase, the whole matter being in the hands of the Railway Commission.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask
the hon. member to refrain from making any comment or argument. I understood that he wished simply to call the attention of the Government to some very libellous statements reflecting on the honour of Canada and of the Canadian Government which have appeared in the London press. Having done so, he can ask what is the attitude of the Government with regard to those statements, but he should not enter upon any argument or comment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am endeavouring to do. but it is rather a large field to cover. However, I will be as brief as possible. I want to point out to the Government that the effect of the article is, in the first instance, a libel not only upon Canada, not only upon the Government of that day and upon the present Government, not only upon Canadian tradition, but something which is still more reprehensible,-an evident attempt by indirect means through the press to force this country into an abandonment of its rights, a veiled threat that unless exactly what the financial press of London thinks ought to be done by this Government in regard to the Grand Trunk is done, no further moneys can be raised in England for the development of Canada.
Now, my submission to the Government, Mr. Speaker, is that this article and this propaganda constitute a direct contempt of court. And other means apparently having failed, I would ask the Government

as to whether or not they are taking proceedings for contempt of court against this newspaper or any other newspaper engaged in similar propaganda. We must bear in mind that the very issue which is dealt with by this newspaper is now before the Privy Council by the express consent of the Canadian Government.
I would further point out this:
Contempt of court by speech or writing may be scandalizing the court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard.
I am reading from the laws of. England, not from Canadian laws. It is laid down by English cases that:
There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of Justice clean and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and to their characters. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the court or prejudicing the public for or gainst a party are contempts. Nothing is more incumbent on courts of Justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented nor is there anything of more pernicious consequence than to prejudice the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard.
It is pointed out by a well-known authority on English law, that one of the most mischievous things you can have is trial by newspapers when a trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country is going on,-just what we are having in this case.
In view of the authorities, which are perfectly clear, I desire to ask the Government what action is proposed to be taken against the publishers of this article.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friend should seek to give so much publicity to this matter. When it came up last week the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) took exception to an article in the same newspaper as reflecting upon the honour of this country. In reply I said that in so far as that article reflected upon the honour of this House or this Parliament, I placed myself in entire agreement with him. Clearly that states the position before the world to-day as to Canada's attitude. So far as the article reflects in any way upon any transaction of this Parliament, we give it no credence whatever. But when my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) suggests that we should enter into a controversy with any section of the British press, I fear he is going rather far afield.

Questions
I cannot see that any further action is necessary on the part of the Government than simply to repeat that in so far as this article reflects upon the honour of this House or Parliament, there is no hon. member who would countenance it for a moment. The article has been replied to in other newspapers, and I think the English public will judge the source from which this and similar articles emanate, and will be as ready to appreciate the truth as any one else. In a word, I think my hon. friend is unduly sensitive with regard to this particular subject.



THE GENOA CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I should like to ask my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, if he would bring down for the information of the House the aide-memoire presented by Lloyd George to the Cannes Conference which laid the foundation for the Conference that is being opened in Genoa to-day; and also if he would bring down a copy of the resolutions passed at the Cannes Conference. I think we are entitled to this information since Canada is being represented at the Genoa Conference. If he could bring these memoranda and resolutions down to-morrow and have them incorporated in Hansard, the material would be available for hon. members' information and consideration in relation to this very important conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure my hon. friend that I shall have this information brought down to-morrow. I think it is in the Department of External Affairs at present.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that these documents have already been published in the British press so there is no reason why they should not be laid on the Table.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House proceeded to Government Notices of Motion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to amend the motion which appears on page 22 of the Orders of the Day, so that the motion will read:
That when this House adjourns on Tuesday, the 11th instant, it stand adjourned until Wednesday, the 19th instant.
I might say that I have been consulted on this matter and that all parties are agreed to the change being made.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House returned to "Orders of the Day."


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Wentworth Barnes.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Hazel Mc-Inally.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Edward Lovell.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Elizabeth Lillian Sharpe.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Percival Andrew Jamieson.-Mr. Macdonald (Pic-tou).
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Frederick Henry Gill.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Blanche Elizabeth Macdonell.-Mr. Clark.
Bill	No.	37,	for	the	relief	of	Frank
Charles Butt.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Edward Sidney John Turpin.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill	No.	40,	for	the	relief	of	Albert
Bethune Carley.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Ernest Zu-felt.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill	No.	42,	for	the	relief	of	Harry
Johns Leach.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Nellie Berry. -Mr. Church.

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1,	What was the total cost of the Milk inquiry held by Major Duncan Stewart in Calgary, Alherta, from January 23, 1920 to June 17, 1921?
2.	What amount did Major Duncan Stewart receive per day for his services, and what was the total amount received by him?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	$701.
2.	$20 per diem if occupied a whole day on investigation, and a proportionate amount when occupied part of the day. The total amount received by him was $701.
Questions


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Was the Dominion Government represented at the first International Labour Conference held at Washington in October and November, 1919?
2.	Were the provincial governments represented at the said Conference?
3.	Was a draft convention passed at the said conference committing the Governments represented at the conference to the acceptance of an eight-hour working day, as recommended by article four hundred and twenty-seven of the Treaty of Versailles?
4.	What action has been taken or is contemplated by the Dominion Government to give effect in Canada to any such draft convention?
5.	Pending the passage of legislation, will the Government give instructions to have an eight-hour day put into effect on all Government works, whether performed by day labour or under contract?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The provincial governments were not represented in the conference, as the provinces are not members of the international labour organization. They were, however, represented in the Canadian delegation to the conference, since on the invitation of the Dominion Government each provincial government named an adviser to the Dominion Government delegates.
3.	and 4. A draft convention was passed, Canada participating as a federal state and subject to the limitations as to federal states in these matters set forth in Article 405 of the Treaty of Versailles. The Department of Justice having decided that the subject dealt with fell within provincial authority, the Dominion Government referred the draft convention to the several provincial governments as the authorities competent in the matter. Consideration is being given at the present time to suggestions which have been received from certain of the provincial governments for calling a conference for discussion of this matter between the Dominion and the provinces.
5,	The practice with respect to works performed for the Dominion Government requires that the working hours shall be in conformity with the practice or law of the locality. Since the provinces are understood to have the representations of the convention under present consideration, in the opinion of the Government a change of practice or policy at the present time might only serve to create a misconception and confusion or to prejudice the position of the provinces in dealing with this matter.


POST OFFICES-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What is the gross revenue of the following post offices in British Columbia for the last 
fiscal year-Courtenay, Union Bay, Ashcroft, Ladysmith, Port Alberni?
2.	Which of these offices are located in buildings owned by the federal authorities?
3.	If the answers to questions one and two show that Courtenay has the largest postal revenue of those named, and is the only one not located in a building owned by the federal Government, will the Government place an item in the Estimates to erect a post office at Courtenay?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Revenue for eleven months, 1st April, 1921, to 28th February, 1922: Ashcroft, $4,371.87; Courtenay, $6,073.92; Ladysmith, $6,526.54; Port Alberni, $4,267.18; Union Bay, $1,954.37. As the cash accounts from these offices have not been received covering the period to the 31st March, 1922, it is impossible to make out the revenue for the year ended on that date.
2.	Union Bay, Ashcroft, Ladysmith, and Port Alberni.
3.	When expenditure on new works can be resumed, matter will be considered.
Mr. ERNEST LAMONTAGNE


Mr. DENIS (St. Denis) :: 1.	Is Mr. Ernest Lamontagne at present employed in the Montreal Post Office?
2.	If so, does he hold a position as senior clerk at Station N?
3.	When was he first made a senior clerk?
4.	Who did he replace?
5.	What position did the said Lamontagne previously occupy?
6.	Did he pass any examinations?
7.	Was public notice given by the Civil Service Commission of the vacancy?
8.	If so, how many applications were received?
9.	Was an examination set for the position?
10.	If not, what were the qualifications of the said Ernest Lamontagne to fill the position?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, senior postal clerk.
3.	1st December, 1921.
4., Mr. Joseph Hebert, who was demoted.
5.	Postal clerk.
6.	Qualifying examinations, 1915.
7.	Yes, it was advertised as a promotion competition among the permanent employees of the Montreal post office.
8.	Thirty-three applications.
9.	An examination of the relative experience of the candidates, together with a rating on their seniority and efficiency and fitness, was the determining factor of the examination. Written tests are generally objected to by the employees in the case of promotion competitions, and these are resorted to only when absolutely necessary.
10.	Answered by No. 9.

Questions


CARRIAGE OF MAILS
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	What railway companies carry His Majesty's mails in Canada?
2.	What are the details of existing contracts and on what dates do they terminate?
3.	Does the Government intend to make arrangements to have alii mails carried by the Canadian National Railways where possible?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The following railway companies carry His Majesty's mails in Canada:- Alberta and Great Waterways.
Algoma Central and Hudson Bay. Algoma Eastern.
British Columbia Electric.
British Yukon.
Canada Central.
Canadian National (Canadian Northern Division).
Canadian National (Grand Trunk Pacific Division).
Canadian National (Canadian Government Railways Division).
Cape Breton Electric.
Central Vermont.
Chatham, Wallaeeburg and Lake Erie Electric.
Cumberland and Coal Company.
Dominion Atlantic.
Edmonton-Dunvegan and British Columbia.
Grand River.
Grand Trunk.
Great Northern.
Hamilton and Dundas.
Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric.
Hamilton Radial.
Hull Electric.
Hydro Electric.
International Electric.
Inverness Railway and Coal Company. Kent Northern.
Kettle Valley.
London and Port Stanley Main Central.
Maritime Coal and Power Company. Michigan Central.
Montreal and Southern Counties. Napierreville Junction.
Nelson and Fort Sheppard.
New Westminster Southern.
New York Central.
Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Electric.
Northern Pacific.
Pacific Great Eastern.
Pere Marquette.
Port Arthur and Fort William Electric.
Quebec Central.
Quebec, Light and Power.
Quebec, Montreal and Southern.
Quebec, Oriental and Atlantic, Quebec and Western.
Sydney and Louisburg.
Temiscouata.
Timiskaming and Northern Ontario.
Thousand Islands.
Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo.
Toronto Suburban.
Toronto and York Radial.
Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern.
Wellington Collier.
Wellington and Waterloo.
Windsor, Essex and Lake Erie.
2.	Contracts are not entered into with railways for carrying His Majesty's mails, the conveyance of such mails being provided for by Section 115, of the Post Office Act, which reads as follows:-
His Majesty's mail and persons travelling therewith on postal service, shall, at all times when thereunto required by the Postmaster General, be carried on any steamship or steamboat navigating the waters of Canada, and on any railway in Canada, and with the whole resources of the railway company if required, on such terms and conditions and under such regulations as are made by the Governor in Council.
Mail services on railways are established or terminated in accordance with the requirements of the Postal Service, and the detail thereof authorized by Order in Council.
Payment for conveyance of mail by railways is made on a car mile basis, and the existing rates per mile authorized by Order in Council P.C. 472, of the 19th February, 1921, in effect since the 1st of March, 1921, are as follows:-
For a full postal car service 34-7e. per car mile For an apartment postal car
service	19-52c.	"
For service by baggage car 8-67c.	"
For special train ordered by
the department	$2.71 per train mile
For special passenger trains 2.17	"
3.	Instructions issued under date of 13th December, 1920, by the then Minister of Railways and Canals were to the effect that the Post Office Department should see that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway were fairly treated in connection with mail service- neither given an unfair advantage. In every case the department is governed by the requirements of the postal service in the territory served by the railway. Any further intention on the part of the Government will be announced in due course.
Questions


CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT FUND
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	In what year was the Civil Service Retirement Fund established?
2.	What is the rate of deduction from the salaries of civil servants coming under such fund?
3.	What is the total amount of said Retirement Fund now held by the Department of Finance?
4.	What is the rate of interest allowed to civil servants upon Retirement Funds deductions from their salaries?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	1898.
2.	Five per cent of the amount of salary.
3.	As shown by the books of the Finance Department, March 31, 1922, $8,680,112.76.
4.	Five per cent, per annum credited half-yearly.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-SECRETARY
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Has the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission been classified?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What was his salary on April 1, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?
4.	Did he receive any back pay?
5.	If so, what amount?
6.	At what date, month and year?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Parliament of Canada, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. (see classification volume adopted 10th November, 1919).
3.	April 1918, $4,000; 1919, $4,260; 1920, $4,400; 1921, $4,620; 1922 $5,100.
4.	Yes.
5.	$960.
6.	31st December, 1921.


TAX FREE BONDS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What amount of tax free bonds mature on or before December 1, 1922?
2.	How does the Government propose to meet this indebtedness?
3.	If by refunding with a new issue of bonds will the new issue be tax free?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$182,834,500.
2.	The Government is contemplating the issuing of a loan, the precise amount of which has not yet been determined.
3.	It is not the intention to issue tax free bonds.


EXCHANGE ON SOLDIERS' PAY
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	During demobilization after the late war, and when Canadian soldiers and their dependents were being paid their gratuity in England, did they receive the benefit arising out of the value of exchange?
2.	If not, who received such benefit?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1 and 2. In all cases of money transferred to Canada they had the privilege of converting sums in sterling, representing pay, allowances or gratuities, into Canadian dollars at par of exchange.


ST. JOHN INCOME TAX OFFICE
Mr. LEGER:: 1.	What are the names of the persons employed in the Income Tax office in the city of St. John, New Brunswick?
2.	How many employees have been taken on in this office since December 6, 1921, what are their names and date of appointment?
3.	Does this department come under the Civil Service Commission?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	N. P. Mcleod, R. D. Hoben, H. C. Wilson, W. H. Estabrooks, E. B. Clark, H. P. Henderson, A. C. Turner, C. E. H. Corbett, O. A. Reid, G. A. Spicer, F. W. Lanyon, K. W. Lingley, G. M. Thompson, N. L. Lewis, N. H. Sancton, A. E. Hawkins, L. F. Sewell, F. C. Mehan, C. A. Masters, A. L. Campbell, W. C. Birell, M. A. Rogers, E. Climo, N. A. Thompson, J. A. Short, G. M. Belyea, F. H. Gardner, A. A. Allingham, E. J. Nichols, A. G. Ling-ley, M. M. Calder.
2.	Fifteen. Names and dates of appointment: F. C. Meahan, 16th January, 1922; A. L. Campbell, 16th January, 1922; M. A. Rogers, 16th January, 1922; L. F. Sewell, 16th January, 1922; A. A. Allingham, 16th January, 1922; C. A. Masters, 16th January, 1922; E. J. Nichols, 23rd January, 1922; W. C. Birell, 23rd January, 1922; F. H. Gardner, 23rd January, 1922; E. Climo, 23rd January, 1922; N. A. Thompson, 23rd January, 1922; G. M. Belyea, 1st February, 1922; J. A. Short, 1st February, 1922; A. G. Lingley, 6th February, 1922; M. M. Calder, 13th February, 1922; seven male clerks, all returned soldiers; eight female clerks.
3.	No.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-REPORT
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	Has the Civil Service Commission made up the yearly report as set forth in article 38b of chapter 22, 11-12 George V, showing the positions which do not come under the jurisdiction of the said commission?
2.	If so, what are the said positions?

Questions


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This information was given in report for the year 1921 of positions excluded under the provisions of section 38b from the operation of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended by chapter 22, 11-12 Geo. V, Part I in whole, Part II in part, laid before the House April 7, 1922. PARRY SOUND LIGHTHOUSE INSPECTOR


Mr. HAMMELL:: 1.	Who is the inspector of lighthouses and wharves for Parry Sound district?
2.	When was he appointed and at what salary ?
3.	Where does the said inspector reside?
4.	Who recommended the appointment?
5.	Is the said inspector any relation to the member for Parry Sound? If so, in what way?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	James Norman Arthurs.
2.	By Order in Council dated 30th July, 1915, appointment to date from the 1st April, 1915, salary $1,600 per annum.
3.	Parry Sound, Ontario.
4.	The Hon. J. D. Hazen then Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
5.	No record of such fact in department.


WARSHIPS AND TORPEDO BOATS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. PERE:
1.	Is there any agreement between the Imperial authorities and the Canadian Government to maintain the warships Aurora, Patriot and Patrician, and the three torpedo boats now in service?
2.	If so (a) when was such agreement made, and (b) of what use are the said vessels to Canada?
3.	Are the crews of the said boats composed of Canadian recruits, and are the officers graduates from the Halifax Naval College?
4.	Are officers who graduate from the Halifax Naval College able to obtain commissions in the Canadian Merchant Marine, and are they given preference over other applicants?
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1.	(b) These
vessels are of use for naval training purposes and in case of emergency for the protection of Canadian marine interests and Canadian ports.
3.	The crews of the Canadian Squadron are composed largely of Canadian recruits. Of the 21 officers. 17 are Royal Canadian Naval officers, 11 of whom were trained in the Royal Naval College. There are only four officers on loan from the Imperial navy. All officers and men loaned from the Imperial navy are being replaced by Canadians as quickly as the latter can be trained.
4.	No information.


REVENUE FROM IMPORTS
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	What was the total revenue of Canada arising from duties on imports during the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?
2.	What portion of the above revenue was represented by duties on (a) foodstuffs, (b), agricultural implements, and (c) manufactured articles exclusive of agricultural implements?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Total Customs Duty Collected:-
Fiscal Year	1919	$158,046,334Fiscal Year	1920	
187,524,182Fiscal Year	1921	
179,667,6832.	(a) Duty collected on foodstuffs:-Fiscal Year	1919	$17,740,442Fiscal Year	1920	
27,499,267Fiscal Year	1921	
20,723,408
(b) Duty collected on agricultural implements:-
Fiscal Year 1919	$ 1,572,885
Fiscal Year	1920	
1,126,137Fiscal Year	1921	
1,917,370
(c) Duty collected on manufactured articles: Information not available.


WELLAND SHIP CANAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What construction work yet remains to be done on the new Welland Ship Canal, and what work has already been completed?
2.	(a) What has been expended to date on this canal, and (b) when will it be completed and open for traffic?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to finish this canal as soon as possible?
4.	What work will be done this year?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1. Approximately 70 per cent of the total work yet remains to be done. This comprises the completion of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; the construction of sections 6, 7, 8 and 9; the lock gates, superstructures of bridges, and minor details.
Approximately 30 per cent of the total work has been completed. This comprises 63 per cent of the work on sections 1 and 2; 51 per cent of the work on sections 3 and 4; 72 per cent of the work on section 5. 2. (a) Gross amount expended to March 31,
1922	$30,588,026 07
Credit for cash received on account of plant and materials, etc., from contractors for sections 1,	2 and
5	 1,149,761 25

Questions

Less further amount to be paid by Contractors for sections 1, 2 and 5 in accordance with their contracts on account of plant, etc. $952,883.11 Less estimated value of plant, etc., to be taken over by contractors for sections 3 and 4. $2,151,655.88	3,104,538 99
Net expenditure upon work done to March 31, 1922	 26,333,725 83
which sum includes other redeemable assets.
(b) If ample funds are available for the prosecution of the work, it will be ready for traffic during the year 1927.
3.	As soon as circumstances will permit.
4.	Construction of locks on sections 1, 2 and 3; excavation upon sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.


IMPORTED LIQUORS
Henry Elvins Spencer: What was the amount of Excise Duties collected by the Dominion Government on imported liquors, by provinces, during the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: There are no excise duties on imported liquors.


CUSTOMS DRAWBACKS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	On what raw material was the drawback paid in the last year for which a complete return is made?
2.	What was the value of such raw material?
3.	What was the value of the finished articles exported ?
4.	To what countries were they exported?
5.	What was the value of the labour expended in the manufacture of such articles exported?
6.	What is the total amount of revenue collected for the year ending March 31, 1922?


Jacques Bureau: I would ask that this question pass as order for return, except clause 5, and that I ask should be dropped, as the department cannot answer it.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

['I thank the Prime Minister. I did not understand the procedure.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.\nTuesday, April 11, 1922.']
Mr. CHURCH:: What amount of money has been spent by the Government of Canada each year from 1896 to 1921 on the following harbours:-St. John, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Victoria and Vancouver?


['What amount of money has been spent by the Government of Canada each year from 1896 to 1921 on the following harbours:-St. John, Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Victoria and Vancouver?']
Mr. LOVETT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports to Council, Orders in Council, accounts and others documents, relating to the Indian Agency at Bear River, Digby County, Nova Scotia, including a list of all supplies of every description supplied for the use of Indians under the control of said agency. Also a statement showing a list of the supplies, consisting of clothing, food, seed and other materials, to whom supplied and what quantity in each case, during the period from the first of October, 1911, to and including the first of January, 1922.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: [DOT]
For a copy of the Order in Council dated April twenty-first, 1921, which provided for the distribution of the sum granted as a bonus to Civil Servants.


Mr. PUTNAM:: For a copy of all documents, contracts, agreements, correspondence, letters, memoranda and other documents, passing between the Department of Railways and Canals and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and between either of them with the various brokers and others who had to do with the placing of the loan made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company for twenty-five million dollars during the year 1921.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, including the Orders in Council, relative to the appointment and dismissal and reinstatement, as clerk, at the Montreal Post Office, of Jean Jacques Caisse.

Mounted Police


William Foster Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, rulings of the department, and all other documents regarding the claim for compensation to the owners of Crown Patents to lot two hundred and twenty-five, Hudson Bay Company's survey, in the P'arish of St. John, Manitoba.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the changing of the mail contracts at Bonaventure, Quebec, from Sylvestre Bernard to J. A. Bernard.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Post Office at Carleton, Quebec, from Bernard Leclerc to Auguste Lefebvre.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Post Office at Bonaventure, Quebec, from Charles Forest to Firmin Poirier.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Post Office at Paspebiac, Quebec, from Isidore Laundry to Nicholas Arseneau.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Port Office at Paspebiac, Quebec, from the late Mrs. J. E. Leveque to Charles Legallais.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Shigawake, Quebec, Post Office, from John A. Legallais to Jas. Poirier.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents, relating to the transfer of the Post Office at Avignon, Quebec, from Joseph Poirier to Mathias Blaquaire and Joseph Arsenault.



[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the fact that there has been a law in effect for some time protecting workmen against accidents while engaged in their work, it is desirable that same protection be afforded to all workmen contracting sickness while performing, or due to the performance of their work or trade.-Mr. Deslauriers (St. Mary).
Hewitt Bostock: In my opinion the resolution as drafted affects the civil rights of the provinces as provided in clause 92, sec. 13 of the British North America Act. If the resolution had reference to public works of the Dominion alone there could be no objection to it; but I do not think
that any resolution of this Parliament can bind the provincial governments as regards a purely civil contract.
I would rule, therefore, that the resolution be re-drafted or dropped.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be confined to Territories not included in any Province of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as there has already been some discussion regarding the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I presume it will not be necessary to deal at length with this resolution. I would point out that the original operations of the police were confined to unorganized territories and had to deal with questions affecting the pioneer settlers, and I think we all recognize that excellent work was done under the rather primitive conditions which then prevailed in the Canadian Northwest. However, after the war was over, there came a transformation in the character of that police force, and they were asked to do the work of looking after those suspected of being alien enemies, and also, a little bit later, to watch those suspected of fomenting sedition or of being connected with industrial disputes. I think, probably, enough was said the other day to illustrate that there has been what I think we might almost call an abuse of power in connection with the activities of the force. For example, literature was seized on general warrants. I know of one instance, which I may mention by way of illustration, in which a library belonging to a gentleman-now an alderman in the city of Calgary, a very estimable citizen there,-a library which he had brought out from the Old Country some years before, was seized by the Mounted Police. He has been unable to obtain any definite information with regard to what was done with his books, much less to have them returned, and I am credibly informed that some of these volumes are now in the library of the Mounted Police barracks at Calgary. Books that were seized at the time of the raids on the homes of workingmen in Winnipeg were burnt by the cart load in the public incinerator in Winnipeg. A teamster, a very religious man,
Mounted Police

rescued one of these books from the flames and brought it to me. It was a Life of Jesus. Curious that that should be one of the seditious documents taken presumably from the home of one of the workers. I know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, during the war, entered a library at Regina and took out of that library a copy of Myers' "History of Canadian Wealth" a book which was widely circulated by the Grain Growers' Guide two or three years previously-a book written largely in the library of this Parliament. Its statements are supported by documentary evidence. I do not know whether it is considered undesirable for the people to know how these huge fortunes have been built up here in Canada.
I referred on a previous occasion to the surveillance that, according to the reports of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, has been maintained on labour activities. The Labour people throughout this country resent the fact that a police force is sent to spy upon their movements. I do not read that the police have ever been detailed to be present at the meetings of, we will say, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or of the Bankers' Association, or of boards of directors of our railway companies, yet some of us might think that possibly these organizations are doing as much to stir up revolt in the minds of the common people of this country as the utterances of some obscure labour man in Prince Albert or Lethbridge. It is rather significant that, although there are so many men who have been demobilized in this country, the Government of Canada has had to pay for recruiting for this force in Great Britain. There is no doubt that the force has become one of the spending departments of the Government, nearly $4,000,000 being spent upon it last year. What province, 1 ask, really wants this force at the present time? I am quite sure that the provinces which I know best-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-are not very desirous of having it. The great majority of the people resent having the force within their provincial boundaries, and I am not at all sure that these eastern provinces have relished the idea of having a police force, operated from Ottawa, stationed in their various towns and cities. I hold in my hands a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Grand Army of United Veterans held at Toronto, February 11th, 1922, which reads:
Motion :-J. F. Marsh-J. Vallentlne, "That this Dominion Board forthwith make representa-
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
tion to the Hon. W. Mackenzie King. Premier of Canada, and his Government, requesting the advisability of demobilizing the Royal Mounted Police as at present constituted, as it is the decided opinion of this Board, after full investigation, that there is no further necessity for the services of Dominion Police in organized territory and recommend the re-organization of the Royal Canadian Northwest Mounted Police at its pre-war strength." Unanimously Carried.
I very well remember when the mounted police first came over the mountains to British Columbia, and the effect upon the workers there. We had a despatch from Ottawa stating that there would be demobilization of a very large number of returned men at the coast, that this might very likely mean unemployment, that unemployment would lead to industrial unrest, and hence that a detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were to be sent over the mountains to British Columbia. I think hon. gentlemen may imagine the feelings of the returned men at the coast when it was expressly stated to them that, since they, on their return, were likely to be out of a job, they were to be clubbed into submission by thte Mounted Police. Last year nearly $4,000,000 was spent on this police force, and only a little over half a million on unemployment relief. I think it would not be asking too much to suggest that these figures should be reversed, and that the larger amount should be spent in trying to relieve unemployment, rather than in being prepared to club the desperate unemployed into submission.
The last point which I make is that, after all, according to the division of functions in federal and provincial affairs, it has generally been considered that the administration of justice lay with the provinces and not with the federal authorities, and I take it that we would be proceeding on safe ground if we did not further centralize power in federal government with regard to the administration of justice. Those of us who knew anything of the inside of. the industrial dispute in Winnipeg in 1919 recognized very 4 p.m. clearly that it was a very dangerous precedent when the then Minister of Justice appointed a deputy minister in the city of Winnipeg and proceeded to administer justice within the province of Manitoba. My resolution calls for the placing of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on their pre-war basis. The force was organized to deal with conditions in unorganized territory where there was no proper police provision. Since that time the Canadian Northwest has been organized into provinces and each province now

Mounted Police
has its own provincial police force. I would urge upon this House that the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be again restricted within the bounds of territories not yet organized into provinces.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : This is a much larger question than may appear on the surface. My hon. friend has referred to the pre-war basis of the Northwest Mounted Police. The House will understand that prior to 1920 Canada had two forces, one known as the Dominion Police and the other as the Northwest Mounted Police. In 1920 these two forces were amalgamated under the title of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They are, to all intents and purposes, at the present time, one force, but the Mounted Police proper does not comprise the full number of the men who now form the united organization. The passing by this House of a resolution demanding that the government restrict the activities of this force to the unorganized territories would hamper the government to a large extent in carrying out the policy which it hopes to make definite before many months. Speaking technically, on absolutely legal or constitutional grounds, my hon. friend is right that the provinces ought to look after the maintaining of order within their several territories. As I pointed out the other day, several of the prime ministers of the various provinces have suggested to the government that they do not go as far as this resolution would indicate, but that while agreeing to lessen the number of these forces, they would be loath to see the entire force of the Mounted Police withdrawn from their provinces, particularly from some parts of it. It is not easy just at the moment to take a definite stand as to these particular provinces. Even to-day I received a letter from the president of a board of trade in an important town in Ontario, begging me that, whatever else might be done, we should not withdraw the Mounted Police from that territorr and giving the reasons for it. I have a great many letters of this kind from mayors and private citizens. These are questions that we must carefully consider when the time comes for action in reference to this body knowm as the Mounted Police. I agree that constitutionally my hon. friend is absolutely right, but in working out the affairs, particularly of a new country, we
are not always safe in adhering to the letter of the constitution. Sometimes we even have to violate almost the letter of the law, in order to be practical. I think the most practical magistrate I ever knew in my life knew the least law of any magis. trate that had ever held office in Ontario. It was in a part of the country where every day common sense sometimes over-rode the law.
As to the amount of money spent on the Mounted Police, I can assure the house that the Government has in mind greatly reducing this amount of expenditure. We believe the time has come-and I think the House will agree with that conclusion'- when the force known as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can be greatly reduced, and if parliament had not urged strongly that the management of this force should be taken out of the Militia Department, I had hoped to have some suggestion to make along that line; but the House having taken this attitude, we will have to begin over again, and it will take a little longer. I might take the House into my confidence to this extent, to say that I have asked Deputy Commissioner Starnes to suggest a plan for the reduction of his force in order to bring it nearer into conformity with the present-day need. I would assure my hon. friend and the House that, so far as practicable, we intend to confine the activities of the force to the unorganized territory, but in some instances the work Which I believe ought to be done will be greatly hampered if the House pass this resolution and tie the hands of the Government.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) :: I referred the other day to this question, and I say that I entirely disagree with the principle laid down, that the administration of the law is a matter for the provinces. As the Dominion increases in importance and in subjects that are within its jurisdiction, it must maintain order, peace and good government throughout its area. I entirely dissent from the statement that the provinces are to be the interpreters of the rights and the duties of the federal government. The special officers of the Attorney General of the United States, backed by the thousands of special agents, under them, were in Washington throughout the whole of the Disarmament Conference, and were responsible for the maintenance of peace and order while that conference lasted. The President, the Attorney General, and all his attorneys in the United States are thor-
Mounted Police

oughly organized to preserve good government, and I should not be .surprised to see the President, before this week is over, take charge of the mines of the United States if the disturbances increase. In the early history of the American Union the responsibility rested mainly upon the states to see that peace and order were observed. But in the one hundred and fifty years' experience of that country the federal power has been gradually growing, the number of federal courts has increased, the number of officers necessary for the enforcement of federal law greatly added to, and more and more responsibility has been placed on the Attorney General through the hundreds of officers and local attorneys under him. The jurisdiction of the federal courts has also 'been gradually extended, and it has been found absolutely necessary to have not only attorneys, and local courts, but all the machinery essential for the proper enforcement of federal decrees. The same thing is coming in Canada. We have taken over the railways, and our federal laws concerning those railways cannot be properly administered except through the aid of a federal force. All through the war, whenever any consignment of money was entrusted to the express companies, there were always two members of the Mounted Police force to take charge of it. I have myself seen these escorts on trains coming into Ottawa. We have an Attorney General in Canada who is responsible for the administration of federal law, and in the Old Country there is an Attorney General for Scotland and one for Ireland.


Mr. GRAHAM:: There are no provincial governments there.
Mr. MACLEAN (York); Scotland and Ireland have their Attorneys General and local organizations. But here is the point: Scotland Yard is at the disposal of the Attorney General of either Scotland] or Ireland ,for the preservation of law and order in their respective territories. The more I observe the trend of things the more am I convinced of the necessity for a police force of some kind for the proper enforcement of federal law. There are thousands of officers now in the United States Who have been appointed for the sole purpose of enforcing the prohibition law; and so long as federal laws are being enacted, and new social problems connected with government are cropping up, the more responsibility will the federal power find itself compelled

to shoulder. I should not like to see the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Prime Minister of Canada without an efficient police force at his disposal. I do not propose for one moment to justify what has been done in cases that have provoked criticism, and for that reason I shall say nothing regarding the use of federal officers for putting the law into effect in Winnipeg during the strike; I shall say nothing regarding the requests of various people scattered throughout the Dominion for a federal force; nor will ,1 refer to the action of the federal force in the past. I do think, however, that there should have been more courage in the defence of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) in advocating the maintenance of the force. I agree with him that it should1 be cut down in the interest of economy. But, I repeat, you cannot have a federal power without some kind of police force to Carry out its decrees. I do not suppose there were twenty federal officers in the United States in the early days of that country, but today there is an immense organization and secret service force at the disposal of the Attorney General, besides millions of money. If we in Canada desire to vindicate the British North America Act we must stand by the federal power and provide the necessary machinery to enforce the laws which the federal Parliament enacts. We have a Supreme Court, a Court of Exchequer, a Board of Railway Commissioners, and we have a minister in this House charged with the collection of customs duties and the putting down of smuggling and all illicit business of that kind. Let us, therefore, strengthen the hands of those who are charged with the enforcement of these laws. The provinces do not like to enforce federal laws, and there is the expense in connection therewith to be considered. The municipalities evade their responsibilities in 'some cases, and to-day in Ontario we find Mr. Drury putting through the legislature a law for the establishment of a provincial police with men scattered throughout the province for the enforcement of provincial law. That is only another form of the same problem we have here. If you undertake the responsibility, as the federal authority, of enforcing the decrees of your courts, you have also to assume the responsibility of maintaining peace and order and good government, if the provincial authorities fail to undertake that responsibility; and especially you have to assume this responsibility now in view of

Mounted Police
the great developments along these lines which have taken place in the United States. I have already referred to the precautions taken by the United States Government while the Conference for Disarmament was being held in Washington, to prevent bombing outrages or any other attempts to disturb its proceedings. As a result of a long-drawn-out legal fight between the federal and state authorities, the States Rights party of the United States has absolutely broken down for all time.
That is the situation in the United States, and we are reaching pretty much the same state of affairs here. While I do not dispute what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Woodsworth) has said with regard to recent strikes, I do not think he has made out a case against the continued maintenance of the mounted police for the preservation of peace, order and good government. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) has not had the courage to state what his views are in relation to this question. But he must know that some such force is absolutely necessary for the purposes I have enumerated, and that it should be under the administration of either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to the strike of 1919. In my judgment what happened there in that year is the best argument that can be advanced for the maintenance of the Mounted Police as an efficient force to uphold law and order. Let us recall for a moment what took place there. An incipient revolution broke out; the municipal authorities were unable to control the situation; the men who planned the revolution had the local police under their control-they went on strike. The provincial authorities were unable to restore order, and if it had not been for the Mounted Police and for the action taken by the federal authorities, we would have had Soviet government in Manitoba.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what was aimed at, Mr. Speaker; there cannot be any doubt about that. If the attempted revolution had succeeded, the aim of those promoting it was to extend it to every city in the Dominion. Well, if we should have a recurrence of a similar trouble, and if the municipality was unable to act because its police force was corrupted, and the provincial authorities were powerless to restore order, what would happen unless you had a force capable and well-trained to cope with such a situation? I know there are some men in this country who would abolish all police forces, and those are the type of men who are trying to destroy the municipal police as a force for the maintenance of order. Now, I do not believe that the men who talk in that way in the name of Labour represent Labour in this country at all. I sit in this House, Sir, for a constituency in which there are 80,000 working people.


An hon. MEMBER:: It must be Toronto.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I sit for a constituency in the city of Toronto a mile and a quarter square, with not a vacant lot in it, and scarcely a man there but works for his daily bread. So I claim that I can represent Labour on the floor of this House as well as any other member. I go further, Sir, I say that I am as good a friend of Labour as there is in this House. And I have a record as a labour man and as a friend of Labour that I will set against the record of my hon. friend any day. Further, in the city of Toronto, where my record is known, the labour men trust me as their friend. I have, I suppose, a larger number of foreign workingmen in my riding than are to he found in any other constituency in Ontario, if not in the Dominion. At least, from twenty-five to thirty per cent of my constituents are of foreign origin. A few of them talk red revolution and Sovietism, but they are only a handful and do not represent the working people of this country. And if there is a constituency which will send men here who believe in Sovietism and red revolution, why, that only emphasizes the necessity of maintaining the Mounted Police as an efficient force for the preservation of law and order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a point of order. Does the hon. member imply that I stand for Sovietism and red revolution?


Hewitt Bostock: There is no such implication contained in anything I have heard falling from the lips of the hon. member for West Toronto.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am very glad to hear it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member " doth protest too much." He is too sensitive on that particular point.

Mounted Police

I want to argue for the continuance of the Mounted Prfliee as an efficient federal force, and, that the recent history of this country proves that the continuance of that force is absolutely necessary; and I referred to what took place in the city of Winnipeg in 1919 to confirm my argument.
As the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) has pointed out, a very large part of the work of this force is that of secret service. Perhaps my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg would say there is no necessity for a secret service; but looking over some of the events that have happened lately, I think such a service is essential, and if we are to have a secret service, what better type of men could one assign to it than the men who have been trained in the traditions of the Northwest Mounted Police? There is a force that throughout its history has won the confidence, respect and admiration not only of the people of this country, but of other countries as well, especially of the United States, where the administration of justice has come in comparison with the administration of justice in the Dominion. To confine the activities of this force to the Arctic Circle would be a very grave mistake, and I think it is absolutely necessary to have on hand as an efficient secret service, and as a force that can give the requisite service in cases of emergency, this Mounted Police force.
When my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg assumes to speak for Labour in this country, I do not think that he is representing it at all. He certainly is not representing what is known as international trades unionism, the only sane kind of unionism that we have in this country. I am an advocate of international trades unionism because it believes in the fulfilment of contracts,- they were the men in the city of Winnipeg who were forced by their international office to go back and keep the contracts that they had entered into. I say that labour operated under principles of that kind will strengthen the position of the workingmen, make him respected all over Canada, and give him a place and standing in the community that he can never have if he runs wild and follows the lead of Red agitators.


Mr. IRVINE:: I would like to ask the
hon. member if the international trades union movement in Toronto has endorsed him as their labour representative?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say this in reply to
that question: international trades unionism has not endorsed any candidate in this House, but I represent more international trades unionism in this House than my hon. friend does from his constituency. I will go further than that:	if. my hon.
friend could take a poll of international trades unionism in Toronto I would get more votes than any man in competition. I would get them on my record, a record of friendship for the cause of Labour; because I know what it is to work for wages, to work longer hours than my hon. friend ever worked, and to make sacrifices that I am afraid my hon. friend never made. That is why, Sir, in my city I have the confidence of the men who are connected with the international trades unionism of Toronto.
I submit that the history of this country during the past few years proves that whatever else we hare in the way of police and national defence, we have to maintain the Mounted Police as a numerous and efficient body-as numerous as the requirements call for, and as efficient as it has been throughout all its history.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before the question is put, I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to a point which may possibly have escaped his notice and also the notice of the House. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be confined to territories not included in any province of Canada.
In proposing this motion, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg1, (Mr. Woods-worth) has, no doubt, regarded the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as being identical with the old Royal Northwest Mounted Police. If so, I should inform him that two years ago, by Act of this Parliament, the nature and complexion of the force was considerably changed. The name was changed from "Royal Northwest Mounted Police" to "Royal Canadian Mounted Police"; and subsequently, under certain powers conferred on the Governor-inCouncil by statute, the Dominion Police were welded in as part of the Royal Canadian Police. To-day, therefore, what was the old Dominion Police, the men who amongst other duties have to do with the policing of Parliament Hill and the Government buildings, are part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and if the resolution were to be carried in its present form the police who appear round these

Mounted Police
buildings would under its terms have to be abolished. I may say to my hon. friend that there were a good many who expressed doubt as to wisdom of the course the Government of the day was nursing in changing the headquarters of the Mounted Police to Ottawa and merging the old Dominion Police with the new organization.
As the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) explained this afternoon, the Government has under consideration certain changes in regard to this force. Many of us are strongly of the view that the old Dominion Police should be distinct altogether from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that is one of the matters under consideration in connection with the readjustment of these forces. With that explanation, I think my hon. friend's purpose may have been served in the discussion which we have had. I do not think the motion should be allowed to carry in its present form without the House understanding that it would abolish the forces used for Dominion Police purposes, as well as those used in the provinces for the purposes of the Mounted Police generally.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I find myself in general sympathy with the purpose of this resolution, although I cannot by any means agree with some of the arguments that my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has advanced in support of it. I stated my position on this question the other day when the bill of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) to amalgamate the defence arms of Canada was before the House. I wish briefly to re-state that position: I consider it is no part of the business of the federal government to do police work in the provinces, and it is on that ground that I think the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be confined to the unorganized territories. I agree with the view expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-well, I shall not refer to it as his view, because I did not understand that he expressed it as the opinion of the Government; but it is my view-that the Dominion Police that formerly did the work of policing the Government buildings and carried out the secret service work of the Government, should be dissociated from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and restored to the position it formerly occupied.
The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has argued, with his usual vigour, that the federal government should make provision for federal enforcement of
53i
federal laws. That was not the understanding at the time the Dominion of Canada was formed; the enforcement of law was left to the provinces; and I think there it should remain. As to the part played by the Northwest Mounted Police in the Winnipeg strike or in connection with the other troublous periods through which we have passed, no blame can attach to them, for they simply carried out orders. The police must always carry out orders given to them by those charged with the responsibility of seeing that the law is enforced. I am not arguing on the merits or demerits of the Winnipeg case; I merely wish to lay that down as the consideration that should govern in the matter.
The item of expense is a very considerable one. We are asked to vote this year almost $3,000,000 for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and in view of this circumstance-I express my own personal view alone-I submit that the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as they are ordinarily understood, should be confined to the unorganized territories and that the Dominion Police should be re-established to do the work that they have always done around Ottawa and as well the secret service work of the Government.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) raised the point that a police force of this kind was necessary to maintain law and order, to meet emergencies such as, he said, existed in Winnipeg in 1919-although my own view is that he has somewhat overdrawn the picture in respect to that occasion. But we had the means of meeting such emergencies before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were located at Ottawa; the militia of Canada could be called out to maintain law and order in such cases, if the municipal or provincial authority was unable to do so. I do not like the idea of developing the notion throughout this Dominion that the federal government should be charged with the enforcement of law that hitherto has rested in the provinces alone.


Hewitt Bostock: It is my duty to point out that clause 4 of rule 21 provides:
In all cases the reply of the mover of the original! motion closes the debate, but it is the duty of Mr. Speaker to see that every Member wishing to speak has the opportunity to do so before the final reply.
So, if any other hon. gentleman wishes to speak before the mover closes the debate, he must do so now.
Mounted Police


William Irvine: I do not think it is necessary to debate the resolution very much particularly as there has been no very serious objection offered to it. The position of the Government, as it has been expressed, is towards the object of the resolution, I gather. I am also in agreement with the statement that has been made by the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Crerar).
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), however, presumed to state a case to the House and endeavoured to prove the absolute necessity for this particular force being retained in its present function and control. As that has been the only argument that has been advanced against the resolution, it might be well for me simply to point out-although I do not think it is really necessary, because I am sure the House saw for itself-that the hon. member failed absolutely to establish his case. He did tell us that there was an incipient revolution at Winnipeg at a certain time, but he failed entirely to prove it. I think I am as near the truth when I say there was no incipient revolution in Winnipeg, and still nearer the truth when I say that the trouble in Winnipeg, so far as prolonging the disorder was concerned, was actually due to the action of the Mounted Police. Therefore I claim that the point that the hon. member for West Toronto attempted to make was not established at all. His boasting about his ability to get votes may have some bearing on this subject, although I must confess I fail to see what, but inasmuch as he has introduced that point, I might say that it is not a conclusive proof of the intelligence of the men of the labour movement at Toronto that they should give the hon. member more votes than anybody else. I have my doubts, however, about his endor-sation by the organized labour movement of that city and their anxiety to get votes for him. I have the honour to be one of the representatives of the organized labour movement of Canada, that sane labour movement to which he refers, and I believe that that sane labour movement would concur in the spirit of the resolution before the House, that there is no necessity for duplicating our forces, but that, on the other hand, it would probably lead to much conflict between the provincial and Dominion authorities, and that it would be better that the Mounted Police should fulfil its function of policing the territories that are not now under the provincial government.

One more thing and I am through. The hon. member for West Toronto also made another wise statement. He said that he knew of a great number of people who wanted to do away with all police whatsoever. If he knows people of that kind, they must be in Toronto; I do not know anywhere else where they could be. I want to dissociate myself from any such people. We recognize, of course, the necessity for maintaining law and order, and are just as ready to see that that is done as my hon. friend. There is no implication in this resolution that police forces should be eliminated. The resolution merely seeks to define what shall be the real function of this force, whether it shall be continued as ' a spy system on the labour forces of this country, or whether it shall be confined to its original and proper function of policing the unorganized territories of Canada.


Mr. JOHN MORRISON (Weyburn) :: I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) have, of course, a full right to their opinions and to their expression in this House, and I hope that they will accord to me and others the same privilege. I have lived in the West for twenty-three years and have seen quite a bit of the workings of the Northwest Mounted Police out there, having been a justice of the peace for a few years. I cannot agree with my friends who are representing Labour in this House in the accusations they have made against the Northwest Mounted Police. I have seen those men abused when they were trying to carry out their duty, but I have never seen them fail in the discharge of their duty. I have never seen them oppress people. I have seen them handled pretty rough and when they have had to fight back, but I think any man who is worth anything will fight back when he has to. I think the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg is prejudiced against the force because of his experience with it during the Winnipeg strike. My hon. friend says that there was no incipient revolution at Winnipeg. Now I have a card here that was issued at the time of the Winnpeg strike, and I want to read it so that everybody can judge for himself as to the nature of that movement. It was issued to the lumber camps throughout British Columbia and is the same as was issued in Winnipeg, I am told. It reads as follows:

Mounted Police
Workers!
Your recent fight by means of the "strike" to secure an eight-hour day and better working conditions has failed. You know the reason. Lack of courage on the part of some mill men and the importation of scabs-spineless creatures. However, there is no need to be discouraged as the fight is not yet lost- You have another weapon, and a good one, sabotage. Lay down on the job. Sabotage by a hundred and one tricks resulting in the withdrawal of efficiency. You can win and kick the boss in the ribs at the same time.
The real loggers are leaving the G.T.P. and the boss can not make out with prairie chickens.
That was the name for the homesteaders who took the place of the strikers. It goes on:
Lay down on the job!
In a short time the boss will realize that it is better to give eight hours, dean camps, better conditions and good food all round and thus get the real loggers to stay, than to mush around with prairie chickens and bush-whacking homesteaders.
Lay down on the job !
Get fired. What of it? You don't own that job. It is lent to you only so long as you produce profits for the boss.
Lay down on the job!
It is your most potent weapon. Go to it. Most of the bosses along the line are not worth 30 cents. Bust'em! The one you can't bust you can get fired. Hutton for instance.
That is where I picked up this card.


William Irvine: What is the hon. member quoting from and when was it written?


John Morrison: If the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) will keep quiet and listen, he will find out.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not competent for an hon. member to interrupt unless with the permission of the hon. gentleman who is addressing the House.


John Morrison: The card goes on:
Lay down on the job. Sabotage !
Ask your fellow worker how the woods and mill mens' strike was won in Washington, Idaho, in 1917. Lay down on the job. Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing but your chains to lose and the whole world to gain.
Now those men were threatening to burn the sawmill with the consequent destruction of a million dollars worth of property, and we had to use force to quell the disturbance. We could not get the provincial police, we could not get the Mounted Police-they were all busy. I have quoted this card to show hon. members that this was an attempt at breaking down that law and order which most of us are standing up for and whose observance we are trying to maintain. It is all well enough to say that the local authorities can deal with a
situation when it arises; but I agree with the hon. member from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) that there are times when the Mounted Police can control disorder much more efficiently than the local police, and they have done it on many occasions.
My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg said that most of the people do not want the Mounted Police. I do not know on what foundations he bases his claim to speak for the majority of the people, or where he obtains the evidence that they sympathize with his view. I think they do want the Mounted Police. There were four millions spent in 1921 on the force the hon. gentleman says, and less than half a million on employment doles. Well, it is too bad we have to spend such a sum as four millions, but as long as there are such disorders as those to which I have referred I would be willing to spend twice that amount in order to maintain order. I am friendly to Labour but I am not in sympathy with them when they take such a course as I have pointed out. I am a Labour man and to some extent a capitalist too; but I have to work and I would like the little money I have to earn something too. I do not want conditions to prevail under which there would be no security for a man's home or his business.
In Winnipeg, during the strike, defiance of law and order were manifested. The operation of public services of all kinds was stopped and there was even interference with the delivery of milk to the hospitals. If such a thing as that does not constitute a hardship for poor people I do not know the real definition of the term. -1 think the labour people have been very poorly led. If I -submitted to the leadership of others for twenty-five years and at the end of that time found myself penniless whilst those leaders were in comfortable circumstances I would think I had been misled. To my mind the gentlemen who have been speaking for Labour are not in reality Labour's true friends; they are mistaken in the methods they advocate for curing the evils of which they complain. Most of us wish to see better conditions brought about for labour-most of us indeed labour ourselves-but there is a proper way to bring about that improvement. To protest against the police and to abuse them-and I am sorry to say that some critics are all too prone to follow that course-will never result in improved conditions. I think it is far easier to get those in authority to listen to reason than
Mounted Police

ignorant labouring men such as are engaged in fomenting strikes of the character described. Personally, I stand for the maintenance of the Mounted Police in Canada.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) :: I represent the constituency described in this resolution as "territory not included in any province of Canada," and I propose to speak to this motion although it is not of so much importance to me as it is to members representing provincial constituencies. As a Canadian, and as a resident of British Columbia, I wish to say that I would be very sorry indeed to see the Royal Cana-' dian Mounted Police removed from that province. It is admitted I think, even by the mover of the present resolution, that the force should not be removed from unorganized territories. Having resided, for the past twenty years in a territory where there was no other police force than the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, I can speak with experience when I say that that force, at all times and under all circumstances, has discharged its duty in a manner which merits hearty commendation rather than criticism or abuse. The Northwest Mounted Police, as has already been said this afternoon, has excited the admiration not only of Canadians but of people throughout the length and breadth of the world as an efficient and admirable force. My experience of their conduct has been gained as a citizen and from practice in the courts where I have assisted, or have opposed, the police in various prosecutions; and I can say without hesitation that on all occasions they have conducted themselves in a manner that is above criticism. Even in cases where the evidence in their possession showed the accused to be a criminal they have invariably acted with perfect fairness; and I have never seen them hesitate to bring forward evidence tending to indicate innocence as well as evidence pointing to guilt-their submission of cases in the courts has been invariably characterized by fairness. After such an experience of the conduct of the force as that I am bound say that when I hear undeserved criticisms directed at the force it excites a suspicion in me as to the reason for such action. If we have in this Dominion forces that would upset legally constituted authority, or would proceed in other than a constitutional and legal way, and a Dominion force is required to prevent their activities I say that the operations of the Mounted 
Police should be continued throughout the length and breadth of Canada. After all, who is the best judge as to whether this force is needed or not? I say the Government of the day is the best qualified to pronounce upon that point; and if the Government, after advice from the Department of Justice, feels that it requires this force it is perfectly justified in maintaining it. Furthermore I have not the slightest doubt that if any one province of Confederation intimated to the federal authorities that the presence of the Mounted Police was distasteful the Dominion government would not hesitate one moment in removing the force from that province. I think the question can very well be left in the hands of the Government of the day regardless of what its political views may be. The Mounted Police throughout all the years of its existence has not been administered in the interests of any particular party. It has been the same fine force, all through the years of its history, regardless of the political views of those at the head of affairs of the Dominion, and I say we can very well leave this matter in the hands of the Government of the day. If the federal government thinks it needs the force it will continue it: if it thinks the force is not required it will remove it or cut its strength down to the number required. Personally I believe it would be unwise to handicap any government by passing such a resolution as this at the present time.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: I was in Winnipeg during the strike to which allusion has been made this afternoon and I think I can give unprejudiced testimony as to what happened. Living four hundred miles from that city and being there at the time on a visit I was not in the same inflamed state of mind as perhaps some of the parties to the controversy were. I want to say for the information of those who got their impressions of what occurred at that time through the press, that the disturbance in Winnipeg was subsequent to the action taken by the Mounted Police and not prior to it. As an unprejudiced, and I hope fair-minded, witness. I believe sincerely that there would have been no disturbance whatever had the Mounted Police not intervened.
I was in Winnipeg for two days, which included the time of the strike, and I never missed a single meal. I enjoyed all the comforts of life during that period, and I

Mounted Police
never perceived at any moment anything like an incipient revolution. I agree with the statement of the labour member from Winnipeg, when he says that the labour men are not of the type that would be implied from the speech of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). These men are so much in earnest that they sometimes become extremists, yet I believe they belong to the type of sane labour representatives. I desire to give my personal testimony at this time to that effect. I am speaking without any prejudice. I have never had any association with labour and never in contact with it, and view it without prejudice of any kind. I always feel, however, that I must be on the side of the under dog. To that extent, perhaps, I am a little biased. I want the members of this House to disabuse themselves of the idea that was propagated by the newspapers that there was anything like a Soviet revolution in Winnipeg, because such was not the case.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I wish to associate myself with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). Although he has not spoken from real experience of labour conditions, I may say that I can speak from such experience to a certain extent. In my younger days I had something to do with labour organizations, and was among the actual labourers and realizing and knowing the conditions which are forced upon one, there is a memory and sting left that will never be removed, and until men live through these conditions and realize them, they will not know the story, and should not stand up in this House as authorities upon the subject. They must have the experience before they can speak on these matters. The hon. member for Nelson referred to the strike in Winnipeg, which was magnified by the press report. There was little trouble before the red uniform of the Mounted Police was seen on the streets of Winnipeg, with the avowed object of suppressing whatever movement was on foot, whether the movement had any justification or not. I state further that I believe it was the propaganda of the government of the day. At the time of the revolution, or of the trouble, in Winnipeg-revolution, so called by the papers-we were sitting in Regina, an organized body of farmers, who were supposed to be the authors and finishers of another Soviet or Bolshevist movement, according to the sentiments advertised and
expressed throughout the country 5 p.m. by the then government and word came to eighty-five of us, who were an executive representing the various electoral districts of Saskatchewan, "For God's Sake hold firm." That was the word that came to the executive who sat in Regina at that time. Oh yes, the government of the day were frightened. I might recall to the minds of the members who sat in this House two years ago the fact that the then hon. member for Calgary, when this or a similar question was being discussed, rose in his place, and said "What would this country do if red revolution broke out"? That was the sentiment behind the government when they brought into force the amalgamation or co-ordination of the Mounted Police and Dominion Police as explained by the present Minister of Militia and Defence, (Mr. Graham). I want to state that if the present Government is following out that principle, or accepting it as a principle, I do not agree with it. Further than that I recollect that when the debate which I have just mentioned took place in this House two years ago hon. gentlemen who now constitute the Government were rising in this Chamber and endorsing the principles as outlined in this resolution, but there is silence to-day and I think the country will ask the question: Where is the consistency? The knitted brows of the earnest workers are no longer in evidence. Where is it now? Do they believe or have they lost faith? That is the question as I see it.
I might state that I have lived in that western country for 31 years. I have been in close association with the Mounted Police. I have known of their activities. They are human. The human element enters into them as well as all others. They are a body of men who individually and collectively will go out into the waste areas of the West and they will bring in the recreant or Indian. They will go out into the vast country alone, being away months, they will perform great feats of valour, but I say that history will record a distinct mark between the time of the amalgamation of the two forces. The old Northwest Mounted Police do not like to hand down the traditions which they erected as a body, and let the newly organized force share with them the halo and glory which is theirs. This new force has to establish a record before the old Northwest Mounted Police will allow the glamour and glory that attached to the old force
Mounted, Police

to be shared by the present organization. I believe that as a body of men they should be again organized under the old name, with the same work to do. Whether in organized territories or whether under provincial jurisdiction or new jurisdiction, those men will go back and perform the work the authorities ask of them.
The old Northwest Mounted Police-I have heard them express this sentiment many times-do not wish to be incorporated with a body of men who have to go into urban centres and suppress disturbances, because their conception was that they were established, as I have related, to go into the wider areas, to hunt what might be termed the horse-thief or the recreant, or even the Eskimo, to administer justice and to keep order. That is why the term " mounted " was applied to them. They have done their work well. I think there is a work to be performed yet in that regard, and my sentiment would be that the unorganized territories of this vast country alone require police of that nature. I think that another force of a Dominion character might be created in this country, but do not associate them with the old Northwest Mounted Police.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) :: I think it is very unfortunate that we have had two questions confused. It will be very difficult for some of us to vote intelligently on this matter, in view of the confusion of these two issues. I think, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that probably the resolution is more far-reaching than the mover intended, and I believe it would be in the interests of all concerned that it should be withdrawn. If there was a resolution that was directed against some of the orders that were issued to the Mounted Police in those days I would myself heartily support it. I think, however, it might be well if this House would forget some of the things that happened in war time. There was a spirit of hysteria abroad. Undoubtedly the Mounted1 Police had duties committed to them that were not pleasant for them to perform. I may say that the present police force has some duties committed to it that are rather degrading to a police force. The suppression of race track gambling is degrading to such a force. If we could clearly separate the two issues that are placed before us, I think it would be very much easier to vote intelligently on this resolution. For my part I have no hesitation in condemning some of the

orders that were issued to the police. As I said, things were done that would reflect no credit on those responsible for the issuing of the orders in those days. But just at the present time it is not possible for us clearly to distinguish between those who were responsible for issuing the orders and those who were charged with the responsibility of carrying them out. I should not like now to cast any reflections on the Mounted Police as such. Undoubtedly they did things which were disagreeable and distasteful to them; but I submit that in view of the confusion of those two issues it would not be possible for us to vote intelligently and I think the resolution should be withdrawn.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St John and Albert) :: I
am not sure that in the interests of the country it is well to have the resolution withdrawn. It is perhaps as well for the chamber to take a vote and to stand up either for the Reds or against them. In the course of this debate there have been some expressions from hon. gentlemen which, whether so intended or not, were in my judgment nothing more or less than a simple pandering to the forces that seek to disorganize our social conditions as they exist. It is not a question of three or four million dollars; we can deal with that on the Estimates, as also with the question as to the number of the men and their location, It is not a question of. administration, because the force could be administered separately from the other branch of the force, the Dominion Police, as we know them. I believe we had better go straight to the part of the resolution that is simply intended to emphasize a remark that fell from an hon. member recently, that the rioters in Winnipeg rioted because of the sight of a Mounted Police uniform. In the name of all that is common sense, what reason has a decent British subject, a Canadian subject, to revolt or riot at the sight of His Majesty's uniform? I do not know any decent, law-abiding citizen or man who ought to be outside a gaol who would find good cause, in the appearance of that uniform, for rushing into riot, fray, revolt, or any other species of law breaking. Let us have no pandering to those who would subvert our social organisation. Treat the resolution in the sense in which it is intended, to withdraw the forces, which are capable of protecting organized, peaceable, decent society, from the places where they can combat riot, revolution and disintegration. That is the question, and I

Mounted Police
shall have much pleasure, and feel I am doing my duty, in voting straight against any such proposition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot very well see my way to withdraw the resolution. It seems to me that the dicussion has been extended much more widely than the resolution itself would justify. A good deal has been said with regard to the Winnipeg strike, which was introduced incidentally by myself. I do not very much blame hon. members who have referred to the strike for the way in which they have done so, because I know the information that went out through the press at the time. Those of us who live in Winnipeg, whether members of labour organizations or not, learned in the course of the long-drawn-out trials, how false those newspaper representations were. I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that I myself was one of the men charged with sedition at that time. And I was returned to Parliament not from a purely labour constituency by any means, but from Centre Winnipeg itself, which was represented here last year by Major Andrews, and I received a majority of some 3,740 over the man nearest to me. That in itself, I think, is sufficient to refute a great many of the charges that have been made by hon. gentlemen who have lived at a distance and have not known the details of the events in Winnipeg. As to the character of the charges that were made at that time, and the tactics pursued by those who were prosecuting, I do not think I can do better than quote one charge of sedition made against me personally. I shall read one count only, and you will see how Red I am:
The Jurors aforesaid do further present:
4. That J. S. Woodsworth, in or about the month of June, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Nineteen, at the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, unlawfully and seditiously published seditious libels in the words and figures following:
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the need from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey and that they may rob the fatherless.
"Isaiah (10: 1-2)"
"And they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shalfl long enjoy the work of their hands.
"Isaiah II (65 : 21-22)."
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be the only man in the history of British
court procedure who has been charged with sedition for quoting from the King James version of the English Bible. I read this charge simply because it would be incredible to any one who was not familiar with the viciousness of the attack which was made upon labour people at that time, and with the misrepresentations which were circulated throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Labour men were charged with conspiracy. I think that one of these days we shall be in a position to show where the real conspiracy was. I have ventured to speak even thus far with regard to this question simply because there has been in the past either no representation, or a very slight representation, of the labour position on the floor of the House, and I think that is one reason why the country at large has been so misled regarding the real aims of labour.
The charge has been made that some of us do not represent International Labour. I may say that the only labour organization with which I was ever connected, and from which I received a withdrawal card, was the International Longshoremen's Association, Local 38-52. I would ask the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) whether he is in as close touch with labour as that. 1 do not know, I merely mention it. The political end of the labour organizations is in most cases entirely distinct from the industrial end. So it is natural that we do not represent some particular craft; we come here to represent the great body of labour. I think the fact that we are here surely gives us the right to speak on the floor of this House for at least a section of labour.
I would call attention to this fact, too, which is not generally understood: that it was the president of the Trades and Labour Council (International) of Winnipeg who gave the strike order; it was the secretary of that council who sent out that strike order. These men were then Internationals, they are Internationals still. At the time that strike was ordered there was no thought that it was anything else than an International movement, although undoubtedly there had been a movement towards the formation of a more efficient organization.
I might say further in regard to that strike-into details of which I have no thought of entering-that the trials clearly showed that while there were charges of an attempt to set up a Soviet government, an attempt at revolution by force of arms, yet notwithstanding all the searches of the
Mounted Police

Mounted Police from coast to coast the authorities failed to discover one single gun. Labour men may be fools, but certainly if they had intended an armed revolt one would suppose that they would have had at least a few guns in their possession. Nothing could have been further from the thoughts of these men. I say most emphatically that that strike arose as an industrial dispute over questions of higher wages and an interpretation of the principle of collective bargaining. It is quite true that under the old law of conspiracy-which had been almost obsolete in Great Britain for a hundred years, and which admitted a very wide range of evidence,-the procedure dating back to the Star Chamber days-it is quite true, I say, that under that almost obsolete law six of the men on trial were committed to gaol. But I would point out that there was such a revulsion of public opinion in the city of Winnipeg that the day these men were liberated three of them walked into the provincial legislature of Manitoba. Another man charged, Mr. F. J. Dixon, the leader of the Labour group in the Manitoba House, was given the most overwhelming majority ever accorded to any man in the city of Winnipeg. Surely this is evidence sufficient to show that the great mass of the people were misled as to the real character of that strike.
I do not know that any connection at all was shown by the hon. member between the document he read, purporting to emanate from the lumber camps of British Columbia, and the Winnipeg strike; hence it is not necessary to discuss its contents.
I confess that this matter is somewhat involved, as the Prime Minister has shown. The Dominion Police force was amalgamated with the Royal Canadian Northwest Mounted Police, it is true; but we have to deal with the situation as it is to-day, we have to deal with the Canadian Mounted Police. Now, my resolution would confine the activities of that particular force, as now constituted, to the unorganized territories. If it is found wise by the Department of Justice that a new Dominion police force should be organized, that can be done, but that does not interfere with the policy with regard to this force. So I think we must decide on the policy to be adopted by the people in relation to this matter.
The very attitude taken by some hon. members is what influences me very strongly to plead that this force should not again be used as it has been used in

the past. The fact is that Labour has been misunderstood and spied upon, and that in industrial disputes armed force has been used to quell labour opposition. The hon. Minister of Militia called attention to the fact that he had resolutions from certain boards of trade advancing reasons-which he did not give-why this force should be retained. Well, I can very readily understand that the Winnipeg Board of Trade most decidedly would advance reasons why the Mounted Police should be retained. It was the representative of the Citizens' Committee-a body which was really a creature of the Board of Trade-who was at the time of crisis appointed Deputy Minister of Justice. The House will appreciate the resentment of labour when the man who all along had been acting as spokesman for the Citizens' Committee

the employers' committee- was suddenly clothed with extraordinary powers to administer " impartial " justice. There was the difficulty, and it was that action which provoked resentment in the minds of labour towards the administration of justice at that time.
I would call attention to the fact that, although it has been stated that an attempt was made to set up a Soviet republic, yet, at that very time negotiations were being carried on between the provincial government and the workers, and had it not been for the precipitate action of the Mounted Police, or the authorities that ordered out the Mounted Police, we would not have had that shooting in the streets of Winnipeg. This is the reason why we should have another way of dealing with such a situation. The fundamental difficulty at that time was that an industrial strike had arisen on a larger scale than ever before had been known in this country. If a Soviet was established in the Labour temple-I say, if-if a body there assumed somewhat larger powers than it should have done, there was also another Soviet in the board of trade rooms which had also assumed governmental powers. In this contingency the municipal and provincial authorities stood helpless. The federal authorities remained inactive until a crisis developed, and then they came in with a club and made things all the worse. That was really the situation.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would plead that we have reached a point in the history of Canada where industrialism has developed to such an extent that we shall have to deal with these disputes as they

Mounted Police
arise, not by brute force but rather by reasonable methods-when	instead of
spending $4,000,000, as has been suggested, in order to crush labour, if necessary, I would say: Let us rather spend $4,000,000 in studying this problem and in placing our industrial relations upon such a basis that we will have no need to call in the Mounted Police to settle any of these disputes. To-day we face the need for reconstruction, and I plead with the members of the Government to give us a lead along these lines. The Prime Minister has already in his book, Industry and Humanity, outlined some of the principles which might, if adopted, prove a solution. I do not know that we all agree with his proposed solutions; but I say: Let us give those principles a chance, and let us in any case seek to do this work in a constructive fashion.
But, after all, this is rather beside the original purpose of the resolution. We are past the war period; we are, I hope, past the period of hysteria inspired by the war. With the provinces thoroughly organized, I do submit we ought to be in a position to revert to the previous arrangements, and to confine the activities of this force as it now exists to the unorganized territories. I firmly believe that we are on good constitutional grounds, as the Minister cf Militia (Mr. Graham) admits, when we say that the administration of justice should be left with the provincial authorities. If they find at any time that there is a situation which they cannot control, it is then for them to call in the aid of the military authorities, not before. The ver^ presence of a body of this character, is, as I stated the other day, an irritant. I think I can speak for a very large number cf labour people at least when I say that if this force were taken out of this work of espionage, of this work by which they enter the homes of workingmen and seize literature, by which they act as agents provocateurs, it would go a long way toward establishing a better condition of affairs in the industrial life of Canada.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :: May I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would his resolution, if adopted, commit the Government to immediate action, and has he made allowance for the point mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to inclusion or exclusion of the Dominion Police? I think it is necessary that he should answer this question before we can vote on the resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman can be allowed to answer onlj by leave of the House. He has exhausted his right to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer:


ST. JOHN TERMINAL FACILITIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of providing terminal facilities at the port of St. John, New Brunswick, to enable Canadian grown potatoes to he shipped during the entire year from a Canadian port.
Hewitt Bostock: In my opinion this
motion is out of order, as it calls for an expenditure of public moneys.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (leader of the Opposition) :: Before your opinion is given, Mr. Speaker, with all deference to yourself, I think the House should carefully consider the question raised on the point of order. In the last session, and I think the session before, but undoubtedly in the last session, holdings were given the other way. I think at the time I argued that the holding which you, Mr. Speaker, indicate you may now give was the correct holding. I was, however, over-ruled, and I think the arguments presented by what was then the Oppostion weighed very heavily in over-ruling my view of the rules of the House at that time. While I thought that, I feel it would be very unfair that under the late government the members of the Opposition should have been permitted to move such resolutions as these, and that on a change of government a different ruling should prevail. It seems to me to be a case where precedents ought to obtain. The reason of the holding last session was this: It was held by Mr. Speaker that inasmuch as the mere passing of the resolution itself, did not impose any charge upon the treasury, the resolution should be looked upon as a mere pious affirmation of opinion, and consequently that the House should be allowed 
to debate and dispose of it as it might see fit. I argued, quite frankly, that the contrary view should prevail, but I was overruled, and that having been done, it appears to me we would be well advised to follow the course of procedure then adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did I understand my right hon. friend to say the Government was opposed to its being proceeded with?


Arthur Meighen: No, my hon. friend has quite misunderstood me. I am arguing the point of order, hoping that I may not be too late, and in support of my argument I am merely saying that the contrary was ruled last session against my argument. I admit taking the view that Mr. Speaker has indicated just now, but I was overruled, and I just expressed the view that the Speaker over-ruled me because of the weight he attached to arguments advanced by the then Opposition.
My position is that this practice having obtained last session, and, I think, the session before-indeed it obtained all through the last Parliament, but it was distinctly affirmed by Mr. Speaker last session-it should be followed in this case, and these resolutions should be considered as mere affirmations of opinion, as indeed they are, and as in no way effecting in themselves a charge.


Hewitt Bostock: I think I can clear the atmosphere. There was an error made in that the first resolution placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Carleton ! (Mr. Caldwell) was wrongly drafted. Accordingly the hon. member amended it, and as it now appears on the Order Paper it is properly drafted and is certainly in order. The mistake arose through handing me the original resolution which in my judgment was not in order, but no reason now exists for raising a point of order and the mover may proceed with it.
At six o'clock the House took Recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton) :: Mr. Speaker, my reason for
putting this resolution on the Order Paper and bringing it before this House is to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that, although the Government of

St. John Terminals
Canada has spent a large sum of. money at the port of St. John to facilitate the export of. the western wheat which comes down there for export, we have to ship the crop we grow in New Brunswick, namely potatoes, through the port of Boston when we export to a foreign country. This is a condition I do not think should obtain. I took up this matter with the Government last year through the then Minister of Customs, who was the member for St. John at that time, and he was very anxious that facilities should be established at St. John to take care of the export of potatoes, in order that our national port might get the benefit of the trade and that our potato growers might get a remuneration for the crop they grew that would enable them to make even the producing expenses, which they have not done for the last two years. I was very strongly supported in this last year by some of the largest shippers in New Brunswick. I have a letter under my hand from -which I wish to quote, to show something of the conditions existing at St. John, and I wish to go back to last year, to enable the House to understand the conditions as they exist to-day. This shipper writes:
We have been shipping to the Havana market for the past twelve years and during this time practically all our shipments have been through the port of Boston, where we have facilities and a large frost proof warehouse on the dock and regular sailing from Boston to Havana each Thursday, so we know just when our goods are going forward and our customer in Havana knows just what time he can expect the arrival of same, which is very important in the Havana market, as you are no doubt aware the weather is very hot and potatoes will not keep long in Havana so they only buy from week to week what they can use. Now we have been paying freight on these potatoes from this section to Boston in American funds, also ocean freight in American funds to Havana.
I wish to refer to that paragraph of the letter. Due to a ruling of the Railway Commission, freight on goods shipped to an American port, or through an American port to Cuba, must be paid in American funds, and from the point of shipment to destination, which meant that our shippers had to pay last year-the conditions are not the same this year-$1.16 in Canadian money, for $1 of Canadian freight over a Canadian railroad. At the same time our Railway Commission made this ruling, the Interstate Commerce Commission of United States made a ruling with regard to international freight, which was that for freight destined to points in Canada from the United States, the freight must be paid in American funds to the American boundary only, and the American shipper had an advantage over the Canadian shipper. He could pay the freight from the American boundary to destination in Canada in Canadian funds, which was sharp discrimination against the Canadian shipper. To resume my quotation, the letter continues :
Twelve years ago when we started to ship potatoes to Havana our railway freight to Boston was 17c per 100 lbs., our ocean freight was 50c. per sack of 180 pounds, Boston to Havana, which made a total freight delivered CJ.F. Havana around 80c. per barrel. To-day the cost of shipping one barrel of potatoes from this section to Havana, Cuba, via Boston is $3 per barrel payable In American funds.
Which meant $3.48 in Canadian funds at that time. A month previous to the time this letter was written these shippers were compelled to discontinue the shipment to Cuba, due to the fact that the price in Cuba had fallen to $4 a barrel. The freight was $3 in American funds, which meant $3.48 in Canadian money, so that the shippers could not pay anything, practically, for potatoes in New Brunswick. If we had had facilities at St. John and a regular sailing from that port to Cuba, they could have shipped those potatoes to Cuba at $1.20 a barrel instead of $3.48, and they would have been able to pay the farmers at least $2 per barrel for the potatoes, a price which would have enabled' them to ship the potatoes. The fact is that last spring there were thousands of barrels of potatoes dumped fin New Brunswick because we could not pay the freight to Cuba, and ship them through Boston. I took this up last year, through the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Marine, with the Government, to see if we could not get a warehouse established at the port of St. John and regular sailings. The Minister of Customs reported1 to me from time to time that he had taken it up with his colleagues and they had agreed to go ahead and establish a warehouse at 'St. John. I have a letter here from the Department of Marine stating the reason why they were not putting on vessels. The letter says:

Our steamship manager advises me that they have done their best to cultivate a potato trade with New Brunswick but without success. It is true that the port of St. John is not fitted with a frost proof warehouse adjacent to the loading steamer, and this has no doubt discouraged the movement of potatoes through the port of St. John during the winter.
This letter goes on to state that due to the fact that there were not enough potatoes coming through St. John they could not
St. John Terminals

put on a steamer. They also state that they did not think the trade in Cuba would warrant putting on a steamer anyway, and they were basing their statement on the fact that there were practically no potatoes going through St. John. This shipper in the same letter tells me that, up until a month of the time the letter was written- that is January 1921-this one firm was shipping ten to twelve thousand barrels to Cuba through Boston. They were not going through St. John, because they had no facilities at that port to handle potatoes in cold weather.
I have a report of the shipments of potatoes as they were received at the port of Havana for a few weeks last year. I went to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as well, because I believed that that department would know what the export to Cuba of commodities from this country was, and they reported that there were not enough shipments going forward to warrant putting steamships on that line. I want to give the House the quantity of potatoes received at the port of Havana for a few weeks last year. In the week ending October 31, 1920, there were shipped 14,558 barrels and 5,397 sacks. These sacks hold more than the barrels; they contain 180 pounds. In the week ending November 6, the total shipment was 16,005; November 13, 30,988; and December 11, 30,489 sacks and barrels.


Arthur Meighen: Where were they shipped from?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Part of them were shipped from New Brunswick and the rest via the United States. I shall read a part of the letter I received from this shipper, who says that they have captured the Havana trade:
Last winter we tried to ship via St. John to Havana, and we gave the Canadian Government Merchant Marine a cargo ot potatoes and sent two or three of our best men to oversee the loading, but we could not induce the management of these boats at St. John to load our potatoes in any kind of shape, and handled same as so much junk which resulted in a loss for which we have now entered action against the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to recover, so we gave this up and went back to shipping through (Boston, and have been shipping through this port some ten to twelve thousand barrels each week during this season, up until one month ago, when the potato market in Havana dropped to $4.00 per barrel, then we were shut out, the potatoes costing us at that time $1.25 here, $3.00 freight to Havana left us a loss of 25c. per barrel.
Possibly a hundred shippers in New Brunswick send their potatoes to Cuba;
[Mr Caldwell.]
and at that time this firm, as the letter states, W& shipping from 10,000 to 12,000 barrels per week. When the House prorogued last year I went home in the full expectation that the government would establish this frost-proof warehouse at St. John before the following winter, but I learned during the summer that nothing had been done in the matter. I had several conferences with the shippers to ascertain what could be done, and failing any action on the part of the government, this firm, from whose letter I am quoting, and two other shippers in New Brunswick formed an export company, leased a warehouse at the port of St. John and fitted it up at their own expense, and shipped through it during the past winter. Now, that will not benefit the potato growers of New Brunswick. These shippers practically have a corner on the potato export business of New Brunswick. They pay the same price for potatoes as other shippers pay who ship through the port of Boston. No shippers, of course, can use the warehouse at St. John except the three who own it, and everyone who has any potatoes to ship must ship them through Boston and pay the excessive freight rate due to the long haul, instead of getting the advantage of the short haul to St. John.
Now, it is quite probable that some hon. member may say that there is now in St. John a frost-proof warehouse. Well, I know there is, and I mention the fact merely to anticipate anything that may be said in that respect. There is a warehouse, but as I have said, it does not benefit the potato growers of New Brunswick who have to ship through Boston. The average cost of producing potatoes last year was $2 per barrel and the growers are to-day getting 60 to 80 cents. The reason is, we cannot get our potatoes into Cuba without paying an excessive freight rate, or else an exorbitant profit to the company who have the shipping facilities in St. John. The Government should establish a warehouse at that port open to all shippers of New Brunswick. They might give the firm who own this warehouse an option of selling to the Government for the money they put into the business. I do not want to see this firm suffer, and I am not finding fault with them for establishing that warehouse and making a profit out of it. They need a big profit, because they were put to considerable cost in establishing and equipping this warehouse. If the Government

St. John Terminals
decided to establish a warehouse of their own at St. John this firm could be given the opportunity of selling out to them, and the shippers of New Brunswick would then be able to export to better advantage than they can to-day. They would save in freight rates and would be in a better position to grow potatoes at a profit. I do not wish to take up any further time, and as I shall have the right to close the debate I shall reserve until then anything more I have to say on the subject. But I trust I have made clear the necessity for a public warehouse at St. John.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska) :: I endorse the resolution of my hon. friend from Carleton and Victoria (Mr. Caldwell). In New Brunswick to-day the farmers have thousands of dollars' worth of potatoes that they cannot ship. Formerly our potatoes had a good market in Winnipeg, Boston, and even in this city, but unfortunately, owing to the higher freight rates to which our products have been subjected, we have been unable to compete with the state of Maine and with other provinces of the Dominion. Our potatoes are of excellent quality by reason of the adaptability of the soil, and to-day we are to some extent specializing in this industry. But we have no facilities for shipping our potatoes, and it will be impossible for us to continue this line of farming unless something can be done to reduce the freight rates we have to pay. The state of Maine is to-day providing practically all of the New England states, except New York, with potatoes. They have a considerable advantage over us. As my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) says, our American friends can compete successfully against us because of the disadvantage with which we have to contend in the matter of shipping, and, in the past, in regard to the exchange. St. John is advantageously situated as a shipping point for our potatoes, because it is a seaport, and Cuba for the last few years has been a good market for us. We have been shipping potatoes practically all the year round, but since the establishment of the private warehouse in St. John we have been handicapped in competition with the shippers of Maine. I hope the Government will look into the matter at an early date and make it possible, even before the close of the present season, for us to export our potatoes to outside markets if we have not adequate markets in this country.
Mr. RICHARD B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) : I desire briefly to support the
resolution. It is quite in line with the promise of the Government to extend our marketing facilities, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) that this is a matter in respect of which he could do a very real service to the farmers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I include the Island farmers. It is true that the New Brunswick farmer in days gone by has been very seriously handicapped, for while we have had free trade with the United States in potatoes, whenever it suited them to do so they declared an embargo against our product and shut us out as effectively as they have now done under the Fordney tariff. The result was that our nearest market was closed to our potatoes in more ways than one. The Cuban market has been rather erratic in the past, and a very real difficulty has been experienced by shippers by reason of the fact that until within a comparatively recent period there has been no direct steamship communication from our own ports. But through the enterprise of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company round trips have been made this season by their ocean steamship service, and the very satisfactory accommodation to the potato trade has demonstrated beyond a doubt that their service out of St. John can more than compete with that provided by the United Fruit Company's boats out of the port of Boston.
I would not have the House think that our only crop in New Brunswick is potatoes, but our farmers have been actuated, I think, by the example of their neighbours in the State of Maine, who confine their efforts almost exclusively to the production of these tubers, and in the northern counties they have gone very extensively into potato production-rather unwisely, perhaps, because, I am of opinion that they would be much better off if they engaged in mixed farming, following the example of their brothers in the eastern part of the province in days gone by.
I was not aware that the frostproof warehouse established this year at St. John is a private enterprise. I was under the impression that shippers on payment of a toll could use that warehouse, and I believe that was done this past winter to some extent, although I speak subject to correction.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Three shippers.


Mr. HANSON:: There was a community of shippers,-how many I am not aware.
St. John Terminals

In the opening of this trade, which has lain dormant for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), the Government by the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money could confer a very substantial benefit on the locality affected. I commend this particularly to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State, (Mr. Copp), who, I know, is just as much interested in this matter as we are, and I hope he and his colleagues will give it their very earnest and favourable consideration. It will be a step in the right direction to attempt to relieve what is now a really bad situation in the province, and the establishment of these terminal facilities would be a great help during the cold weather towards obtaining a new market for our surplus potatoes, which, as has been rightly said, have no superior on this continent.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester) :	I rise
to support the resolution of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) urging the Government to provide proper terminal facilities at the port of St. John to place the potato growers of New Brunswick in a position to command the West Indian and other markets. For the past two years I have on frequent occasions called the attention of Parliament to the hardship imposed upon our products from the East-products of the farm as well as of the forest-by reason of. the very high freight rates. In many cases these excessive freight charges have in effect put an embargo upon the products of New Brunswick,-our old markets have been closed to us, and we are left to find other outlets, which has been very difficult and in some cases impossible of accomplishment. Although the county which I have the honour to represent is the most distant from the port of St. John, still if. we had such terminal facilities as have been suggested the farmers there could take advantage of them as well as the farmers of southern New Brunswick. I hope that the Government will without delay concede the request of my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), who must still have some sympathy for his native province, will contribute his energy as well as his sympathy to that end, and that the Supplementary Estimates will contain an item sufficient to provide these facilities for next season's crop.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, there is another phase of this ques-

tion which has not been touched upon, and in my judgment one which places a very great handicap upon the potato growers of western Canada at least. The constituency which I have the honour to represent has become quite a potato growing district, but the growers are at a decided disadvantage in that the railway companies do not permit potatoes to be unloaded at a given point other than the point of destination, and stored there until the market will absorb those potatoes. For example, last fall there were five thousand carloads of potatoes standing in the Chicago railway yard on which there were no bids, largely due to the fact that the railway companies do not allow through rates on potatoes diverted in transit. At Dauphin we have no warehousing for vegetables, and our local growers, who ship from fifteen to twenty carloads of potatoes a year, are compelled to load their product within a month and ship them direct through to Chicago, New York, or some other large centre, thus bringing about congestion, which naturally causes a very great slump in prices, such as took place on the Chicago market last fall. I think this question of diversion in transit should be taken up along with the warehousing question and have the serious consideration of the Railway Commission.


Mr. G. B. JONES (Royal) :: I rise to support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton. We lost our American market because of the American tariff put into effect last year, and therefore I think the Government should give our potato growers every assistance. Formerly we had a very good market in Quebec and Ontario, but the excessive freight rates from the maritime provinces have cut off that market, and last year our farmers had to feed their cows large quantities of potatoes left on their hands. The section I represent is largely devoted to dairying, and I think everyone knows that potato feed does not conduce to milk production. Consequently the farmers in the constituency of Royal have met with very severe losses. I hope the Government will see fit to do something to meet the situation, which has been so well put before the House by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton and others who have spoken in support of his resolution.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There seems to be nothing to add to the arguments advanced by hon. members who have preceded me, hnd I am sure that you,

St. John Terminals
Sir, and the House will be pleased to see such a manifestation of unity from the province of New Brunswick. We are all one on a subject of this kind. I shall not attempt to add anything to what has been stated, except to suggest to the Government that whether	it be in the
form of a potato warehouse or any other development of a Canadian port, it is	work along the right lines.
The country is pretty well served with railways at the present time, but you have to have a spout, so to speak, through which the produce of the country can be sent on its journey overseas; and the equipment of our ports is the urgent problem of to-day. Advocated as it is from within the ranks of the party to my left, I trust that the efforts of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) may be successful in bringing about among his party a broadness of spirit which will recognize that there are claims for reasonable consideration on the part of the people of the East as well as on the part of the people of the centre of this Dominion. It may be wheat one day, but it can very well be potatoes the next; it may be railroad rates one day, but it can very well be equipment of our ports the next; and unless the House is prepared, unless the groups in this House are prepared, to give equal consideration to all these problems, it is scarcely possible to expect that any of them by itself will be successfully solved. I congratulate the hon. member on having brought this matter to the attention of the Government. They are pressed, it is true, with the urgent need of economy, but this expenditure would be so small and the service rendered so great that I trust the Prime Minister will see fit to have provision made for it in the Supplementary Estimates.


Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: I have much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in concurring in the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), and in supporting his resolution with regard to the providing of terminal facilities for the export of potatoes from New Brunswick at all seasons of the year. I have, however, one request to make, and it is that he be good enough, at least impliedly, to embrace within the four corners of his resolution an equal request that similar terminal facilities be provided for the city of Halifax, in order that the people of western Nova Scotia, particularly of the county of
Hants, may have an opportunity of exporting their potatoes.
The county of Hants, I need hardly remind you, Mr. Speaker, is one of the finest agricultural districts in the Dominion; we raise potatoes in that constituency which are the equal of those produced in any other part of Canada. We are not entirely confined to the growing of fruit; we regard the raising of potatoes as one of our basic industries. The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton advocates the interests of the potato growers of New Brunswick; I wish to reiterate his remarks and to make the same plea for the potato grower of the midland and western counties of Nova Scotia. I believe it is in the best interests of the farmers of the maritime provinces who are concerned in the growing of potatoes that ample terminal and shipping facilities be provided for the export of their product. If our people are going to be kept on the farm it is false economy for us to endeavour to save a mere pittance where the welfare of the farmer is concerned. In order to make our country more prosperous, in order to improve industry, it is essential that some money be spent, and while there is no doubt that Canada to-day is in dire financial straits, our condition is not such that we can afford to follow the policy of "let well enough alone." We should rather adopt a policy having for its object the development of industry, and if we expend a reasonable amount of money in the development of our industries, then, of necessity, better financial times will come.
I therefore have much pleasure in concurring in the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton. If there is one class of people that we want to help in this country, it is the farmers. I happen not to be of the farming class; I am a member of that much abused profession of law. But every possible effort must be made-and particularly is it the case in Nova Scotia-to keep our people on the farms, and we can do that only by encouraging them all we can and providing them with the best possible facilities for the export of their products.


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) :: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why this House should not concur in this resolution. For the information of hon. members who are interested in the matter, I would say that officials of the Department of Public Works are now

St. John Terminals

making inquiries in the hope of finding that we have facilities at the port that may be utilized for this purpose, or, if possible, to bring about conditions at the port-


Arthur Meighen: Louder, please.


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: to bring
about a condition at the port that will provide this accommodation.


Arthur Meighen: I tried to listen, but I am still without information as to the Government's attitude. Might I ask the minister if he would repeat those two sentences?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government is going to do what is asked-agree to the adoption of the resolution.


John Warwick King: Does the right hon. gentleman wish me to repeat?


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to say they were making inquiries whether there was room for the warehouse. Perhaps I am wrong.


John Warwick King: I stated that we were inquiring into the present facilities at the port to see if we could not use those facilities, or some of them, in order to give this accommodation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: While the resolution only asks that the Government should take this matter into consideration, because that was as far as I could go under the rules of the House, I would really like to have a stronger assurance from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. J. H. King) or from the Government that this matter will be taken up and that a warehouse will be actually established. A pious wish does not get you anywhere in exporting potatoes; I have learned that to my sorrow. If the Government will give me an assurance that they will-I do not know just how to put it without getting out of order; but while one may not as a private member propose a motion involving the expenditure of money, it is possible for him to urge quite strongly that the Government spend this money and build this warehouse.
I am grateful to the minister for having taken this matter up so promptly. I spoke to him some days ago about it and he very kindly consented to consult his officials at St. John and see what the possibilities were. I would like to warn the minister in one respect: I have no doubt that the very shippers who urged me so strongly

last year to get the Government to establish this warehouse and who have since established one of their own, will oppose this very strongly, because they certainly have the best thing in New Brunswick in the shape of a money-making organization. They have a corner on the exports at St. John in the way of potatoes; it is a crop we grow largely for export, and it is the largest export crop in the province. These people would object to the Government establishing a warehouse that would give to every shipper in New Brunswick a chance to ship through the port of St. John. It means a matter of $1.50 to $1.75 a barrel by way of profit to them if no one else can ship through St. John, because if the other shippers are compelled to ship through Boston, the St. John shippers only have to pay the price that any shipper pays who ships through the port of Boston. I hope I have made that clear. I could furnish a volume of communications which I have received from these shippers last year urging the building of this warehouse, as showing the necessity for it and the benefits that would thereby accrue to the farmers of New Brunswick. I would like the minister to give us some further assurance that the Government will not be too easily put off. I am not betraying any confidence, I think, when I say that I believe the report from St. John was that there was no room to provide further facilities at that port. I can hardly agree with that statement because I have been at the port of St. John a good deal and while the facilities for exporting grain and other produce are considerable-there are grain elevators provided by this Government, and rightly so-there is still plenty of room to establish a warehouse where we could unload both out of the cars into the warehouse and out of the warehouse into a boat. That of course is essential because we have to ship a large part of our potato crop in the winter. It is not harvested until the cold weather is upon us in the fall, and anyone who knows anything about the growing of potatoes knows that you must market them before the next summer; so the potatoes have to be marketed in the cold weather. If we had summer the year round we could ship our potatoes from St. John without the facilities asked for, but as it is, it is impossible to collect a load of potatoes at the docks and let them stand in cars on the track, and if that were possible you could not keep them from freezing in the cold weather. If the Government will

British Columbia Fisheries
give me the assurance that they will go ahead and establish a potato warehouse, I shall he pleased to withdraw the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Government promises to do all my hon. friend requests in his resolution, will my hon. friend be content?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not satisfied
with this resolution as it stands, and the only reason I put it in this form was because I could not put it in any other. A pious wish does not provide facilities for exporting potatoes.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We cannot do more than accept the resolution.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think I can depend on the good faith of the minister to go ahead. I know that if he inquires into the matter he will find it necessary to establish a warehouse at the port of St. John, so I have much pleasure in withdrawing the motion.	.
Motion withdrawn.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that the Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries be and the said Standing Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to investigate and consider fisheries conditions in British Columbia, and more particularly, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, the depletion of the salmon fisheries of the Fraser River district, and to make suggestions for the restoration and conservation of the same; also to investigate and consider fish hatcheries, including the proper system to be adopted, their value as a means of propagation, the methods of operation and the results obtained therefrom; with power as to all the hereinbefore mentioned matters to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time.
He said: Having disposed of the potatoes, I presume it is now in order for us to start on the fish. I am told they go very well together. One of the principal reasons why I am a member of Parliament to-day is# the condition of the fishing industry in British Columbia. While I cannot claim to be a fisherman, or even an expert on fisheries, I have had the privilege of living in New Westminster, on the banks of that once great salmon stream the Fraser river, for upwards of thirty years, and during that time I have studied very carefully fisheries conditions. I think I may safely say that I at least know the fisher-
54 i
men; I know their work and the difficulties they have to contend with. I know the importance of the fisheries industry to the community as well as to the country at large. I also have had something to do with the canning industry, having worked in a cannery for a short time. I have seen the salmon industry at its best. I have seen the big runs when the canneries, although large and numerous, were unable to handle the fish that was supplied to them. Those were the good old days when everybody was happy. The fishermen, the cannery men, and merchants were all prosperous and contented.
I have also unfortunately seen the dark side of the picture which presents itself to-day in most alarming form, when the canneries are practically all closed down, when pessimism is rife, and when the fishermen are cold and hungry. The big salmon run on the Fraser river is practically a thing of the past, and if conditions get any worse, it is evident that in a comparatively short time king salmon will be as scarce in the waters of the Fraser river as is the buffalo on the prairies, and the sockeye, that great canning fish, will be a curiosity entitled to a place in the Victoria Museum. If I can do anything to assist even in a small way in restoring this great industry, I shall consider that I have done something worth while.
In rising to propose this resolution, I do not do so with the object of securing an opportunity to make a speech, but with the sole and only purpose of getting action. I intend to make my remarks as brief as possible, but hon. gentlemen will no doubt agree that it is advisable, indeed necessary, that I should at least outline some matters which I think should be taken up by the committee if this resolution should pass.
To put myself right, I might be permitted to explain that in moving this resolution I have no intention of embarrassing the Government in any way. I do not wish to attack the administration or its officials, or, for that matter, any person or corporation. I believe the officials have been doing their best and that there are in the department capable and conscientious men who have been doing good work. What I complain about is that we have not been getting results. I am not looking for political advantage or trying to make party capital. While I am a party man, I am firmly convinced that when we come to consider matters of national importance we
British Columbia Fisheries

should put aside party ideals, party standards, and party differences and all work together for the common good of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. I can frankly say that if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) will take up this subject with the intention of investigating it fully, and will do something to improve conditions and clear up the situation, as I believe he will, I shall cooperate with him to the best of my ability. While this is a question which primarily affects the Pacific coast it also materially concerns the whole Dominion. If there are similar problems on the Atlantic coast, or elsewhere in Canada, I shall be most anxious and willing to co-operate with the members from those districts who bring any such matter before the House. I am asking for the co-operation of hon. members in this most important matter. We have a committee on Marine and Fisheries which is composed of men who presumably have some knowledge of fisheries, and it is my object to invoke the aid of the hon. members, on that committee, and I am hopeful that good results will follow. Let us study the question from all angles and see if we cannot do something to improve conditions. Let us hear all sides with open minds, and let us devise some solution of this difficult and complicated situation. I am not one of those who desire to attack the canners. It is true that I am much interested in the fishermen, or I should say the white fishermen, and one of my most prized possessions is a membership card in the British Columbia Fishermen's Protective Association, but at the same time I appreciate the fact that the canners have a large amount of capital involved in this industry, and I think they should receive every reasonable consideration. Let us treat all the interests fairly and equitably and do the best we can in dealing with this problem.
Now the British Columbia fisheries despite all drawbacks, impediments and mismanagement-or I should say lack of control-constitute to-day nearly one-half in value of the fishery resources of the Dominion. In 1920 those resources amounted to $49,241,339 and the British Columbia fisheries to $22,329,161. You will see from that how important the fisheries of the Pacific coast are, and I would say without any hesitation that it is quite possible, with proper encouragement, to increase the amount derived from the British Columbia fisheries-I would say it could be doubled, or trebled or perhaps 
quadrupled. Now the revenue that we receive from British Columbia also constitutes a very important part of the whole amount derived throughout the Dominion. The revenue for 1920-21 for the Dominion was $318,455.73, and for British Columbia it was $233,282.04. Therefore, if conditions are improved and the fisheries become more profitable, then, of course more revenue will be obtained for the Government. I have pointed out that the expenditures in connection with the operation of our fisheries are very heavy and that the disbursements in British Columbia constitute an important part of this outlay. The expenditures for 1920-21 for the whole Dominion, including fisheries protection, were approximately $1,758,925.06 of which about $250,000 was for fisheries protection. The expenditures in British Columbia were $710,412.14 of which $176,770 was on account of fisheries protection. Now I think that is one matter which might be taken up by the Marine and Fisheries Committee. Where there is a great expenditure of that kind it seems to me the committee might very well consider whether the money is being properly expended or whether it could be devoted to a more useful purpose.
Now with regard to the Fraser river. I do not wish to worry the House with a lot of figures. I have here the complete returns for a number of years, showing the packs on the Fraser river and elsewhere, but I intend to refer only to a few of them. I might point out to hon. members that every fourth year we have, or are supposed to have, a large run of fish. That condition has existed for a great many years. The explanation of this I am unable to furnish nor do I think anybody else is. It has so happened, however, that for a great many years every fourth year has witnessed a big run while the runs of the intermediate years are smaller. Some people are inclined to think that this fact is due to some artificial cause, but in looking through one of the reports I have here and will later refer to I find that Simon Fraser, the discoverer of the Fraser river, and after whom it is named, in ,a report which he made in 1806-11 refers to the fact that at that time they had these large runs every four years, so that condition has prevailed for a great many years.
I will now refer briefly to the big runs every four years, and I will start with twenty years ago. In 1901 the pack on the Fraser river was 990,252 cases, and I would say that the great proportion of that

British Columbia Fisheries
pack was made up of sockeyes which are the best grade of fish for canning. In 1905 the pack was 877,136 cases; in 1909, 567,-' 203 cases; in 1913, 732,059 cases; in 1917, 377,988 cases; and in 1921, 103,918 cases. Now you will note that the difference between the pack in 1901 and that in 1921 amounts to 886,334 cases. I might also point	out that in	1921 there
were only 35,900 cases of sockeye. Now what does that amount to in money. Taking the value of a case at $15, which I think is a conservative figure, we find that this country has lost $13,295,010, representing the difference in the value of the packs in these years. That I think is a matter that might very well be considered. The question, of course, is whether the fisheries on the Fraser river can be restored or not. As to that I would simply point out that a few years ago on the Columbia river in the United States they had pretty nearly the same condition that we have to-day. However, they went into the matter thoroughly and to-day the yield of the Columbia river has been restored. Last year we were fortunate in having one of the men responsible for bringing back the Columbia river fisheries make an investigation of our fisheries on the Fraser river-I refer to Mr. Camsell, one of the greatest authorities in the United States. Mr. Camsell, in his report, which I have here, says that it is quite possible, quite feasible, and not at all difficult to restore the Fraser river fisheries. I simply quote a short extract where he says:
Unlike those of the Upper Columbia River Basin where the development of the industrial projects has tended towards their destruction, the immense spawning beds of the Fraser River watershed are still unimpaired, being practically in the same condition as formerly. All those who have studied the matter agree that, up till a few years ago, the spawning beds were abundantly seeded at least during the "big" years. Hordes of parent sockeyes then visited the upper river and to-day the conditions are as favourable for their reception as they ever were.
Again he says:
It is apparent that in the past many of those sincerely anxious to restore the Fraser River sockeye fishery have been working more or less at cross purposes. In my judgment, if success is to be assured, all past differences must be set aside and all join whole-heartedly in finding a means for overcoming the present conditions. It is the desire of everyone concerned to rehabilitate the fishery. The only difference lies in the method by which this can be brought about.
He advises co-operation between the Dominion, the provincial, and the state authorities, and he says that if we have that
co-operation we will bring the Fraser river fisheries back to what they were in 1901, without the expenditure of a great deal of money. He goes on to point out the millions of dollars that have been spent in reclaiming the arid lands of the United States, and he says that it is just as profitable an investment for the country to restore the fisheries as it is to reclaim lands of that kind.
Now the resolution calls for an investigation as to the methods of propagation, including hatcheries. I had the privilege last year of making some remarks along these lines, and I am not going to repeat them. I simply say that there is a great difference of opinion as to whether we should have any artificial propagation, or whether we should rely upon and encourage only natural propagation. That is a matter that this committee might take up. Then we have the enemies of the salmon. I have made a list of some of the enemies of the Pacific Coast salmon, and at the head of the list I have put down "the United States Senate." Hon. gentlemen may consider that that is a rather rash statement, but possibly when I explain myself hon. members will agree with me. We have a peculiar conditions on the Pacific coast, in the southern part, where the Fraser river runs out to sea, inasmuch as we are situated very close to the international boundary line. The waters of the Fraser river permeate some of the waters of Puget sound, which is in American territory. As a matter of fact, the Americans should never have had the boundary line placed where it is. Of course, that was not our fault. Other people were doing the negotiating for us. When our business was handled by other people we always seemed to get the worst of it. However the boundary line was placed where it is, and the result is some of the fish which are hatched out in the hatcheries on the Fraser river come back to Puget sound. We have regulations of all kinds on our side, close seasons and all that kind of thing. We have hatcheries and other means of propagation. We have fishery protection and so on. They have nothing of that kind on the other side of the line, and they simply catch fish. That is what they have been doing for a long time, and that is one reason why the run has become depleted, as it is to-day. That is recognized by the authorities of the state of Washington and by other United States authorities. In 1919 a treaty was liego-

British Columbia Fisheries
tiated between Canada and the United States, or between Great Britain and the United States, to meet the situation, to provide for an appointment of an international committee which would study and investigate conditions and provide means for bettering those conditions, and also to provide certain restrictions and prohibitions which would tend to the correction of the unfortunate situation. That treaty was signed on the 2nd September, 1919, by the various authorities, by the Hon. R. C. Lindsay, charge d'affaires of his Britannic Majesty, the Hon. Sir John Douglas Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick, and a member of the Privy Council for Canada, the President of the United States, and by the Hon. Robert Lansing, Secretary of State for United States. I have that treaty in my hands. It is my opinion, and the opinion of a great many others, that if that treaty had passed it would have gone a long way to help the situation. It went up to the United States Senate where it suffered the fate of a great many other treaties and agreements, and it was thrown out. It was thrown out by the Senate because of a lobby which had been put up by selfish interests, by men who were so small, mean and contemptible that they would place their own interests before the interests of their country, men who thought only of the present and cared nothing about the future. It is just possible that we did not do everything that we could have done on that occasion to have that treaty ratified by the United States Senate, I do not believe that the Senate understood conditions at that time, and, so far as I know, we had no one there. We made no effort to see that the facts were placed properly before that body.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did anybody represent Canada before that committee.


William Garland McQuarrie: Not so far as I am aware. That is a matter which might be taken up, and it might perhaps be considered advisable to re-open negotiations with the United States. They tell me that since that time there have been many changes in the United States Senate, if not in policy possibly in personnel, and it is just possible that if negotiations were renewed that treaty might be put through. If we cannot negotiate with the United States, then I say we can play with them at their own game, if it is possible to do so. The question is how can we do that? A way out has been suggested to me. Whether it is feas-

ible or not I do not know; I would not care to express an opinion. But the proposition is this:	The Fraser
river has three channels. The North arm, the main channel, and the South arm, otherwise known as Woodward's Slough. The waters of the main channel and the North Arm go out into the Gulf of Georgia, directly in front of our own territory. The waters which pass through Woodward's Slough go down in a southerly direction and permeate the waters of Puget sound. As it is, the waters from the Fraser river go about three-quarters of the way over to Vancouver island. The line of demarcation is very clear, the colouration is distinct, and anyone who goes across can see where the Fraser river waters end. Now, the salmon is a peculiar fish. He goes out to sea when he is a fingerling or smaller and stays away four years, after which he comes back to the place where he was spawned. If not hampered he will come back to the precise spawning ground from whence he came. I do not know how he does it. Of course, the salmon have no compasses or other instruments such as navigators have to assist them.


Arthur Meighen: Have they a chart?


William Garland McQuarrie: No, but they have what is just as good, an infallible instinct that leads them back home, and our salmon if not interfered with would come back to the Fraser river to their own spawning grounds. The first obstruction they encounter is Vancouver Island, which is about 280 miles long. They proceed down along the shores of the island looking all the time for fresh water. When they reach the southerly end of the island they separate, some going north and others continuing south but all looking for the Fraser river. Those that go south strike fresh water that leads them cn to Puget sound where they are caught in the traps that are set there. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) will know what I am talking about. There are miles of traps built at Puget sound and our fish are caught by the Americans, our fisheries being depleted to that extent. If we block up the south channel of the Fraser river-Woodward's Slough-it is said that the volume of water would be sufficient to carry the waters of the Fraser river right over to Vancouver Island, and when the salmon comes back he would strike that fresh water leading him directly to the Fraser river. Thus the Americans would get practically no fish at all. Now, that

British Columbia Fisheries
sounds like a fairy tale, but I am told that there is something in it, and if we cannot negotiate with the Americans we might at least try to beat them at their own game.
Another enemy of the salmon is the seal. This is another fish story. The seals are good for nothing. At any rate, we do not make use of them, although the Japanese do; they carry on an industry and make leather out of the hides of the seals. One seal will eat between four and five salmon a day, and salmon are worth 60 cents each. It is estimated that one seal destroys some $500 worth of salmon per year. It is estimated that in the Fraser river there are to-day between 5,000 and 10,000 seals. Taking the minimum, 5,000, in the Fraser river alone, the seals destroy $2,500,000 worth of fish a year. We will take it for granted that the average life of the seal is ten years, and I believe some of them attain a very ripe old age. However, put it at ten years, which is a conservative figure, and in that period the seals in the Fraser river will destroy $25,000,000 worth of fish. Now, what is being done to combat that menace? Practically nothing. Ever since I came to the House, and even before that, I have endeavoured to get something done; I have tried to have bounties placed on the seals. If cattle were being destroyed in this way on the prairies, certainly no expenditure would be too great to eradicate the evil. This is a matter that should be considered by the House.
The trout also is an enemy of the salmon and is very destructive in British Columbia. The most attractive bait for a trout is salmon eggs, and the trout kill millions of prospective fish every year. Yet nothing is being done in this direction either. On the contrary, we have encouraged the propagation of trout, for in the streams and lakes which are connected with the sea trout eggs have actually been placed, and there is a close season in connection with the catching of trout there. Now, I am a sportsman and believe in sport. I have no objection to creating a sportsman's paradise, but I am opposed to doing this where it will interfere with a commercial enterprise such as this.
Then there is the question of orientals. I will not say much on this subject, but in British Columbia to-day the Japanese practically control the fisheries. I have the figures given me by the department the other day and I will quote from them. In 1919, in district No. 1, which is the Fraser river, there were 837 Japanese gill net
licenses issued, as against 55 licenses issued to Indians and 409 to others. In district No. 2 there were 1,139 licenses issued to the Japanese, 630 to the Indians, and 721 to others. In district No. 3 there were 267 licenses to the Japanese, 279 to Indians and 226 to others. The figures are similar for the other years. I will give those for 1921:
		Japanese Indians		Others
District No.	1.. .	. 873	68	490" No.	2. . .	. 1,110	967	968*' No.	3.. .	. 107	46	132It will be	seen	therefore that the	Japanese are pretty much in possession of the fisheries of British Columbia. I understand that they are absolutely in control of the fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, and if we allowed them to do so they would take complete possession of the fisheries of this country. Now, you will ask: How do these men get licenses if they are Japanese, because only British subjects are eligible for licenses? Well, as a matter of fact, the Japanese who get licenses are naturalized citizens of this country. Most of them were naturalized many years ago, and the peculiarity is that a naturalized Jap never dies-at least, one has never been known to die. I am told that when a Japanese fisherman is about to give up the ghost there is standing beside him on the boat, ready to take over the tiller, another Jap who steps into his place and takes possession of his naturalization papers. Fortunately, I am thankful to say, it is not so easy now for the Japanese to secure naturalization; in fact, the naturalization judge in the city of Vancouver has absolutely refused to naturalize any Japanese. He states that they are not entitled to naturalization, because they cannot be expatriated, for notwithstanding their naturalization they must still acknowledge allegiance to their emperor, and in case of war, if they fail to respond to the order to serve their native country, they will be shot as traitors. It has been suggested that it would be a good thing to take finger prints of the men to whom licenses are granted, so that there would be no question of identity. I submitted that suggestion to the department last session, but unfortunately the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not think it advisable to take action along that line.
There are other enemies of the salmon but I am not going to mention them tonight. They could, however, be referred to the consideration of this committee.

British Columbia Fishereis
At one time we had a very profitable sturgeon fishing industry, but it is practically of no account to-day. In this connection I could relate a real fish story-but as newspapers never tell anything but the -truth, I will read to this House this extract from the Vancouver Province of April 22nd, 1921.
The old saying that there are as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it is apparently equally applicable to fresh water, judging by the specimen that was displayed on Monk's wharf, New Westminster, yesterday afternoon.
''It's a whale," more than one visitor asserted, hut they were wrong. It was a sturgeon. Prom the tip of its tail to its snout it measured just thirteen feet, and it weighed 988 pounds. This monster fish was taken with a drift neft in the Pitt River hy Coquitlam William, an Indian fishing for Monk & Company.
At ten cents a pound that fish would be worth $98.80. At one time there were a great many sturgeon in the Fraser and Pitt rivers and Pitt lake. Only a few of them are left, but if we could re-establish the sturgeon it would be worth while.
Then we come to the regulations. It is claimed by the fishermen that the regulations are unfair, and I think that that remark applies to some of the regulations. For instance, if a fisherman is found guilty of a trivial offence such as throwing out his net a few minutes before the appointed time, he is not only fined but his net and boat are confiscated. That seems to be too drastic. If a motorist breaks the speed law, his automobile is not confiscated. The fishermen say: Fine us; the first time make it a small fine, for the second offence increase the fine, and ultimately make it so heavy that it will be an effective deterrent; but do not confiscate our nets and gear. I think there is something to be said in favour of their view.
Then with regard to cannery licenses, for which a large fee is charged, of course the big companies can well afford to pay those fees, but some fishermen would like to can their own fish. This is impossible to them so long as they have to pay such a large sum for the privilege, and they suggest they should be given the opportunity of canning their own catch if they wish to do so. That is a matter that might well be considered.
Then I come to the dual license fees. In British Columbia the provincial government exercises certain rights over the fisheries. Recently I asked the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he had received a request from the provincial government as to taking over the fisheries, 
and he answered in the negative. I think if he will look up the records of his department he will find that some years ago a proposition was made by the Hon. William Sloan, Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia, that the province should take over the fisheries. If that is so, is it not worth while considering the advisability of meeting the desire of the province? Being on the spot, might not the provincial authorities be better able to administer and control the local fisheries than the federal government can from Ottawa?
In my opinion the subject matter of this resolution is of national importance and worthy of concerted effort on the part of this House. The Fisheries Committee as far as my experience has gone-and I was a member of the last Parliament-has never considered the question of the Pacific coast fisheries. All I am asking is that that committee get to work and study the question so that it may be ascertained if anything can be done to improve the fisheries conditions in British Columbia.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that I am also interested in, in view of the fact that possibly the second largest river in Canada flows through the province from which I come, and it is fairly well stocked with salmon. I was a little disappointed to find that this resolution was not made broad enough by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) to take in all our fisheries, as I think it is a subject that might very well engage the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe).
We have a small fish hatchery on the St. John river. We have a very good run of salmon on that river, but of course not developed to anything like the extent that obtains on the Fraser river. Nor have we any canning factories. However, it might be made a very paying industry on the St. John river. And in supporting the resolution before the House, I would urge the Minister of Marine and Fisheries not to confine his attention solely to the Fraser river. In fact, as the hon. member proceeded with his argument I was under some doubt as to just how we were going to get over the anomaly there that we supply the fish and the Yankees catch them. But we will not be in that unfortunate position on the St. John river, because while the river is at no very great distance from the international line, it is bounded by Canadian territory on both sides until it reaches the

British Columbia Fisheries
northern end of New Brunswick, and although it rises in the United States, the very high falls prevent the salmon from leaving our waters. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will take this particular matter into consideration while he is dealing with the British Columbia situation.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has pointed out, the condition of the salmon fisheries on the Fraser river is rather serious. But the causes of the decline in the run of salmon are rather international in their character, and therefore cannot be affected by anything which Canada can do alone. The salmon makinjj for the Fraser river have to run the gauntlet of American fishing equipment before emerging into Canadian waters just below the entrance to the Fraser river. The result is that of the total quantity of fish 'caught when making for the Fraser river, sixty-six to seventy per cent goes to the Americans. Anything that can be done must be done by both countries, although the future of the fisheries in the Fraser river depends exclusively on the extent to which the spawning grounds in that river are properly sealed. This question has been dealt with by both countries at various times. A treaty was agreed to in 1908 but was not ratified by the United States Senate-one of the enemies of the salmon, as my hon. friend says. Another treaty was entered into in 1920, but it also failed of ratification by the Senate, and the United States government last year informed the department at Ottawa that it would not be possible for the Senate to ratify that treaty. Negotiations, however, are still in progress with a view of inducing the Senate to ratify it.
As my hon. friend has said, there is the peculiar phenomenon in connection with the salmon in the Fraser river that there is a big run every four years, the run in the other three years being not so good. It is surmised that in former days there was a slide from the mountain which blocked the river and prevented the salmon from getting to the spawing beds, and that it was three years before the obstruction was washed out. The Fraser river fish is what is called a four-year fish: it takes four years to mature; then it goes on to spawn, and dies. The last big year was in 1913. In that year the Canadian Northern was
constructing a line in the vicinity of the river and the works there caused a slide which blocked the way to the salmon; the fourth year afterwards, 1917, was a very poor year on that account, and 1921 was also a bad year. Generally speaking, in the other British Columbia waters the salmon industry is improving. The years 1919 and 1920 were very good years, though last year was a poor year. The extent of the run depends largely on causes and influences exerting themselves in the sea, and of which we can know nothing.
I do not know whether the work of the committee as suggested will bring about an improvement of conditions, but I have no objection to such work being undertaken. The only possible objection would be that rather large expenditure in witness fees might be involved. However, the committee can start to work, hear the experts of the department at Ottawa, and be the judge whether other witnesses from British Columbia should be summoned. I have no objection to the resolution of my hon. friend.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution as introduced by the member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) is, in my opinion, one of the most important resolutions which will be considered at this session of Parliament. Like my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), however, I regret that the hon. gentleman did not make his resolution broader. But in my opinion the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton should not have criticised the hon. member for New Westminster; he should have taken the beam out of his own eye before he sought to get the mote in the eye of the hon. member for New Westminster. You will notice, sir, that my hon. friend's potato resolution related only to terminal facilities at St. John, although it is just as important that we should have terminal facilities at other ports in this country. However, in regard to the resolution of the hon. member for New Westminster, I may say that I do not think it is in the interests of the fisheries-though my hon. friend may deem it his privilege, and his duty, perhaps, to put the proposal in its present form-to bring before Parliament a resolution which confines itself to one of the fisheries of this country. I had the honour and the privilege a few years ago to speak before the members of this House on matters pertaining to the fisheries, and although I come from Nova Scotia, in the

British Columbia Fisheries
few remarks which I made at that time I did not confine myself to the fisheries of my own province, or even of the maritime provinces; I dealt with the inland fisheries and those of the Pacific as well as those of the Atlantic coast. There is no question about it Sir, that the fisheries of the Pacific are very important indeed. In my opinion, the fishing industry has never had a fair show, whether on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific coast, and if there has been one sinner greater than another, it was the government that was in power from 1911 to 1921. They did nothing for the fisheries of this country, and nobody knows that better than the hon. member for New Westminster.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would not exactly agree to that. As a matter of fact, the late Minister of Fisheries did more for the fisheries of the Pacific coast than any minister who preceded him.


William Duff: The hon. member has a perfect right to support his minister, but if I had been called down and asked to withdraw a resolution which I had placed on the Order Paper, I would not think much of the minister who asked me to do it. The hon. member was in the House for four years, supporting the government of the day, but did not propose any resolution of this kind, and it is rather strange that he now asks this Government and our present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) to give this matter the attention it deserves. I am proud indeed, Sir, to hear the Minister of Marine and Fisheries say that he is quite willing to place this matter in the hands of the committee on Marine and Fisheries; that is more than was done by the other minister who, the hon. member for New Westminster tries to make out, was the best Minister of Fisheries we ever had. Why, two years ago, after the people on the Pacific coast had been crying out for perhaps two years for refrigerator cars to move their halibut, they could do nothing with the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Railways, and though there were thirteen hon. members interested in the subject who supported the then Tory government, not one of them rose in his place in the House and endeavoured to get the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Railways to better the conditions prevailing in connection with this industry. It fell to me, Sir, a very humble member from a Nova Scotia constituency, to show the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Fisheries 
the importance of the halibut fisheries of Prince Rupert, with the result that the refrigerator cars were put on and the fish were moved to the eastern cities of Canada and of the United States.
The member for New Westminster as well as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred to the large catch of salmon every four years. Well, that is nothing strange to those of us who have some slight knowledge of the fisheries. It is well known that not only in the salmon industry but also in the other fisheries, the fish come on the coast in greater quantities some years than they do others. The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) referred to the fish having no chart. It is quite true that the fish have no chart or <io compass to guide them, but I would not be surprised to learn that the reason for their staying away from British Columbia during the last four years was because, like the people of this country, they had no confidence in the Union government or in the National Liberal and Conservative party. It is also quite possible that the reason they come every four years is because every fourth year is a "leap year," and the salmon are fish which are in the habit of leaping out of the water as they come up from the ocean to the spawning ground.
The hon. member for New Westminster also referred to the revenue which was obtained from the fisheries of this country and told us that out of a total fisheries revenue of $380,000 for the whole Dominion the large sum of $233,000 came from British Columbia. I want to say that I am opposed to collecting any revenue from the fisheries of this country. The fisheries of this country are carried on by men who cannot afford to pay for licenses except in British Columbia where the great canners are able to pay a fee and prevent the poorer man from packing salmon. In my opinion we should derive no revenue from the fisheries of this country and furthermore, I think a larger expenditure should be made by this Government to develop the fisheries. I repeat I am opposed to gathering revenue from this source; I think it is a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy, and I say to the minister that one of the first things he should do is to reduce the license to the minimum both in the salmon and every other fishery or else cut it out altogether. As I said a moment ago the greater part of the men who are engaged in this great industry are poor men, not capitalists who can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the busi-

British Columbia Fishereies
ness, but men who own their fishing boats outright or co-operate and own a vessel on shares, and if we ever expect any real development in this great industry, and I have a good deal of faith in this Government's desire to develop the fisheries, one of the things we should do is to cut out the canneries' license, because under the present system the rich man can pay $500, while the poor man, who is not able to afford the fee, is not allowed to pack fish.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Would you cut out
the licenses for orientals in British Columbia?


William Duff: If I had my way, I would
not give the orientals a license at all. It is a strange thing but if you look at the statistics you will notice, as the hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out, that most of the people who fish in Brit-' ish Columbia are orientals. If there were no orientals fishing, there would not be nearly as many fish caught. I do not believe in oriental fishermen. I believe that we should have white fishermen, and if the late government and perhaps other governments before it had taken the proper steps, we would not now have so many orientals fishing in British Columbia. We do not have orientals fishing on the Atlantic coast, but white men, and from the Atlantic coast we usually return sixteen Liberals to represent the province of Nova Scotia. Perhaps if the people of British Columbia would send Liberals to this Parliament instead of Tories, as they have been doing the last few years, there might not be as many orientals fishing on the western coast as there are at the present time.
The hon. member for New Westminster gave some very good reasons why this question should be referred to the Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries. He pointed out that there were certain reasons why the fisheries in British Columbia did not yield as high a return last year and for the last two years as they had done in former years, in 1911 and 1901, I think he said. It must not be forgotten, however, that perhaps the main reason why the fisheries were not prosperous last year to the same extent as before was that during the war or shortly afterwards it was impossible to sell the great catch of salmon which the packers had on hand. There are other reasons why the fisheries are not as productive as they were before, and I am very glad that the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned some of them.
He spoke of the destruction caused to the salmon by the seals. There is no question that the seals which come into the rivers and bays of the Pacific coast destroy a great many salmon, and I would suggest to the minister that steps be taken to do away with this pest. I think that the people on the Atlantic coast also have sent petitions to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) asking him to take steps to do away with the seal menace on the Atlantic coast. We have the same trouble from seals in connection with our mackerel. The seals follow the mackerel into the nets and make holes in the twine, and the mackerel escape. I hope that something will be done to combat this menace both to salmon and mackerel.
I also agree with the hon. member for New Westminster in his remarks as to the unnatural-shall I say?-propagation of fish which has been carried on in this country. I am opposed to that practice. I do not think it is any good to take the spawn from the female fish, because there can be only one result; most of the spawn die. I think the only proper way is for the fish to propagate naturally. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted in the last number of years in this country in an endeavour to keep up hatcheries, which in my opinion do not do a very great deal of good.
In conclusion, I do not believe it would be a wise policy to pass over the control of the fisheries to the provinces. I believe the federal government is able to look after the fisheries a good deal better than the provincial governments, and it is more the business of the federal government, because the fisheries do not relate to any one province alone but to the whole of Canada. The whole country is interested in this industry, and the federal authorities, in my opinion, are far better able to look after it than the different small provinces. The small provinces have enough to do already and I would be very much afraid if the control of the fisheries passed into their hands that very little would be done to make this industry what it should be.
I have great faith in the fishing industry in this country, and I would like to see this Government in the next two or three or four years do everything possible to encourage people to go into this business. As the hon. member for New Westminster has said, and I want to repeat it myself, the fisheries of this country have not advanced in the last twenty years. We have either stood still or gone back. That is

British Columbia Fisheries
not because there are not lots of fish in the sea; there are mere than ever there were. Nor is it because there are less salmon coming into the harbours and rivers of British Columbia that salmon are scarce. It is because the federal government, not this Government or its predecessor, but the governments of this country for the last twenty-five or thirty years have never taken the interest in fisheries that they have in farming and other industries. I do not object to millions of dollars being spent on the encouragement and development of agriculture, but I do say that the fisheries, if not to the same degree, are just as important as agriculture, and this Government should take every step to encourage people to go into this great industry.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) :: I only wish to speak a few words on this subject, because it is getting late. Whenever a subject comes up in connection with ithe maritime provinces the discussion has not gone on for more than three minutes before it gets down to the sins of the late government. The discussion may begin with any subject under the sun but it always ends up with the sins of the late government, and I notice that when anything comes up in connection with British Columbia it always ends up with the Japanese question. This evening the debate began with the fisheries and we very soon drifted off to a discussion on our Japanese wrongs. I will not deal with this question now because I understand there is a resolution coming up on the subject, and will therefore keep to the question of fisheries in the few remarks I want to make.
My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) spoke about the penalty. He said the penalty was too'drastic, that if a man committed some trifling offence the only penalty provided was the entire loss of his gear and boat, a tremendous penalty for possibly a trifling offence. One of the fishery guardians brought that to my attention. He said, "You cannot owing to a trifling offence take a man's whole property from him." I took the matter up with the fishery officials down here and they told me it was necessary to have that provision in extreme cases of deliberate poaching by American boats. It therefore was necessary to impose such a penalty but they gave instructions to their fishery officers and in the case of minor offences such as I have indicated provision has been made by which, on a fisherman giving security that his boat would be forthcoming when it

was required, he would he allowed to go on fishing and in the meantime he can put in an appeal, which will always be granted, for cancellation of the confiscation. That put the fear of the law upon him without actually subjecting him to the extreme penalty; and they claim it is necessary for the reasons which I have indicated, that the extreme penalty should be there.
The hon. member for New Westminster also mentioned the subject of taking over the British Columbia fisheries. That is a question that has engaged the attention of fishermen in British Columbia, but when we heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries tell us the other day he was agreeable to our taking over the fisheries provided we assume the cost of running them which amounts to something like $400,000 a year, that rather dampened our enthusiasm for taking these 'fisheries over. I think our idea in British Columbia was to take over the issuance of licenses and let the Dominion government finance the other end of the bill.. Possibly the minister will not see the matter in that light. The idea in British Columbia was this-that if the issuing of licenses was put in the hands of British Columbia officials they would be easier-I will not use the term "got at," because that is a nasty suggestion-but they would be easier of approach and we would get quicker action when quick action was necessary. If the proposition means the taking over of the whole of the British Columbia fisheries and the expenditures attendant thereupon I am afraid it is beyond our powers. We have got a little project called the P. and G. E. railway which will engage our financial attention almost exclusively for some time to cottne.
The hon. member for New Westminster also talked about the question of small licenses. He said it was not fair that a man should pay $500 for a canner's license if he only wanted to put up a small quantity of fish. That question has already arisen and has been dealt with. Last year in my district there were one or two dozen, perhaps, gill net fishermen who combined together, and they got some kind of a domestic cannery outfit that would put up three dozen tins possibly at a time. They asked permission of the fishery officials in Vancouver to get a license, without having to pay $500, and to allow them to operate in this small way. The superintendent there very liberally met their wishes and gave them a license for a very small sum. The officers here tell me that if that occurs.

British Columbia Fisheries
again this year they will also get consideration; that where a few fishermen want to put up fish in a small way they will not be compelled to put up such a large amount.
In connection with the subject of hatcheries I can endorse a great deal of what the hon. member for New Westminster has said. At one time they were regarded in British Columbia as being almost a failure; it was believed they were not doing any practical good. Various reasons were given for that. One was what the hon. member for New Westminster has alleged: They propagated trout; they protected the young trout in the very same lakes where the hatcheries were situated, the consequence being that they were breeding salmon on the one hand and propagating trout to eat them on the other. I have also heard it stated-I do not know what truth there is in the statement-that the hatchery had this effect-they made the young salmon too tame. The man who told me-and he is a man of experience-told me that if you go into any water where salmon are developed under natural conditions before you can even get a glimpse of them almost they are out of sight because nature or instinct has taught them to be wary. On the other hand, the young salmon that are brought up in hatcheries become almost as tame as cats, and do not show any fear of the attendants when they move around. When they are turned into the creeks to shift for themselves and the trout come along they stand, so to speak, with their mouths open and let themselves be destroyed. I do not know what truth there is in this story, there may be some basis for it in the same way as hand raised pheasants are less alert than wild ones. There is no doubt however that when propagated under these artificial conditions they are not so alert as they are under natural conditions. I understand the department now has a new system which they employed last year for the first time and which they claim does give very satisfactory results. They keep the young salmon a great deal longer than they used to and they find the percentage which escapes from their natural enemies is far greater. They put the young salmon into sort of natural ponds where they are perfectly free from enemies and keep them there six or eight weeks longer than heretofore, and they claim that in time this system is going to give very good results.
As regards the fishery protection service of British Columbia, I again endorse what
my hon. friend from New Westminster has said. There is a large sum now spent on this service and I think a good deal of it might be saved. The money at least might be spent in a much more economical way. There is a protection boat which costs $45,000 or $46,000 with mahogany fittings, plate glass mirrors and a large crew. There is no necessity for boats of that kind in the district which I represent. When I canvassed the district in the middle of winter I did it in a launch which cost only $1,100. I got around without being seriously incommoded and I did not have a $45,000 or $46,000 dollar boat with a crew of eight.
When my hon. friend from New Westminster was talking about the enemies of the salmon he did not mention one that is very prevalent, on the west coast at all events and that is the sea lion. My hon. friend talked about how many salmon the hair seal will eat. Why the sea lion will eat more salmon in ten minutes than a seal will eat in a week. By the way an expert was sent out from somewhere some years ago to investigate the sea lion. He came back and wrote his report. That report said the sea lion was perfectly in-ocuous, and declared that the sea lion lived on seaweed. The expert had operated on a sea lion and found some seaweed in his insides, and therefore he declared they lived on seaweed. I suppose if he had found a horse collar inside he would have said they lived on horses. I expect the truth is that the seaweed had been covered with herring roe and had been eaten by the sea lion for that reason. I have seen sea lions gamboling with salmon in the water; one animal would playfully toss a fish in the air and another sea lion would catch it. There is no doubt they live very largely on the salmon. I took the question up with the Department of Marine and Fisheries and they promised to take the necessary steps to deal with the sea lion; they promised somebody would be sent to the rookeries where they breed to kill off the young ones. If that was done for three or four years it would soon put an end to the depredations of the sea lion. The only way to kill them off is by shooting or clubbing the young at their rookeries, There are certain islands where they are known to exist and if the patrol boats visit those islands they could destroy large quantities of them. The objection to offering a bounty is that if an adult is shot in the water it immediately sinks and there is nothing to produce to claim the bounty.

British Columbia Fisheries
As regards the subject of negotiations with the Americans over the Fraser river fishery, I understand that Canadian and American fishery officers held a conference last year and they came to an agreement on the basis of limiting the fishing and totally closing the traps and nets in the Fraser river for a period of years, hut the negotiations fell down on this subject: The Americans said: "We will close the river for five years." But when it came to the point of opening up again the American canners wanted to hog the whole thing and would make no provision for allowing the British Columbia fishermen engaged in the Fraser river to get any fair proportion of the results. They would agree to a long closed season but at the end of the closed period the Americans proposed to go in, put out their traps and deplete the run as they did in the past. It was on account of that fact that the negotiations fell down. I suggest it might be well to take the matter up again and see if a treaty could not be negotiated along those lines.
A great many people in British Columbia are of the opinion that the appointment of an Advisory Control Board for the fisheries in our province would be highly advisable. Many have expressed that view, both canners and fishermen. The board would be composed of local men and it would be a great advantage, even if they only acted in an advisory capacity. I see the same thing has been done in the state of Washington. They have appointed a board with compulsory powers, and in a short time they brought about a marked change. They understood the local conditions, and they were not in any way hampered by lobbies or regulations made at Washington and they will do a great deal to re-establish the Washington state fisheries. They closed up a lot of creeks, and prohibited fishing less than three miles from the mouth of any river, whereas we have a provision which says that you cannot fish within half a mile of the mouth of a river.
There was one thing that my hon. friend did not mention, which surprised me. I am afraid he was thinking too much of his own district, and perhaps the question does not arise in his district. He talked about the enemies of the salmon. What is eliminating the salmon, and what will in a very few years entirely exterminate them in the British Columbia waters, is the use of traps and seine nets. I know I will be talking heresy in the view of many people,

because they believe otherwise. The cannery man has not a great deal of conscience regarding salmon. It has been said that the canning men will not kill their own industry, but experience has told us that many times they will. They will skin the fish supply, clean them out, let their cannery go to pieces and move somewhere else. You can trust a canneryman's word in many things, but you cannot trust him not to tackle salmon whenever and wherever he can get them.
For the information of members who may not understand the difference, I may say that the gill-net is a small net operated from a gas or row-boat and trailed more or less behind the boat. Two or three fishermen would be employed, and they might take 30 or 40 or 50, perhaps 60 salmon in a night. But the seine net is so many fathoms long, it takes in a large area and they scoop around an eighth-of-a-mile or something like that and have been known to take 6,000 salmon in one haul. They can repeat the operation three times in the course of 24 hours, or perhaps in 12 hours, and you can imagine the rate of progress you will make in eliminating your fish if you are taking 30 or 40 or 50 in a gillnet on one hand, or if you are taking 6,000 with one scoop of the seine-net on the other. That is why the seine-net is so beloved by cannery-men, and they operate in places most fatal to the salmon industry. They operate at the mouths of the creeks and rivers, they cannot operate anywhere else to the same advantage, because that is where the fish gather together preparatory to going up the creek. The salmon bunches up about that time, they lie there in the bay, and the fishermen come along with the seine-net. The regulations say they must not use it within half-a-mile of the mouth of the river, but the man who mapped out the mouth of the river is a hundred miles away, people's memories are perhaps short and these men go in after the fish and get them. They leave no tracks behind them, and you cannot see them. They have gone in at the mouth of the river, and grabbed every salmon in sight. They go back again every 24 hours, and that is the sort of thing that is going to destroy the fisheries of British Columbia.
I know this is not the case in the Fraser river where they do not use the seine-nets and never did, but the conditions there are different. The muddy water allows gill-nets to be used. The American traps and

British Columbia Fishereies
our own traps off the coast of British Columbia have depleted the run. The member for New Westminster told you about the American traps, but he did not tell you that we have a large number of traps, which we should not have, off the coast of Vancouver island, where cannery-men take heavy toll of the fish, and although we have this fishery committee to investigate the matter, if this state of affairs continues, and until the seining of salmon is done away with we will never have a solution of the situation. If they keep on using seine-nets for a few years more you will not require to bother about a committee to discuss the subject because there will be no subject to discuss.


William John Ward: This is
a question in which I am also interested. Listening to the discussion to-'day one would think that salmon was the only kind of fish produced in Canada. I come from a district in which one lake has produced in the last 20 years 5,000 carloads of fish, and these fish are just as great a delicacy as the salmon or any other fish in Canada- I refer to the whitefish. Lake Winni-pegosis produces a very fine quality of whitefish, pickerel, goldeyes and many other good varieties of fish. In that district, Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform hon. members, the fishermen, after producing 5,000 carloads of fish in 20 years, find themselves almost destitute. In my judgment the reason that they are in this position to-day is because our inland fishing industries of Canada are entirely in the control of American capitalists. The fish industry, both on lake Winnipeg and lake Winnipegosis-a district with which I am thoroughly well acquainted-are absolutely in the control of two large American fishing concerns. The Canadian fishermen who fish in these lakes have no say whatever in the setting of the price or in the sale of the fish. They simply do the fishing, place the fish on the market, and are at the mercy of these American capitalists who control the entire inland fish industry and will not make them any bids on their fish. They have to ship the fish to Chicago or some other market and rely on the grace of God or the goodness of luck to get enough to pay freight, and I might say in this regard-that the same thing applies here as applied in the case of the potatoes, to which I referred a few minutes ago- these fish are shipped in probably ten, fifteen, or twenty carload lots direct to
Chicago, and when they get to Chicago they are simply sold to the highest bidder. The company that is handling the fish, for whom the fishermen are fishing, is the same company who buy the fish at the other end. The fishermen is fleeced at the point of production and he is again fleeced when his product reaches the great markets. I think this matter should receive the serious consideration of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe). Last winter the jackfish from lake Winnipegosis were selling on the lake for lj cents a pound. Any fisherman knows that fish cannot be taken out of the lakes and put in boxes at 1J cents a pound. At the same time jack-fish was selling in Winnipeg at 10 cents a pound. Whitefish was selling at lake Winnipegosis at 5 cents a pound and in Winnipeg at 15 cents a pound. Whitefish is about as great a delicacy in the form of fish as we have in Canada, and I think it has not received the consideration in the past from the Department of Marine and Fisheries that it deserves. I would like to draw attention to another fish known as the goldeye. I am convinced-in fact one gentleman who is very familiar with the fishing industry said that he believed- that the national debt of Canada might be paid off in the course of ten years by developing the goldeye industry of Canada. They are just as great a delicacy as the speckled trout of eastern Canada ever was, and I believe we might develop a remarkable trade in the United States and probably other countries if we were to develop the goldeye industry of Canada and put this fish on the market as a delicacy. We could get a very remarkable price for it. I make these remarks for the benefit of the minister.
Motion (Mr. McQuarrie) agreed to.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-PENSION RIGHTS AND STATUS.
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion of Mr. Boys:
That in the opinion of this House, immediate steps should be taken by the Government to restore the pension rights and status of all employees and ex-employees of the Grand Trunk Railway who were deprived thereof owing to participation In a strike on the system in the year 1910, to the end that all such may secure their just rights pursuant to the terms and true intent of the settlement made between the parties.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member in whose
Immigration Act

name the resolution stands (Mr. Boys) is not in the House. I regret his absence, because I desire to make a statement on the subject of the resolution.. However, he will be able to read my remarks in Hansard and that will perhaps serve the same purpose. There is no need for this resolution inasmuch as the Government has already taken steps in the direction proposed. The Government has been negotiating with a view to seeing that a long standing injustice should be remedied without further delay:	If it is not possible to
effect by negotiation what we hope and believe will be attained by negotiation, then the Government will bring in the necessary legislation to see that the injustice that was done to employees of the Grand Trunk Railway involved in the strike of 1910, in virtue of the terms and conditions of its settlement not having been complied with, is duly remedied.


PENSIONS TO IMPERIAL FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion of Mr. Ladner:
That, in the opinion of this House, no change should he made in ithe practice adopted by the late Government, of paying at par in Canadian currency pensions payable to former, members of t'he Imperial Forces with pre-war domicile in Canada.
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member in whose name
this proposed resolution stands is not present. The policy laid down with regard to payment of pensions to the members of the Imperial forces with pre-war domicile in Canada has been continued with the understanding that the matter is now engaging the attention of a committee of this House; and until that committee decides otherwise, we have given direction that the pensioners shall receive the benefit of the payment with favourable exchange. So that what the resolution asks for is being done now, subject to the report later on of the Committee on Pensions.


IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg, Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Immigration Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Before this motion is carried, I may say that this bill is rather of an important character and seeks to amend the Immigration Act in a very radical way. I myself last year introduced a bill to amend the legislation which was passed during what was known as the panicky session of 1919 while the strike in Winni-

peg was on. There is no doubt that provisions were enacted at the time which were of a very serious character, especially when British subjects could be deported from this country without the right to be tried before suffering such deportation, which is the right of all British subjects under British law. Two years ago the then Minister of Labour introduced a bill in the Senate to amend that legislation of 1919 and to enact that a British subject could not be deported summarily in that way without having a trial in due form. That bill was rejected by the Senate and never reached the House of Commons during that session. Last year I took that very bill and introduced it in the House. It was accepted by the Government, and a provision of the Immigration Bill which was introduced by the then Minister of Immigration embodied the amendment which I had presented. Now, I should not like to oppose the principle of this bill, because it embodies what I myself proposed last year and what was then accepted by the government, and passed 'by the ! House, although it was blocked in the Senate again. This bill, however, goes a good deal further. It contains provisions which I could not accept, although I agree with that portion of it that embodies the principles of the bill I introduced last year. In view of the very important features of this bill, I think it would be wise for the House to refer it to a special committee which could carefully study its various characteristics and amend it if necessary and report to the House. The work could more easily be done before such a committee than in the House. I suggest that it be read the second time and sent to a special committee for consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be glad to have a special committee consider the matter and bring in any amendments that are found to be necessary. Certain classes of labour are suffering disabilities at the present time, and I can readily understand that a discussion in committee would bring out details more clearly than could be done in this House. I shall be glad to have this procedure adopted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill is
now before the Committee of the whole House. At a later stage, when the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) is pres-

Genoa Conference
ent, we shall move to take it out of Committee of the whole House and refer it to a special committee.


William Stevens Fielding: Without remarking
on the merits or demerits of the hill, I think it is exceedingly complicated, and for that reason objectionable. No one can readily discover what it means, and I think it would be a sounder policy to repeal the whole section and re-enact what is desired. However, I call this to the attention of the law officers of the House, and do not offer any opinion on the merits of the bill. If the House desires this legislation it could draft it in much simpler form.
Progress reported.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Criminal Code.
Ernest Lapointe: May I suggest that the same procedure be adopted with regard to this bill as was followed in connection with the previous bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hardly understand this procedure-


Hewitt Bostock: Order; this motion is not debatable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
have not moved-


Hewitt Bostock: Order; this motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not familiar with the procedure, but I understood a moment ago that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had suggested that this bill be referred to a special committee, to which I agreed. I want to bring this whole matter before the attention of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I assure my hon. friend that that is exactly the procedure we are adopting now? In order to do that, it will be necessary to move to-morrow or later that the bill be taken out of Committee of the Whole and referred to a special committee, giving at the time the names of the members of that special committee. The Government would like to consult my hon. friend before those names are given.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thank the Prime Minister. I did not understand the procedure.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Tuesday, April 11, 1922.