Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I desire to lay on the table of the house Sir Alexander Gibb's report on a survey of the national ports of Canada.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: May I ask the Minister of Marine if the report of Sir Alexander Gibb which has just been tabled will be printed and made available to every member of the house?


Alfred Duranleau: As members of the house can see, the report is voluminous. It contains many charts, plans and sketches, and to print it would be very, very expensive. I intend to refer the report to the committee on printing, and the committee will decide whe.her it should be printed in full or only a synopsis should be made.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask the Minister of Marine, now that the report of Sir Alexander Gibb is down, whether it is the intention of the government at this session to introduce any legislation based upon the report?


Alfred Duranleau: The report is being studied now, and the question whether any legislation will be brought down will be under consideration within the next few days.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I beg to lay on the table the following orders in council passed under the authority of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act; Nos. 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 771, 773, 774 and 785.
182S
Fisheries Act

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that there has been a vacancy in the constituency of Maisonneuve ever since the sixteenth of January last. On the twenty-first of January the government issued a writ for a foy-election in Athabasca, where there was also a vacancy, but no writ was issued at the time with respect to the vacancy in Maisonneuve. I would like to ask if it was the intention of the government to allow that constituency to go unrepresented in this parliament this session; also whether the government intends to take steps to see that a writ is immediately issued.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: The Prime Minister is out of the house at the moment, but he will be in shortly and I will bring the matter to his attention and ask him to give an answer.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 10, to amend and consolidate the Fisheries Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
Mr. NEILL:: Has this bill been reprinted, Mr. Chairman? I do not see how we can go on with it if it has not. It is not on our files. There was a large number of amendments, some of considerable importance, made to the bill in the marine and fisheries committee, and I do not see how we can intelligently study the bill unless it is reprinted with the amendments.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: I understand that
the committee did not order the reprinting of the bill, that the amendments were short and that it was not considered necessary to reprint the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know what the
committee did not do, but it is not customary to discuss a bill with so many amendments in committee of the whole without first having the bill reprinted, and I have never heard that it was necessary for a committee to order reprinting;, that is a matter of departmental policy. I do not-see how we can adequately

deal with this bill. We trusted the amendments would be on record; we do not know what they are. For hon. members who have spent many days discussing this matter in committee it will be unfortunate if we have to begin all over again. I would suggest either that the amendments be printed in the votes and proceedings or that the bill be reprinted.


Mr. RALSTON:: I wish to join in the
remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in requesting the minister to comply with the suggestion. I happen to come from a constituency in which great interest is taken in this bill. Not being a member of the fisheries committee I have no idea what amendments were made, and have not had an opportunity of attending discussions in committee. Therefore for the information of hon. members who have not attended the meetings of the fisheries committee I request that the amendments be printed or be put into such shape that they may be considered by the committee of the whole.


Alfred Duranleau: The amendments
adopted in committee were neither numerous nor very important, and for that reason the committee did not see fit to order reprinting. I wish to be courteous, however, and be as fair as possible to hon. members. If they think the bill should be reprinted, I have no objection. Therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



FISH INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 6, to amend The Fish Inspection Act (with amendments).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
On section 1-Application of act.
James Layton Ralston: Was there a substantial
number of amendments made to this bill?
The CHAIRMAN	(Mr. Cowan, Port
Arthur):	I think there are two.


James Layton Ralston: Will you please tell us
what they are.


Donald James Cowan: There is no change in the principle of the bill, but a slight change in the phraseology.

Fish Inspection Act


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister introduce
the amendments agreed upon in committee?


Alfred Duranleau: On this bill?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Donald James Cowan: Section 1 was amended in committee, and an amendment was inserted, known as 1 (a), as follows:
Section i oi the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:-
(g)	to prescribe the size or sizes of containers in which oysters may be shipped or taken from any province in Canada, and how such containers shall be marked;
(h)	to provide for the grading and inspection of oysters;
(i)	to prescribe how incorrectly marked containers of oysters shall be remarked and dealt with.


Alan Webster Neill: What section does that
amend?


Donald James Cowan: Section 1 of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: The confusion in this instance illustrates the need for the reprinting of the bill. We do not know what the amendments are. We have only a very imperfect recollection of what took place, and those hon. members who were not in the fisheries committee cannot possibly decide on the merits of the amendments.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, these
clauses were embodied in the existing Fisheries Act. The suggestion was made in committee that this part of the Fisheries Act should be incorporated in the Fish Inspection Act because it concerns inspection. In the result therefore, we are deleting these clauses from the Fisheries Act and incorporating them in the Fish Inspection Act. There is no new legislation, but only a transfer from the Fisheries Act to the Fish Inspection Act. I do not think the amendments require printing.


Mr. VENIOT:: Mr. Chairman, referring to
that part of the act which concerns oyster fisheries, I would like to call the minister's attention to regulations passed last year governing fishing for oysters. For instance, I find clause 12 is as follows:
"Minimum size of oysters." Except with the permission of the minister, no one shall fish for, retain or kill any round oyster of a less size than three and one-half inches in diameter, or any long oyster of a less size than four inches in length, of the outer shell.
In certain sections of the provinces of New Brunswick it will, be impossible to observe those regulations. The Caraquet bay oysters cannot be fished under that regulation at all. There is no use stating that if the regulations are observed the oyster will grow to a greater size. The natural shape of the Caraquet oyster is round. It is not elongated such as those found in Shediac bay or in Buctouche bay or Buctouche river. The result is that the men who have been able to earn their livelihood by the observation of former regulations are now thrown out of work. I ask the minister to look into these regulations very carefully, and to recommend that the sizes which obtained in the past be allowed. There is no use telling us that the regulations are enforced for the greater protection of the oyster beds. That may be true in certain sections of New Brunswick but certainly it does not apply to all sections.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I
thank the hon. member for the information and suggestions he is now making. He has referred to regulations, and I can assure him his suggestions will be well considered.


Peter John Veniot: Since the minister has been so considerate in connection with my suggestion, I have a further one to make. In the name of conscience, do not allow oyster packages, as designated in the regulations adopted last year, to be used further. It is not a package that should be put on the market at all; it is too bulky and its appearance is enough to condemn the contents. Let us have a decent package. The inspectors of the minister's department have reported that the package is ungainly and unsightly, and I hope he will take that report into consideration. Some manufacturers of barrels submitted a certain plan, and that has been accepted. But simply because the plan meets their view is no reason why it should be accepted. The package most convenient to handle and best in appearance is the package that should be accepted, even if you have to put fewer oysters therein. If the package is to contain two, three or four hundred oysters, as the case may be, and this necessitates such an ungainly way of packing them, then reduce the number of oysters and put them in an attractive package. Do not impose on the public such an ungainly package as the one ordered last year.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the fish dealers of Prince Edward Island are perfectly satisfied with the regulations as to those packages.
Fish Inspection Act


Peter John Veniot: I may say to the minister that they are not satisfied. I am acquainted with hundreds of those dealers.


Alfred Duranleau: It will be a matter of investigation on the part of the officials of my department, and if my hon. friend's complaints are well founded no doubt we will take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.


Mr. MacLEAN:: What is the size of oysters under the old regulation and under the new?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the information under my hand to-day, but I will supply it later on to my hon. friend.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Who asked for the change? Is it a departmental regulation or has it been requested by parties interested?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand if it is purely departmental or if the change was made on the request of someone, but I wdll supply the information to my hon. friend.


Peter John Veniot: In the past the regulation diameter was three inches for the round oyster and three and a half inches for the elongated; under the present regulations it is three and a half for the round and four for the elongated. There is no trouble about the four-inch diameter for the elongated oyster, but there is a great deal of complaint about the three and a half inch diameter for the round oyster. Whoever made the recommendation did not have in view the size of oysters in the different sections of New Brunswick and perhaps in Prince Edward Island. I can assure the minister that as to the Shemogue oyster, the Shediac oyster, the Buctouche bay and Buc-touche river oyster and the Baie du Vin oyster, there is no trouble applying the regulation, but when you come to oysters further north in New Brunswick you cannot apply it and do justice to the market, nor will the application of the regulation protect the oysters in northern New Brunswick.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Containers must be inspected.


Donald James Cowan: Section 2 was amended in the
twenty-third line, where the word "shall" has been changed to the word "need." The proviso will now read:
Provided that boxes for smoked herring and boxes for dry salted herring need not be inspected and marked until they have been packed and made ready for shipment.


Alan Webster Neill: Was there not another amendment made to that section?


Mr. ERNST:: All the words after the word "shipment" in line twenty-five were struck out. The amendment in so far as it relates to fish oil was also struck out.
Mr. NEILL; The same thing should be struck out in subsection 2.


William Gordon Ernst: It was.


Alan Webster Neill: When we pass this bill the
Angel Gabriel won't understand it. I find the member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) is driven to appealing to the house to do something for conscience sake.


Donald James Cowan: Subsection 2 was amended by
striking out the proviso:
Provided that such fish oils as may hereafter come under the provisions of this act shall be prepared and graded in accordance with the regulations and be inspected in accordance therewith.


Alan Webster Neill: Carried.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Penalty for altering official mark.


Alan Webster Neill: No amendment to section 4?


William Gordon Ernst: No, but there was an addition to the old act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
Marine-salaries and contingencies, $437,137.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: When will the deputy
minister be appointed?


Alfred Duranleau: I think it will not be long.


Ernest Lapointe: How long has the position been vacant?


Alfred Duranleau: As the hon. member
for Quebec East knows, this is a matter for the Prime Minister, so I think the question should be directed to him when he is in the house.

Supply-M arine


Ernest Lapointe: I am hardly ready to
accept the doctrine that if the Prime Minister is not ready to appoint a deputy minister the department should not have one. Would my hon. friend subscribe to the principle, that even if he needs a deputy minister he will not have one if the Prime Minister is not ready to make the appointment.


Alfred Duranleau: I did not say the
Prime Minister was not ready to make the appointment, but I have an assistant deputy minister and an assistant to the assistant, who are both very competent men. I do not think my hon. friend should press for an immediate appointment, because we want to make a first class choice.


Ernest Lapointe: Have any applications
been made to my hon. friend for the position?


Alfred Duranleau: As I told my hon.
friend, any such applications must be made to the Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: Not a word whispered
to the minister himself?


Alfred Duranleau: No official word.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I wonder
if perhaps that is the reason why the appointment has not been made, all the applications going to the Prime Minister and none to the minister himself. I would not blame the minister if he did not make an appointment under those circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,521,000.
Mr. ARTHURS:: I should like to direct
the attention of the minister, from my place in this house, to the situation with regard to the marine agency in the constituency which I represent. We have been somewhat unfortunate in the past in regard to the boats provided by the government. Many years ago, prior to the war, we had a good boat known as the Simcoe. Owing to the exigencies of the war that boat was taken from that station and sent to the Atlantic coast, for which work it was totally unsuited, as was shown by the fact that it was lost with all hands on its first voyage.
Subsequently a boat built for the St. Lawrence service, the C.G.S. Grenville, was placed on that route. This was a first class boat in every way, but it was rather small for the service. Two or three years ago the government purchased a vessel known as the
St. Helier, which I am led to believe was built during the war for coastal patrol work in Great Britain. This boat had an overall length of 130 feet. It was unsuited for the service and was unseaworthy in many ways, and a number of sister ships were lost. This boat was purchased by the late government on condition that it was to be lengthened to 180 feet, which was done, but no provision was made for changing the location of the engines. As a result when they attempted to turn her over to the captain and crew at Prescott she was found to be 14 feet down by the stern. In order to remedy that I understand about 200 tons of cement were placed in her forehold. In many ways she is absolutely unseaworthy, or so I am informed; she is cranky, and naturally must be under the conditions I have named. Any man with any marine experience at all will understand that the steering apparatus, the rudder and so on, built for a boat 130 feet in length, would be totally unsuited for a boat 180 feet long.
I would ask the minister to have this boat inspected by a thoroughly competent naval architect before it is placed in the service. The members of the crew, together with their families, are naturally apprehensive as to their safety. I neglected to mention that we had another boat in that service called the Lamb-ton, which also belonged to the Department of Marine and which was lost in lake Superior with all hands simply because it was not suited to the work. I think I am quite justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, because I believe the government would be negligent if they did not look fully into it before risking the lives of the crew of this boat.


Alfred Duranleau: I had no knowledge
of the facts just brought forward by the hon. member; I always thought, and it was the opinion of the department, that the vessel in question was quite seaworthy. But I will be pleased to have an immediate inspection made by a competent officer. I am anxious to give the best service possible in that direction, and this will be done immediately.


James Arthurs: I did not intend to reflect on the minister at all; this boat only came to the station late last fall, and we had no previous experience with her.


Alan Webster Neill: While this item is only for
maintenance and repairs it might be a proper time to ask the minister if he has carried out what I believe was his intention, the construction of a sister ship to the Estevan to aid in the lighthouse work on the Pacific coast. I presume the minister knows this vessel is
Supply-Marine

very badly needed. The Estevan is continually at work and the work has increased very much in late years, in fact, to a really marked degree, along with the development of the country. In years gone by they used to have three steamers, whereas now they have practically only one, the Estevan, with any equipment to lift the big buoys. For the lack of a sister ship or some auxiliary boat, we find that this powerful boat is going around doing what I would call petty work, such as a smaller boat would be suited for. Driven by necessity, therefore, they have allowed the lifting of buoys to get behind, so that the light goes out, and to try to meet the immediate situation they have adopted a sort of temporary system which takes up a good deal of time and is by no means satisfactory. All this is due to the fact that the vote is not sufficient to take care of the work. It was the intention of the department some years ago to build a steamer. Possibly this is being done now; the boat may be under construction. I cannot too strongly emphasize, however, the importance of another steamer on that work on the Pacific. I have not the figures with me, but if I remember rightly, in the last ten years the lights and buoys on the Pacific coast have increased one hundred per cent although the equipment to handle the work has gone down, from the standpoint of numbers at any rate. Can the minister give me any information in regard to this matter?


Alfred Duranleau: Though the department is fully seized of the necessity for such construction, we did not consider the time opportune to incur the expenditure, especially in view of the reduction in our revenues. We have decided not to undertake such expenditures at the present time, but we have the matter in hand and hope to be able, as soon as possible, to proceed with construction.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is it the intention of the minister to go on with the project which the department contemplated two years ago, of building a new boat to replace the Jalobert, at Rimouski? I understood that plans were being prepared and estimates were obtained, and that it was proposed to go on with the construction at the earliest possible date. As the minister knows, the Jalobert is a small boat and the conditions under which she is operating at Father Point are extremely dangerous at times. The construction of a new boat is absolutely needed.


Alfred Duranleau: That very question
was brought to the attention of the department two or three years ago and has been under consideration since. I regret, however, that I must give to my hon. friend the same answer I gave in the other case: the time is not opportune to undertake such expenditures. Unless it becomes absolutely necessary, I do not think we should go on with that undertaking at the present time.


Eugène Fiset: If the minister will take the trouble to peruse the reports on file in regard to the Jalobert, he will see that it is becoming increasingly necessary every year to provide a new boat, and I hope he will give due consideration to the application already made.


Alfred Duranleau: I can promise the hon. gentleman that I will personally look over the last report and inquire into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, $37,000.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: What are the services for which this amount is being asked?


Alfred Duranleau: The amount voted
last year was $53,000, reduced this year by $16,000. The vote is made up as follows: Examination of masters and mates, $15,760; navigation schools, $6,240; for the temporary relief of distressed seamen, $2,000; investigation into wrecks, $5,000; registration of shipping, $2,000; removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $2,000; expenses on live stock shipments, $4,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to reimburse the British Board of Trade for expenditures incurred in the relief of distressed Canadian seamen not authorized by the Canada Shipping Act, $300.
Ernest Lapointe: Has the minister any
better information to give as to what a distressed Canadian seaman is than was given by the Minister of Labour?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the Minister of Labour gave a fair definition to my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: Not to me; he did not say anything to me.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) came to the rescue of the hon. member for Temiscouata.

Supply-M arine


Ernest Lapointe: That hon. gentleman was not in any need of being rescued; I think the distressed seaman at the time was the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $40,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I notice that this vote has
been reduced almost fifty per cent, and knowing the minister's desire to be fair I am quite sure that most of this cut has been taken off Quebec rather than from the Pacific ocean. I should like the details, and particularly information as to where the paring has been done-I mean, what services.


Alfred Duranleau: The cut was from the Quebec Salvage Company grant.


Eugène Fiset: What amount has been deducted from that subsidy so far as Quebec is concerned?


Alfred Duranleau: The department was
under contract with the Quebec Salvage Company-


Eugène Fiset: With the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Alfred Duranleau: -and is still under contract until the first of May. It is the Quebec Salvage Company.


Ernest Lapointe: Canada Steamships.


Alfred Duranleau: Well, I know that the Canadian Pacific Railway is greatly interested, and I am not sure whether to-day it does not own the majority of the shares. I can say, however, that the majority of the shares are to-day in the hands of Canadians and Canadian firms. It was suggested last year, when my estimates came before the committee, that the majority of the shares of that company were American, but that is not the case today. The contract expires on May 1. With the Pacific Coast Salvage Company we have a ten year contract expiring in 1935, so that we have made no change in the subsidy.


Alan Webster Neill: That is the explanation.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the Quebec
Salvage Company, we had to cut down expenses here and accordingly we intimated to the company that we could not grant the same amount after May 1 next.


Eugène Fiset: Do I understand that the subsidy will not be renewed after May 1?


Alfred Duranleau: It will be renewed in the sum of $30,000.


Eugène Fiset: Has the minister received any applications from other wrecking companies for similar subsidies, and have those applications been refused?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say that applications for grants have been received, but we have received communications from the Maritime Foundation and Wrecking Company, which operates a plant at Rimouski. They have asked that a grant be not given to any other company in order that they may be able to compete. After due consideration we came to the conclusion that we should reduce the grant to the other company, but we. could not cut it out entirely.


Eugène Fiset: The minister has received from the Maritime Foundation and Wrecking Company a statement to the effect that they are able to carry on all the wrecking work in the gulf of St. Lawrence right up to Rimouski without receiving any grant. Notwithstanding this fact, he is granting a subsidy to cover that part of the river lying between Quebec and Rimouski, which subsidy has been paid to the company for the past twelve or fifteen years.


Alfred Duranleau: We have had proof that this company is operating its plant at a loss and under the circumstances we thought it only fair to maintain the grant.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister give the Maritime Foundation and Wrecking Company of Rimouski the same consideration given to the Quebec and British Columbia wrecking companies? If a grant of $30,000 is to be paid to the other company, does the minister not think that this company should receive some consideration? This company paid for half the cost of construction of the wharf and necessary dredging work at Rimouski, something which no company has ever done before. If this grant is to be renewed on May 1, does the minister not think that in all fairness it should be divided between the two companies? I think this is a very moderate request to make and I hope the minister will give it due consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: The Quebec Salvage Company has always given first class service.


Eugène Fiset: So has the Foundation company.
Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: We have no assurance that that company always will maintain a plant for salvage purposes. We must all realize the importance of being assured that first class salvage service will always be available on the St. Lawrence. The Foundation company organized its plant at Rimouski one or two years ago; this was not done at the request of the department as we were perfectly satisfied with the service given by the Quebec Salvage Company. If another company opens up a plant, is it fair that the grant should be divided? Suppose a third company starts to operate on the St. Lawrence, would it be fair to divide the grant by three? Suppose a fourth company opened up, would it be fair to divide it by four? We must be assured that we will always have a first class salvage organization on the St. Lawrence, and that is why the grant has been made up to date and that is why we have come to the conclusion that we should maintain that grant to the extent of $30,000.


Eugène Fiset: I do not think the minister is being exactly fair to the Foundation company. He should remember that two years ago when the Department of Public Works agreed to construct the wharf at Rimouski, this company was compelled to pay half the cost of that work. They paid their bills and they paid for the dredging at Rimouski. They were assured that they would be given fair and due consideration and they have simply made a protest to the department that as far "as their company was concerned it was unfair to give a substantial subsidy to a company that had received a subsidy for a great number of years. The Quebec company has hardly been operating as far as the lower St. Lawrence is concerned. The company at Rimouski is operating the most powerful tug on the lower St. Lawrence and their assistance has been called for by the Quebec Salvage Company. To all intents and purposes the Foundation company is doing all the work down there, and the arguments advanced by the minister hardly apply as far as the Maritime Foundation and Wrecking Company is concerned or as far as the city of Rimouski is concerned. I refer particularly to the distribution of coal for the Canadian National Railways in the section between Moncton and Levis, and also to the distribution of the fertilizers which have been accumulating at Rimouski for the last few years. In view of the service which the Foundation company has given, in view of the assistance given in the construction of the
[Sir Eugene Fiset.l
wharf and the reduction of our unemployed,
I ask the minister to give further consideration to this matter. I ask him not to continue to give the reasons he has given for refusing this request. When this contract is to be renewed I ask him to take all these facts into consideration and divide the grant which he proposes to give to the. other company.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not want my hon. friend to understand me as criticizing the operations of the Foundation company; that company is a very reliable one and is doing a large business in Canada. As a matter of fact, it carried out undertakings at St. John, New Brunswick, both for the department and for the harbour commission; it took a large part in the work of reconstruction after the fire which occurred last year. The department is on the best of terms with this company but I do not think it would be fair at the present time to divide the grant between the two companies. This company has been operating only for a year or two and I think it should be allowed to continue for another year or two before we either wipe out all grants or decide to divide them between the two companies.


Eugène Fiset: It may be quite true that this company has been operating at Rimouski only for a couple of years, but it had been operating in other parts of the lower St. Lawrence for many years before that.


Alfred Duranleau: In Newfoundland.


Eugène Fiset: The minister will admit that as far as emergency calls are concerned, the fact that this company is located at the entrance to the gulf enables them to render a better service than a company operating out of Quebec. I ask the minister to give this company an equal chance, or at least cut out all subsidies. I realize that he has given this company extremely fair consideration in the past, but I am talking for the city of Rimouski. I am going to try to get everything possible for Rimouski, notwithstanding what the minister may say.


Mr. DUFF:: Do I understand correctly
that this contract will expire on May 1, at which time a new contract will be entered into?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


William Duff: In these days when we are
trying to economize in every way, would it not be a good idea to call for tenders for this work? That is done in the Trade and

Supply-M arine
Commerce department where they are subsidizing different steamship companies. I would suggest to the minister that instead of handing over this contract again to the Quebec Salvage Company he call for tenders and see which company is willing to do the work the cheapest. As the minister said a moment ago, this new salvage company may not stay in the business for very many years and therefore in calling for tenders he need have no fear that the department would not be properly protected. I would suggest that he call for tenders for a contract period of ten years and let the firms on the St. Lawrence tender for this work.


Alfred Duranleau: My intention was not to enter into any contract for the time being but rather to get along with this vote this year, and then we can see what we can do afterwards. The plea of my hon. friend from Rimouski is so strong that I shall take it under consideration. If the committee will allow this item to pass we will consider the advisability of dividing the grant.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps a new deputy
minister will consider it.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: What is the actual
division as between Quebec and British Columbia under this vote?


Alfred Duranleau: As I told the committee a moment ago, we are under contract with the Pacific Coast Salvage Company for another three years. They receive a grant of S10,000. If the finances of the country had permitted it we would perhaps have increased the grant to the Pacific Coast Salvage Company by five or ten thousand dollars, but as we are reducing the grants as a whole by over thirty thousand dollars, we could not make any increase to that company this year.


Mr. SHORT:: Would the minister explain
why it is necessary to give a grant to the salvage companies in the St. Lawrence and on the British Columbia coast? We have salvage companies operating in the maritime provinces without any subsidy at all, some of them profitably and others unprofitably, but they take their chance. There is perhaps not quite as much shipping in the maritime provinces, but there is still a great deal of shipping done there, and I would think that our salvage companies are entitled to the same consideration as those on the St. Lawrence and in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: But we must remember that
the maritimes get $160,000 of a fishing grant to which they are not entitled.


Harry Bernard Short: That is only your opinion.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not like to
repeat what I have already said to the committee, but it is of the greatest importance that we have in the St. Lawrence and on the Pacific coast first class salvage equipment for the protection of life and to give an efficient salvage service. Those companies which have been engaged in the salvage business in the St. Lawrence and on the Pacific coast in the past have been operating at great loss, and as it is essential to have first-class salvage equipment always in operation we thought fit to give this grant to the St. Lawrence and British Columbia companies. The salvage companies in the maritime provinces are in a different position because they operate all the year round, and the companies there are doing a good business, but on the St. Lawrence the salvage companies are losing money all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $50,000.
Alan Webster Neill: This vote for life saving shows a cut of 33 per cent, and the ten per cent cut in wages would not account for ten per cent of this total cut because, of course, there are other expenses than wages. The point I wish to inquire about is this: So far as the Pacific coast is concerned, and I presume the same is true of the eastern coast, this life saving service is what I would call a specific one. That is, they have a steamer during certain months of the year, and they maintain two life boats equipped complete for service in the winter time but cut down to a skeleton staff in the summer. If you are going to reduce this vote by 33 per cent, are you going to cut down the personnel on these boats, which only have a meagre equipment now? Or how are you going to bring about this 33 per cent reduction, of which less than one-third is accounted for by the cut in wages?


Alfred Duranleau: We have had to
exercise strict economy this year, and the following economies have been effected in this service:
1.	Winter crew of four extra men, each station, eliminated from Bamfield and Clayo-quot, leaving six men each station-regular crew.
2.	Two boatmen eliminated from Bay View and Cheticamp, leaving six men each station- regular crew.
3.	West coast land patrol reduced to minimum cost, allowing no reserve.
4.	Provision for wreck pay and rewards reduced to a minimum.
1836	COMMONS
Supply-Marine


Alan Webster Neill: I am afraid that this is an example of that economy which is expensive in the long run. It is all . very well to economize where the economy involves at most only inconvenience. For instance, nowadays we sometimes ring up a $4,000 man in a department and a $2,400 man takes several minutes time getting the $4,000 man. Then the $4,000 man leaves his office unattended and walks along a corridor to the phone and communicates with the person who is calling him, and perhaps that process is repeated again a couple of minutes later-this in order to save a, phone. I do not think that is true economy, but at most it involves only inconvenience and delay. But to exercise economy in a vote of this kind strikes at the very root of the matter. It is economizing at the possible expense of human lives. I know that west coast like a book, and these life boats are not fit to be taken out in winter with only a skeleton crew. The minister mentioned six men: but one must always be left at home as a watchman, and so forth. It has been found from experience that to man these boats adequately, and they are pretty big boats, so that they can put out to sea and reach the scene of a wreck, you must maintain more than six men in the winter time. I deprecate very much the suggestion of economizing in that way. I have not raised my voice in the house this session to protest against any other economy, painful and awkward as it has been in connection with many of the estimates. I am of opinion that such a change would imperil the lives of the crew and the usefulness of their operations. Of those six men one must constantly attend to the engine, another must steer, and another be in charge of the remaining three. Those four men would have to do the work of taking the people from a wreck while perhaps holding the boat off rocks, and so forth. If the minister has made his decision I can do no more than enter my protest.
At this time I should like to mention another point, which I had intended to raise during the discussion on the bill to reduce by ten per cent the salaries of civil servants. These wretchedly paid men receive only $65 per month. They are not stenographers here in Ottawa receiving only $65 per month, but they are men who maintain families and if called upon have to go out and risk their lives. In fact they must do that, or they would be of no use; and for those services they receive only $65 per month. In addition they receive $25 for board allowance making their total remuneration $90 per month. The $25 allowance how-

ever is not as beneficial to them as it would be to some one working in Ottawa, because those men are married and must maintain their homes, and the $25 just pays for their food on board ship. Therefore they are receiving considerably less remuneration than some workmen on shore. Of the $90 per month only $65 is available, because the $25 has to go to their mess.
Under the bill now going through this house stipulating a cut of ten per cent, these men receiving $1,080 per year will be cut $108, because they are not eligible for superannuation. They would like to have that benefit, but through the operation of some legal quirk they are not allowed to qualify. A case has been decided to that effect. If they were paying into a superannuation fund, by the provisions of the bill now going through the house the government would pay their superannuation allowances and they would be receiving a cut on their salaries of only five per cent, or $54. However, because they are not eligible for superannuation-because if they were to drown to-morrow their widows and children would receive no payment from the superannuation fund-they are to be taxed, forsooth, ten per cent. The cut is levied on the full salary of $1,080, whereas in my view it should be only five per cent and based on the monthly salary of $65, or the yearly salary of $780. Surely in such cases special consideration should be given. They are receiving less than $1,200 per year, and whether or not they are paying into a superannuation fund, they should not be docked more than five per cent.
As the bill reads to-day-and undoubtedly it will pass in its present form-these men receiving the miserable salary of $65 per month, or at the very most $90 per month, are going to be docked ten per cent simply because through an interpretation of the law they are not eligible for superannuation. Can we expect those men to be enthusiastic about their work when they see men receiving salaries greater than theirs docked only five per cent, and when they realize that from the beggarly renumeration I have mentioned will be cut ten per cent. I hope the minister will take steps to consider this injustice, and at least make an effort to arrange that these men be deducted only five per cent, the same as they would have been had they been paying into a superannuation fund. That is as good an illustration as I can think of; these men who are poorly paid and receiving only $1,080 must submit to a ten per cent cut, whereas other men receiving superannuation benefits are docked only five per cent. The fact is that they are really receiving only $780, and

Supply-M arine
from that amount will be deducted ten per cent on $1,080. I am quite sure the minister will realize the justice of my suggestions and that he will do all within his power to get- I am not asking at present for better remuneration, although they certainly ought to have it-special consideration of their case whereby the cut may be reduced from ten per cent to five per cent.


Harry Bernard Short: Mr. Chairman, I do not
often agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but in some of the suggestions he has made to-day I concur. I have noticed that the minister intends to reduce by two a staff in my constituency. A few days ago I brought to his attention and to the attention of his department the fact that it was absolutely essential the crew should remain as it is. A reduction would not be in the best interests of the work that particular station is performing; in fact with a smaller crew, they could not possibly function. I trust the minister will comply with the request I have made to the effect that no reduction take place in the crew.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I can
tell the two gentlemen who have just taken their seats that the matters they have mentioned will be considered. I note that the Pacific coast life saving service is getting $20,400 out of the 850,000 vote, and with that amount I hope to be able to increase the crews of the boats I have just mentioned. We may consider decreasing the crews at other points, but to give proper crews to those boats.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I suggest that the
minister give consideration to the five per cent I mentioned.


Alfred Duranleau: We will consider the matter. The same point was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis. I told him, and I now tell my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that we will consider the question of increasing the crews at those stations.


William Duff: I listened with a great deal
of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I happened to be in the house a few nights ago when an hon. member on this side of the house moved an amendment to the bill which deals with the horizontal reduction of ten per cent on salaries. Unless my memory is defective I recollect the hon. member for Comox-Alberni voted for the horizontal reduction of ten per cent on the salary of every civil servant, although to-day
he seems to be advocating a graduated cut. I am entirely in agreement with his present attitude; in fact I go farther, and say that I am opposed to any reduction on any civil servant's salary. I am surprised indeed-perhaps I should be gratified-to learn to-day that for some reason or other my hon. friend has had a change of heart.


Ernest Lapointe: He has seen the light.


William Duff: He now comes forward and
asks for a reduction of only five per cent from the salaries of men who are performing a very great service to this country, the members of life saving crews. I agree entirely that there should be no reduction of their salaries; instead of a five per cent reduction there should be none whatever.
I agree with him that it would not be good policy on the part of the department to reduce the number of men on those crews from ten to six. The boats are very large; they have to be launched in very rough weather and more than six men are required to handle them. I should like to know how the minister arrived at this particular reduction; which men has he decided to leave off the crews? Will he discharge the whole ten men, and then have the Civil Service Commission appoint six others? It would be interesting to know the plan adopted.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is preparing an answer, I should like to reply to my hon. friend's remarks in reference to myself. I observe with pain he does not know that those boatmen are not appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but by political influence.


William Duff: I did not say they were so
appointed; I asked if they were.


Alan Webster Neill: I am surprised that with his long attendance in this house he does not know it. I was glad to see that while he started his remarks in a spirit of modified antagonism, later on he agreed thoroughly with me. As regards how I voted the other day, though it is foreign to the discussion now, I suppose I may be allowed to explain my position. I voted for the second reading of the bill to cut my salary and salaries of civil servants ten per cent, and I am prepared to go to my constituents and defend that action. That was the principle of the bill. But at the very moment when I so voted I had in my desk, written in my own hand, an amendment to move in committee to section three providing against the condition I have been describing, and asking that men
1S38
Supply-Marine

drawing less than $1,200 should not be docked anything at all, or at most not more than five per cent. I had provided for dealing with just exactly the case I have been describing this afternoon. So I do not think I am guilty of having changed my attitude. However, that is such a trifling detail that I need not waste the time of the house on it. I am glad to get support along the line the hon. member suggested for not reducing the men on the boats. When a minister says he will look into it and endeavour to do something, we generally suppose he is going to do something, so I must for the time being accept his promise.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. minister be so kind as to inform us whether there exists a life saving service in the province of Quebec and, if so, in what localities.


Alfred Duranleau: There
is no life saving service in the province of Quebec, this service exists however in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


William Duff: Will the minister please reply to my question with regard to whether the boat crews have been reduced?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand whether we have come to the conclusion to reduce the crews on the eastern coast. In my answer I was dealing with the crews on the western coast. But I will also look into the situation on the eastern coast. If we decide we cannot reduce the crews, then we shall have to cut expenses in some other direction, but we will consider the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: Will the marine insurance rates be higher on account of the fact that item 140 has been reduced?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the rates will be the same.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the minister have
any communication with Lloyd's?


Alfred Duranleau: We have had no
communication with Lloyd's, but on the other hand we never gave them any undertaking that we would maintain the estimate at $1,860,000. I can assure my hon. friend that the cut will not curtail the efficiency of the service. We do not anticipate any increase in the rates of marine insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. NefflJ
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $468,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Will this allow for commissioning the Lillooet on the west coast?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, sir.


Eugène Fiset: Does that provide also for the Acadia?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Two or three years ago there was a very distinguished specialist in the hydrographic survey; I refer to Mr. Savary. He was a very efficient public servant, but he accepted a position in the provincial service of Quebec because his salary in the federal service was too low. If there is a decrease in the salaries of the specialists who are making hydrographic maps, does not the minister fear that some of them may fee attracted elsewhere? If they leave the service would he not find it difficult to replace them?


Alfred Duranleau: I was not at the head of the department when Mr. Savary accepted a position in the provincial service of Quebec, but I am sorry that we have lost the services of such an expert. At the present time we have first-class men attending to this work, and they are so devoted to the department and so patriotic that I do not think they would ever dream of resigning on account of the cut.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a question of patriotism, Mr. Chairman, it is a question of necessity. My remarks were not a criticism of those employees.


Mr. REID:: Are the hydrographic surveys regarding the depth of channel, tidal and other data with respect to the Fraser river made available to the public?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the same question was put to me last year by my hon. friend. On that occasion I told him that this part of the work belongs to the Department of Public Works, not to the marine department.


Thomas Reid: Is it done every year?


Alfred Duranleau: Not by the Marine department, but by the Department of Public W orks.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not Mr. Parizeau furnish plans as a result of the operations of the Lillooet? I am glad to pay tribute to the excellent work he and his assistants do.

Supply-M arine
They chart a certain area, and the maps are issued to navigators and others who need them. I am only too pleased to testify to the usefulness of their work.


Thomas Reid: Complaint is made that it is very difficult to obtain such data in regard to the Fraser river.


Alfred Duranleau: The Marine department attends to inlet, bay and ocean surveys, not to the survey of rivers.


Wilfrid Girouard: Will the
hon. minister inform us what work has been accomplished by his department in connection with the hydrographic survey in the gulf of St. Lawrence?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say exactly how far the work has been proceeded with. My information is that the department will continue this year the hydrographic survey of the gulf on the north shore. The Acadia will proceed to that part of the gulf at the opening of navigation in order to carry on the hydrographic work of last year.


Wilfrid Girouard: What
about the south shore?


Alfred Duranleau: We
shall begin by the north shore; it is possible that we may proceed later on with the hydrographic survey of the south shore.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many
boats perform this hydrographic survey?


Alfred Duranleau: On the Atlantic coast, we have the Acadia and the Cartier. On the Pacific coast, the Lillooet and two smaller boats, the Pender and Somass. As the committee is aware, we are at present building, at Collingwood, a boat which will also be utilized in the hydrographic service. This quite up to date boat will be launched at an early date and will carry out, I feel certain, efficient and considerable work. I cannot say for certain whether it will undertake hydrographic work this year, but assuredly next year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Have we
any boat performing hydrographic work on the Canadian side of the Great lakes?


Alfred Duranleau: There
is no hydrographic work being done, at present, on the Great lakes.


Jean-François Pouliot: (Translation): Are there
marine charts to indicate the tides?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: For the
Great lakes?


Alfred Duranleau: We
have all this information. Hydrographic surveys have already been carried out on the Great lakes and these charts are at our disposal.


Jean-François Pouliot: When was
the last complete hydrographic chart of the St. Lawrence river and gulf published?


Alfred Duranleau: I think that it was some years past that the last hydrographic chart of the St. Lawrence was published, however, as the work progresses, the department makes the necessary corrections.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the department keep track of the erosion, the silt piled up by the currents, and all such matters? I understand that the geographic maps keep track of them.


Alfred Duranleau: They
must be kept track of since it is for that purpose that charts are made.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the sale price of these charts?


Alfred Duranleau: They
cost very little. Should my hon. friend wish to obtain one, he can do so at very little cost and even gratuitously, I think, by addressing his request to the Department of Marine.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the minister would tell me if the survey of the channel between the wharf at Rimouski and deep water has been made by the hydrographic survey and, if so, if he could give me an idea of the depth of that deep water channel.


Alfred Duranleau: I regret that I have not this information with me.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister would be good enough to have one of his officials obtain that information for me, and I will tell the minister why I ask. Last year the report was circulated all through the press of Canada that the channel was only seven feet deep, though three years ago it was dredged to a depth of 16 feet. Unfortunately it has filled in to a certain extent, and last year I asked the minister if he would be kind enough to let us have the services of one of the departmental dredges in order to have that channel maintained at a proper depth.
What I am anxious to know is this:	Has
the map of the channel been corrected sufficiently to enable navigators to know exactly what is the actual depth of the channel between deep water and the wharf itself?
Supply-Marine

Along the wharf at Rimouski the water is 22 feet deep; the channel was to be the same depth, but it was dredged to only 16 feet and consequently some of the big boats belonging to the local trading people dare not come to Rimouski, since their navigators are under the impression that the channel is only 7 or 9 feet deep. I wish the minister would do me the kindness to ascertain the exact condition of the channel and let it be made public, either through the press or by circulation of the departmental report, so that the local navigators will be made fully aware of the depth of the channel, in order to give Rimouski harbour a proper chance.


Alfred Duranleau: I will do with pleasure what my hon. friend requests.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since the Acadia and the Cartier are in the St. Lawrence service would the minister tell me who supplies the coal for these boats and who supplies the food and clothing for the crews. I should like to know if tenders are called for and, if so, how they are called and what time is given in which to tender.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand where the coal is bought. As to the food, on those boats we have employees who are under contract to supply food to the crew at so much a day.


Eugène Fiset: Is not the Acadia an oil burner?


Alfred Duranleau: No, there is no oil used on these boats.


Eugène Fiset: Is the minister sure the Acadia is not an oil burner?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not sure whether it is oil or coal, but the provisions are supplied under contract.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the uniforms for the crews?


Alfred Duranleau: We do not supply
uniforms for these crews. I am sure we did not buy any uniforms this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the construction of a new steamer for hydrographic surveys, $147,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Is this boat for use on the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Will this sum complete it?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.
'Sir Eugene Fiset.]


Alan Webster Neill: When will it be ready for operation?


Alfred Duranleau: I think the boat will be launched next week at Collingwood.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister make a speech on that occasion?


Alfred Duranleau: Unfortunately I cannot get away; we are too busy here.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it a coal burner?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. The hon. member will remember that last year the matter was brought up in the house, and at the request of the hon. gentleman, supported by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), I had the specifications modified. If I remember correctly I had to have the boat lengthened by 14 feet, and I had to have a double bottom built instead of a single bottom, in order to encourage our Canadian mines.


Alan Webster Neill: I congratulate the minister on that action. Now may I put in a plea with regard to the name of this boat. It is to be used on the Pacific coast, and it will be largely occupied with work on the west coast of Vancouver island. So it would seem appropriate that in some way its name should symbolize this connection with that coast. I am not suggesting that it should be called after my wife or anything like that; I have no ambition to immortalize my name in that way, but I think it would be appropriate to give the vessel some name thoroughly typical of the historical associations of the west coast.
I would suggest the name "Alberni," which is the name of the largest town on that coast. This place was named after Count Alberni, who was what we would call to-day the navigating lieutenant of the fleet of Quadra, the Spanish commander who occupied the west coast. Later, by means of a treaty consummated at Nootka with the British officer, Captain Vancouver, the Spanish commander agreed to evacuate the whole of that territory, and that was how it came into possession of the British crown. So I think the name "Alberni" would be thoroughly symbolical of this historical occurrence. The Canadian Pacific Railway, which operates coastal boats in those waters, has followed that idea by calling its latest steamship after an Indian princess who gained fame in connection with the treaty signed at Nootka, when the British captain and the Spanish commander met. I would respectfully urge upon the minister that he consider

Supply-M arine
a name like that, which would be far more appropriate than the name of some politician who passes like a shadow that is gone with the break of day.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: When the minister is
considering a choice of names, I think "Independent" might be symbolical; it might represent the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in his political aspirations which we have seen demonstrated so often in this house. There is a question I want to ask, however. Is the boat completely furnished and equipped, or will the furnishings be bought on the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: Answering first the
question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I am sorry that his suggestion was not brought forward sooner, because the ship has been named.


Alan Webster Neill: Before being launched?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes; we had to name the ship about a month or two ago, before launching her. The name we chose was that of the man who had been in charge of the hydrographic department in Ottawa for years. He had been a very devoted servant of the department, over which he had had charge for a number of years, and he was an outstanding hydrographer. I refer to the late Mr. William J. Stewart. We thought, after mature consideration, that we should christen the boat Stewart, in recognition of the services of a faithful public servant who died about two years ago.


Alan Webster Neill: This is the first time in a
rather long experience that I have heard of a child having been christened before it was bom. It was really premature. Suppose it had turned out to be of a different sex from what was anticipated? Until the actual launching takes place, and some fair lady breaks a bottle of wine on the ship, the name should be subject to revision. I say this with all due respect to the memory of Mr. Stewart, whom I have heard spoken of casually as a man that had been of great service in his own department. But Mr. Stewart had no associations, either personal or geographical, with the area in which the boat operates and I submit that it would be more appropriate, if a boat is to be named after him, that it should be a boat navigating on the Atlantic coast, where he was more in touch with conditions and where the people would recognize the significance of the name. The first thing the minister knows, people on the Pacific coast will be supposing that this boat was named after 41781-116
the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), which I am sure is not his intention or ambition. I would submit, if it is not too late yet, that the name I have suggested or some similar name would be far more appropriate.
I leave without any comment or reply the witticism of the hon. member for Victoria with regard to the name he suggests.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps I did not
express myself correctly when I said that the boat had been named. What I wanted to convey was that we had to cut the name into the frame of the boat, and when the time came to have this done my attention was called to the necessity of fixing upon a name. I had a conference with my officials and the matter was discussed thoroughly, and we decided upon the name Stewart, which was accordingly cut into the frame of the boat. The boat will be christened in due course. As regards the question asked by the hon. member for Victoria, the boat must be delivered on the Pacific coast from Collingwood, which means that she must be equipped before she leaves that point.


Ernest Lapointe: What will be the total
cost of the boat?


Alfred Duranleau: Around S700.000.


Ernest Lapointe: Were tenders called for?


Alfred Duranleau: To be exact, the
amount is S616,800.


Ernest Lapointe: How many tenders were received?


Alfred Duranleau: Eight or ten, or probably more.


Ernest Lapointe: Was that the lowest?


Alfred Duranleau: We had tenders from all part of the dominion-from Quebec, from the maritime provinces, from British Columbia and from Ontario.


Eugène Fiset: What is the tonnage?


Alfred Duranleau: Unfortunately I have everything but the tonnage. The length is 214 feet; breadth, 36 feet; depth, 23-6; horsepower, 1,300; speed, 12 knots.


Alan Webster Neill: Horse-power 1,300?


Alfred Duranleau: The horse-power is
1,300 indicated.


Alan Webster Neill: How does it compare with
the Lillooet in size?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know, but.
it will be an up to date boat for hydrographic purposes.

Supply-M arine


Alan Webster Neill: If it started out with the
fight name it would be all right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps before naming the boat the minister read that most eloquent eulogy of the dead by Pericles, as recorded in Thucydides, that the memory of those who have died for their country shall not be forgotten. But there is something else that should not be forgotten: we should not forget the living. We should see to it that the living are well taken care of, and for this reason I would ask the minister to be careful about curtailing the number of employees in his department who are still alive, much as I admire his respect for the dead.
Mr. HEE'NAN:	What was the lowest
tender received?


Alfred Duranleau: The contract price
was $616,800.


Mr. HEENAN:: Was that the lowest
tender?


Alfred Duranleau: That was the lowest.


Peter Heenan: And the next one?


Alfred Duranleau: The second lowest
was about $40,000 or $50,000 more.


Peter Heenan: In letting these contracts for ships of this kind, there is one thing that should be taken into consideration before the minister recommends to the government the acceptance of a tender. The minister should take into consideration the difference in the wages paid. I understand that this ship is intended to ply in Pacific waters and tenders for its construction were called for and the lowest tender accepted. If there is only about $50,000 difference between the lowest and the next highest tender, I think it would be safe to say that the difference between wages paid in British Columbia shipyards and those paid in Collingwood would amount to more than $50,000. I am not strongly in favour of giving a contract to the lowest tenderer when it is manifest that the difference will be taken out of the labouring man. This practice is conducive to the payment of low wages, and is against the very basis of the fair wage policy of the federal government. Contractors should not be permitted to accept contracts on the cutthroat method, as we used to call it; they should not be allowed to make a low tender and then take it out of the pockets of the working man. I am quite satisfied that if the difference in wages paid on the Pacific coast had been taken into account, there would be

found to be a difference of more than $50,-000-perhaps even $100,000-in the total payroll. I think the minister should look into this matter to see that no contracts are awarded to contractors, manufacturers or construction concerns who pay the lowest wages.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Was a tender received from the Prince Rupert Dry Dock Company?


Alfred Duranleau: If my memory serves me aright, one was received but it was for a very high figure. I can give my hon. friend definite information in this regard if he so desires.


Olof Hanson: Was the fact that this company is owned and operated by the government taken into consideration? When future ships are to be built, especially the Pacific coast service, I think this dry dock should be considered as it is operating on the Pacific coast and is subsidized by the government.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be glad to bear that in mind.


Peter Heenan: Has the minister any information as to the wages paid to the various craftsmen employed by the Collingwood shipyard as compared with wages paid in British Columbia shipyards?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not that information before me. I may tell my hon. friend that the Collingwood shipyard has subscribed to the fair wage clause. The company has been in conference with the then Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) as to the rates of wages to be paid for the construction of this ship. We have always understood that we were obliged to accept the lowest tender, and that was the one received from the Collingwood shipyard.


Peter Heenan: The prevailing rates of wages at Collingwood might be .25 per cent lower than the rates paid on the Pacific coast, and consequently the workmen in British Columbia shipyards might be denied employment if this fact was not taken into consideration. When a ship is to be built for Pacific waters the contract for its construction should not be given to a shipyard in other parts of the country where a lower rate of wages prevails.


Olof Hanson: Especially when the government has a plant of its own.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine-Radio
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before the next item is called, may I ask the minister if he will agree to having items numbers 148 and 149 considered together, as they both relate to radio service?


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think it would facilitate discussion.
Radio service, to provide for the construction and maintenance of radio ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the Dominion, $716,000.
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $180,400.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, there are
hundreds of thousands of radio fans in this country, and this year the cost of a radio licence has been increased from one to two dollars. These radio listeners are complaining about the fact that the service mentioned in item 149 is not what it should be. People purchase radios, some of them very expensive, and they are entitled to good service. The minister knows that the least trouble is a great handicap to radio reception, and that is why it was decided by the previous administration to organize a staff of part-time inspectors. Most of the present day radio sets are batteryless, they are connected to the lighting current and when trouble occurs in one machine, other machines on the same current feel the effects. These inspectors have special apparatus and they go throughout the community in an effort to eliminate trouble for the listeners. The licence fee has been increased, and of that we do not complain but on behalf of all radio listeners in Canada I would urge the minister to see that the number of radio inspectors is not reduced.
There is another matter-I have no personal interest in it beyond that of any other radio listener-and that is that those who will be working under this vote should be men well qualified for the work. In my home town the chief electrician of the city is doing this inspection work and doing it very well. He is provided with certain apparatus to help him locate troubles, and he is doing very well in eliminating trouble and improving reception conditions. I would ask the minister if it is his intention to retain the men who are now performing this work efficiently to the great benefit of all radio fans in the country.


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member's remarks are quite in order. The licence fee has been increased from one dollar to two
dollars. I agree with my hon. friend that the owners of radio sets who are paying a licence fee are entitled to first-class service, and my department will attempt to give the best service possible. When the estimates were brought before the house, I think, although I am not quite sure, that the licence fee had not been increased. I cannot make any definite promise to the committee, but if within a few days I come to the conclusion that the amount I am now asking the committee to vote is not sufficient to give a first-class service, I shall see that a certain amount is inserted in the supplementary estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: It will have to be
approved by the Prime Minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his kind remarks. I would point out that the number of those inspectors is small, there being only one I believe in each town, and if the number of inspectors is reduced, some of the towns in this country, which ones we do not know, will suffer. I have been told that the dispensing with the services of thirty-seven of these inspectors is under consideration. The Canadian people do not complain so much of paying a licence fee of two dollars instead of one dollar, but I do submit that they are entitled to receive just as good service when they are paying a two dollar fee as when they were paying one dollar. If there is not a good inspection service, interference may be continuous, with no one to stop it, and the least little trouble may sometimes cause the reception to be such that a radio is not worth listening to. I urge the minister therefore to reconsider this matter seriously. If at the time his estimate was prepared it had not been decided to increase the licence fee, I would suggest that now that the fee has been increased, conditions are different and the decision with respect to this inspection service should be different, in the interests of the radio listeners of this country.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I have been asked by
a number of radio users in my province to say something of the same nature as has just been said. Throughout parts at least of the province of Alberta, and particularly in the smaller towns and villages, where the use of radio has become very extensive, people have urged, and have asked me to place the matter before the minister, that their complaints as to interference are not receiving the attention they should. They had no objection to paying a licence fee, even a higher fee than had been charged, provided that they got the
1844'
Supply-M mine-Radio

service, but they do feel, particularly the people in the smaller towns and villages, that the interference is too frequent and often from a cause which a qualified inspector would find trivial and could easily remove. Possibly there is not a sufficient number of inspectors; at all events adequate service was not given. They felt that they were not getting their money's worth. On behalf of these users of the radio I transmit this complaint to the minister, and now particularly as it has turned out that their anticipations of a higher licence fee were correct I would urge the minister, to see that the service is improved. As I have said, the people particularly in the small towns and villages feel that they are not getting the service to which they are entitled, that their complaints are left unremedied, and interference is allowed to continue.
While I am on my feet there is another matter I wish to mention. We all know that some aspects of the radio question are now before a committee of this house, and I would ask the minister if it is not possible that from the report of that committee recommendations may come and changes be made which would completely alter the whole aspect of things so far as the present estimates are concerned. Or is it more likely that any such changes will be for the future and will not affect the estimates of this year?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think that
the findings of the committee will affect in any way the estimates of this year. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has said with regard to interference troubles in the province of Alberta, and that the service should be improved, and it is the intention of the department to appoint a greater number of inspectors in that province.


Alfred Speakman: I am very glad to hear the minister say so, because the use of radio is increasing very rapidly in Alberta.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: We have one inspector for the city of Sydney, and I am in receipt of a letter from him to-day saying that his services are being dispensed with; consequently we will have no inspector in Sydney. I am anxious to know just what inspection service is being provided in a case like that.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that the services of the part-time inspector in Sydney have not been dispensed with. He is still in the service and we are considering the matter. Whether in such cases we will provide the service by using a local man or by using regular men in adjacent towns and cities is

under consideration. If we receive a larger amount for that service we will undoubtedly retain the services of the man to whom reference has been made, because I am told he is very efficient.


Finlay MacDonald: I
understand he has received notice that his services will not be required after the end of the month.


Alfred Duranleau: He is still working
for the department.


Finlay MacDonald: I trust the minister will continue his services, because I understand he is well qualified.


Alfred Duranleau: I think we will be
able to satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. TAYLOR:: Can the minister estimate
the amount of money which will be received under the new rate of licence fee?


Alfred Duranleau: I can tell the hon.
member that at the rate of one dollar per licence we received last year the sum of $510,000 net, commissions having been paid. At the two dollar rate we expect to collect about $1,200,000.


Alfred Speakman: Then, so far as that
part of the branch is concerned, we may conclude it is self-supporting?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, there is no doubt about that.


William Horace Taylor: Although there is a reduction of $44,600 in the estimate, the minister tells us the figure was struck before the government decided to increase the licence fee. Would he give us the assurance that since the licence fee has been increased his department will see that more attention is paid complaints regarding interference?


Alfred Duranleau: I can assure my hon. friend that if we get the money we will give better service.


William Horace Taylor: The department will be
receiving another $500,000.


Eugène Fiset: When will the new
rate of two dollars come into force?


Alfred Duranleau: On April 1.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister
see that proper advertising is given in the local press, not only in the county of Rimouski but throughout the district of the lower St. Lawrence river? In the constituency of Rimouski we have a newspaper called Le Progres du Golife, and advertisement could be made in that paper. When the rate of one

Supply-M arine-Radio
dollar was put into effect the people in the lower St. Lawrence district did not know to whom they were to pay the licence fees. There were no advertisements in the local press, and no posters in local post offices. Postmen were supposed to collect the fee, but unfortunately they told the people that they had no authority to collect. As a result an inspector came down to the town of Rimouski and prosecuted fifteen or twenty people who had not paid their licence fee because they did not know where to pay them. Now that a new rate is coming into force, I suggest that the minister advertise in the local paper, Le Progres du Golfe, and that posters be placed in post offices throughout the lower St. Lawrence district. I beg that this be done in the interests of the people of that district, and I am sure the department will benefit if they avail themselves of my suggestion.
At this time I should like to direct my remarks to another point. Two years ago the Department of Marine spent a great deal of money on new instrumentation of the Marconi station at Father Point. The new instrumentation was supposed to do away with static in the lower St. Lawrence region. The fact is however that conditions are worse than ever. If proper inspection of the new installations had been made by the department some of the difficulty might have been eliminated. I would ask the minister to issue instructions that inspection be made of the new installations to see if the condition can be remedied. The static is a nuisance to the radio fans in the county of Rimouski, and especially in the town of Rimouski. I assure him the whole population in our section of the country would be extremely obliged if he would have an inspection made with a view to improving conditions.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no objection to recommending a further inspection. I am told however by the chief of my department that the trouble does not arise from the station, but is due to the fact that during the summer months static is caused by the foreign boats going up and down the St. Lawrence river. I am happy, however, to accept my hon. friend's suggestion, and will have the station thoroughly inspected once more.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister
take the necessary steps to advertise as I have suggested?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, although I do not promise that we will accept the particular advertising mediums suggested by my hon. friend.


Eugène Fiset: The newspaper I mentioned is friendly to my hon. friends opposite.


Alfred Duranleau: We will take steps to inform the people in the St. Lawrence district, and in every other part of Canada, as to the amount of the licence fee and where it should be paid.


Mr. RYERSON:: 
Mr. SPOTTON:: I should like to ask the minister this question: From what point is the county of Huron served, and from what centre does the trouble man come?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand the man who attends to the trouble in the county. of Huron comes from Kitchener or London.


George Spotton: I quite agree with the
hon. member for Brantford City that since we are to derive such a large revenue we should get down to a system of county inspection. The cities of London, and Kitchener, Ontario, are from seventy to one hundred miles from some parts of my constituency, and I do not know that I have ever seen one of the trouble men who, the minister has told us, are located in London or Kitchener. I am told that the wagon passes through occasionally on fine days or holidays. We do not know who he is, we do not know where to send for him. I understood the minister to say that the radio licence was raised from one to two dollars to enable him to spend more to ensure radio listeners getting better reception. I contend that that was not at all necessary. During the first ten months of the past fiscal year the revenue of the radio department was 8494,648.26 and the expenditure $167,053.65. So the department was able to donate to the exchequer a third of a million dollars. In the preceding year, 1930-31, the net revenue was
Supply-M arine-Radio

$459,469.32, and the expenditure $221,655.90. I register my protest against the raising of the radio licence fee to two dollars, and I do so in a very orthodox fashion, because the minister will remember that as representing a county which I do not expect to have blotted off the map in favour of any other county, I asked him before any changes were made in radio policy to give me an opportunity of expressing my people's views in the matter. I believe that in my county of North Huron, regardless of politics, any person who has a radio, or expects to get one, objects to this increase in the licence fee, especially when the department had a surplus of a third of a million dollars for the first ten months of the past fiscal year. But not only is the increase in the licence fee objected to; this is only a start and we do not know where the minister or succeeding ministers may stop. In Ontario the government first imposed a war tax of one cent a gallon on gasoline, but they were not content with that and increased the tax to two cents, then to three, four, five and finally to six cents, and to-day they are actually apologizing that the tax is a cent lower than in some of the other provinces. As governments in the future look around for revenue I am just a little fearful, Mr. Minister, that the radio licence will be an awfully convenient place just to put on another dollar, and another year another dollar. I feel that my people have not been properly treated, inasmuch as their representative asked over a year ago that before any changes were made he should at least be given an opportunity to express their views to the minister. I do not propose to have the whitewash brush put over my constituency and any other constituency in the province painted red. I protest against this raise in the licence fee. It was not necessary to get more revenue to improve radio reception, for already you have far more revenue than you need. These are strenuous times, and if the department really wanted more money there might not be any very strong objection to an increase, but on the face of it there is no necessity for this increase and in any event we want to know exactly what the minister proposes to do with the additional revenue. While the radio committee is taking evidence I hope the minister is not a mile or two ahead of them and formulating a policy for which this increased revenue will be needed. Before anything of the kind is done, I for one wish to have an opportunity of presenting my views upon the matter.	.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. gentleman rightly under-

stood my remarks. I did not say that we increased the licence fee to $2 because we needed money to give better service to radio listeners. After studying the question very carefully the government came to the conclusion to charge radio owners a licence fee of two dollars. Maybe it is to help the exchequer, but if so, I am sure the radio listeners in North Huron as well as those in other constituencies will gladly contribute.


George Spotton: Is it to help the exchequer?


Alfred Duranleau: I am confident that radio owners will gladly help the country in this difficult financial situation. The government thought that 'any citizen who owns a radio and receives good service and hears all kinds of interesting programs would not object to paying a two dollars licence fee. Of course, the additional revenue will be a great help to this country, and I think when he has considered the matter carefully my hon. friend will share the views of the government on this question.


Ernest Lapointe: Then it is a tax, because the minister does not need this increased revenue for the purpose of giving service to radio listeners; he has more than sufficient money for this purpose under the one dollar licence fee. This increase is a tax. Why not say so?


Mr. MANION:: "A rose by any other name-".


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Thomas Reid: What proportion does the
number of licence fees collected bear to the number of radio owners?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot tell exactly, but this year we have collected over $600,000 in radio licence fees. We intend to see that every radio owner pays the licence.


Thomas Reid: I think it would be far better for the minister to see that the licence fee was collected from every radio owner rather than increase the fee to $2 to the willing payer.


Alfred Duranleau: We hope every radio owner will be willing to pay this licence fee. If we come to the conclusion that all those owning radios have not taken out their licence we will have our inspectors take the necessary steps to enforce payment.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: On that point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that the present system of collecting the licence fee is not very satisfactory. It is left to the option of the individual radio

Supply-M arin e-Radio
owner to go to some person in the locality who has the sale of radio licences. But the honest man is up against this difficulty. The local licence distributor in the past was required to buy the licences in books of ten, valued at one dollar apiece, for which he sent $9 to some central office. He might have several of these books on hand for months without disposing of the licences, with his money tied up in the meantime, and this made him very reluctant to buy sufficient books in advance to meet the local demand. I know that radio owners in my constituency have found it very difficult to get a licence when they wanted it. The local distributor would not have any licences on hand, and weeks later those desiring licences would find him still without a supply. He put up the argument that it was not fair that he should be required to invest his own money in those books without knowing how many individual licences would be required. Now with a two dollar licence it is going to be even worse. I was wondering if this point had been brought to the attention of the minister, and if there is not some better way of administration so that the licences will be there when the individuals come for them.


Alfred Duranleau: Since the increase to two dollars the question of collection has been under consideration. It may be that the system in force up to this time has not been as effective as it might have been, but we are studying the matter. We will see that everyone pays for his licence this year, and if we have to change our method of collection we will do so. The matter is under consideration.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to ask the minister just what machinery there is for collecting these licences at present. In Saskatchewan, where the police are partly federal and partly, provincial, the mounted police undertake that responsibility, but what is being done in the other provinces where the federal government has nothing in the way of a police force? Surely there must be some machinery for checking up on these licences.


Alfred Duranleau: Licences are issued by the radio dealers, the banks, the post office branches and by any vendor who applies to the department for books of licences, as was mentioned by an hon. member a moment ago. Of the amount of $571,000 collected last year the radio dealers collected $416,069; the post office department $123,000 and the vendors $32,000. The radio dealers receive a commission of ten per cent; the post office staffs
get a commission of five per cent, and ten per cent is paid the other vendors. This year we intend to allow a commission of 15 cents on each licence, which is at the rate of 7i per cent.
As I told another hon. member, we are studying the question to-day in connection with the collection of these licence fees. It is a very important matter, and it is only fair that everyone who owns a radio should pay the licence. I hope to be in a position this year to collect the licence for every radio in Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: It appears that at present the government provides only the machinery for furnishing licences, and that there is no machinery for really enforcing the law, except in the provinces where the mounted police operate. They are federal as well as provincial officers, but in provinces where there is only a provincial police force I take it that no one has any particular interest in enforcing the law. It means that if a citizen is law-abiding and takes out his licence everything is all right, but apparently there is no machinery for coping with the people who use radios but fail to take out a licence at all. That is the point to which I was referring.


Alfred Duranleau: As the hon. member knows, for the last two years the federal jurisdiction has been challenged by several provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, and during that period no prosecutions have been carried on. Since the question of jurisdiction has been definitely settled by the privy council, however, we intend to see that everyone pays his licence fee, and those who refuse to pay will be prosecuted in due course. Of course every opportunity will be given every citizen of Canada to pay his fee; if necessary, when a citizen is willing to pay we will give him ample time, but we intend to see that every citizen pays his licence fee.


Jean-François Pouliot: If there were one hundred thousand radio owners in this country a fee of one dollar would bring in a total of $100,000. If the cost of administration of the department was $200,000 then I would agree that the licence should be increased from one to two dollars in order to give better service to owners of radios. On the other hand, however, if with $100,000 this department can be managed very well, I do not see why this increase should be made. The old Romans used to ask for bread and games, and human nature has not changed very much. Perhaps good radio service has done more than chapter 58 of 1931, for the peace, order and good government of this country.
Supply-Marine-Radio

I say that in lighter vein, but I am very serious about it. There are many poor people in the country who have very little to eat, who live in homes which are far from comfortable and who are consoled, while waiting for better times, by listening to concerts and speeches by my good friend the Minister of Marine and his leader, which come over the radio. These people are cheered, while waiting for better times, by being able to listen to the radio; when they feel depressed or distressed, to use a famous word, they turn the switch and hear a nice concert coming from Toronto, Montreal, New York or somewhere else. It gives them courage and helps them forget their trouble. This is a psychological fact, as everyone will admit-, so I say it is very important to make things easy for the poor people in order to give them a chance to hear good music at little cost. So I say that if the increase is to improve the service I am in favour of it, while if it is to plug a hole somewhere else I am against it.
I have great regard for the Minister of Marine; I am sure he speaks in good faith when he says he will reconsider the matter of inspectors. I hope that if when he does so he makes a favourable decision and he will not replace the old, competent men with new, incompetent men. In conclusion may I ask if there is to be any decrease in the number of men operating the radio beacons in the St. Lawrence river and in the gulf of St. Lawrence.


Alfred Duranleau: I may tell the hon.
gentleman that there will be no decrease in the number of employees operating the radio beacons on the St. Lawrence, and I can also assure my hon. friend that competent inspectors who were employed last year will remain in our service during this year.


Milton Neil Campbell: When this licence fee was first imposed it was generally understood by the public-and I believe the government made it clear at the time-that it was intended simply to provide service for radio owners. In the small towns and villages, throughout my part of the country at any rate, there is a great deal of trouble through interference from telephone wires, from small electric plants, and all that sort of thing. There are a great many difficulties in that way and it seems utterly impossible to get an inspector there to look into the situation. Inspectors, I know, are employed by the government, and when the radio owner pays his licence fee he expects to 
get in return just that kind of service. That was what the money was supposed to be for. In my part of the country we have found it impossible to get such service. I have personally complained to the inspectors at Regina and elsewhere, but I have not been able to get them to come to these little towns to investigate the trouble. In some small places, owing to imperfections in the lighting system, when the lighting plant is in operation it is impossible to hear anything. Will the minister assure us that in future we shall get, in return for the money we pay, some service that will enable us to use the radio under favourable conditions? Will he undertake to have these plants and telephone wires checked up so that the local authorities will know where the difficulty lies?


Mr. BARBER:: Following up the remarks
of the hon. member, I want to ask a question. When the inspectors discover such trouble as my hon. friend has mentioned, due to some power corporation or private plants, has the department the power to compel these people to remedy the condition that is causing the trouble, and are they doing so?


Alfred Duranleau: We have no power to order companies to stop their operations if they are causing trouble, but I am told that as a matter of fact when our inspectors locate any trouble the companies are always willing to see that a stop is put to it.


Harry James Barber: The trouble is chiefly with the small plants, and it would require little to remedy it.


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule, the companies are quite accommodating. As to the service given in the province of Saskatchewan, we have to-day six regular men who go-around in cars the year round.


Milton Neil Campbell: Six.men in the province of Saskatchewan alone?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then it is strange we do not see them in our part of the country.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps there are no complaints from those parts.


Milton Neil Campbell: There are complaints;
I can assure the minister that I have made many complaints myself.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to look into the matter. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my department will give the best service possible in his part of the province.

Supply-M arine-R adio


Peter Heenan: I was very glad to hear the minister say that he would maintain an efficient radio inspection service. I received a letter this morning from the town of Fort Frances in northern Ontario, where the part time inspector has just received notice from the office of the department in Winnipeg to the effect that his services will not be required after April 15. There is no use repeating the arguments that have been made; suffice it to say that in that town and district we have a good deal of trouble. The town is about 250 miles from Winnipeg and about the same distance from the head of the lakes. I shall be glad if the minister will assure me either that a part time inspector will be kept on or that he will provide a full time inspector.


Alfred Duranleau: When the notice was
given, the policy with regard to inspection had not been definitely settled, but we thought it advisable to give notice in order that we might be free to make any decision we thought fit. I can assure the hon. gentleman that Fort Frances will receive proper service. If it is necessary to keep on a part time inspector in that place, one will be maintained. At any rate, the matter will be inquired into to the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The minister has
said tiiat since the privy council's decision his department will see that licence fees are collected without fail under the two dollar rate. I was wondering just what will be taken for granted with regard to the question whether a radio which has been installed is actually in use. I have been told that if a person has an aerial erected it is assumed that he is operating a radio. I would point out that at the present time in the west, in Saskatchewan at least, there are many aerials installed and perhaps many machines in the homes, although they are not in use owing to financial conditions. If that is the case, will the radio licence fee be required from such persons, irrespective of whether they use the machine or not?


Alfred Duranleau: If our inspector decides that the claim of the radio owner is bona fide, that he is not using the machine, no licence fee will be collected; but that claim must be bona fide. It happens sometimes that an owner in order to evade the law, disconnects his radio when he expects a visit from the inspector. As I say, his claim to have discontinued the use of the radio must be bona fide.


Eugène Fiset: I hope the minister will broadcast that statement throughout Canada-that it is left to the inspector to decide whether the radio owner shall pay his licence fee or not.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not say it is
left to the inspector, because every owner of a radio is presumed to use his radio, and in that event he must pay the fee.


Eugène Fiset: The minister said
that if the owner decided not to use the machine he had only to approach the inspector, and if reasons he gave were sufficient the licence fee would not be exacted. I ask the minister to publish that broadcast.


Alfred Duranleau: I say that if the inspector comes to the conclusion that the radio is not in use, I do not think he should charge the fee. I did not give that as a definite answer, because, as has been suggested, a man who does not use his radio should take it out of the house.


Mr. GARDINER:: Where would he put
it?


Alfred Duranleau: Our inspectors are
very fair; but, as I said, our intention is to see that every radio user shall pay the licence fee. It is only fair that everyone who is using a radio should pay.


Eugène Fiset: Suppose a man who is in possession of a radio discusses with the inspector the fact that he is not using that radio, the decision should lie with the inspector who should be able to give a definite decision that in that case he shall not be compelled to pay the two dollars per year.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend knows that the inspectors are under the officials of the department.


Eugène Fiset: Will they receive
instructions from the department to give a final decision?


Alfred Duranleau: The inspector probably will have to report to the department and say, "So and so says that he does not use his radio," and then it will be up to the department to decide.. It would be a question of law and perhaps we may have to submit a case to the Department of Justice as to whether a man who has a radio in his house and contends that he does not use it, shall or shall not pay a licence fee.
Private Bills


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: If he does
not make use of it, one has but to take the tubes away.


Thomas Reid: Would it not be possible to
make it compulsory that a licence be purchased at the time a radio set is sold? I desire to associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), and I think this matter should be taken under advisement. If my memory serves me correctly, when these licences were first introduced it was said that they were not being introduced for revenue purposes but rather in order that the government might know where radios were located in case of war and so on. The fee has been raised to two dollars and I understand that the revenue is to be used to employ inspectors to go round and see if people have paid their fee. I maintain it would be far better to have left the fee at one dollar and made it compulsory that a licence be purchased at the time of sale of a set. A certain revenue would be received and it would not be necessary to have men going around the country in order to find out whether people are or are not using their radio sets.


George Spotton: I should like to leave a
suggestion with the minister that part time inspectors resident in the respective counties be employed. These men could check up on licences, be advised of local troubles and then call in the experts, the mechanics and engineers whenever it was necessary. I remember I had to telegraph the predecessor of the present minister complaining of two men who had come into my town who did not act courteously in entering the homes of the residents. We have instances of men who come to a home and say they are gas inspectors but who eventually prove to be burglars, and it was because of this that I complained to the former minister. Upon investigation it was found that licences were not readily obtainable in our locality, and this matter was corrected. I should like to see appointed in my county some person who is known to the people and who could be conferred with. At the present time, practically all of these men seem to come from Kitchener: there might have been a good reason for that during the old regime, but that should not apply to the present regime.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair, and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 31, respecting certain patents of Autographic Register Systems, Limited-Mr. Anderson, (Toronto-High Park)-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the ohair.
On section 1-1921, c. 78, repealed.
Robert Gardiner: Will the sponsor kindly explain the bill?


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):: This bill is to repeal a special act of this parliament passed in 1921. The two inventions mentioned in the preamble had been in use for more than one year before the application for patent was filed, and therefore the patents could not be issued under the general act as it then stood. A special act was accordingly passed on June 4, 1921, empowering the commissioner to issue the two patents. In the same year the general act was amended and it changed the time limit during which applications had to be filed. This made the two inventions patentable under both the special act and the general act as amended, and the commissioner of patents in exercising his authority did so under the general act and not under the special act. Doubts have arisen whether the general act or the special act should be deemed to apply to the patents in question. In order to remove these doubts it is asked that the special act be repealed, and the patents will therefore be issued under the authority of the general act, under which, as a matter of fact, the (patents were actually granted by the commissioner.


Robert Gardiner: What will be the
practical effect of the removal of the doubts?


Alexander James Anderson: If the general act had been as it is to-day, the special act would not have been required. Authority was given to the commissioner to issue the patents under both the special act and the general act as amended, both acts being assented to on the same day. It seems to me that there must have been a misapprehension at that time. At all events, doubts have since risen in the minds of some of those using the patents, and possibly operating under them, as to which is the real authority, the general act or the special act. This puts it beyond all doubt.

Supply-M arine-Radio


Robert Gardiner: Was there any difference in the time limit specified by the general act and the special act?


Alexander James Anderson: No.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 35, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Matthews-Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. SPENCER:: Is the sponsor of the bill in the house, Mr. Chairman?


Donald James Cowan: No. This bill was passed by the railway committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Unanimously?


Donald James Cowan: I am so advised.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company-Mr. Shaver.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
Radio service, to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $180,400.
Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask if it is the intention of the department to spend the total sum received for radio licences upon radio improvement or radio work in the department?


Alfred Duranleau: It is the intention of the government to give the best service possible to the people of Canada. If there is a surplus it will go to the exchequer for the benefit of our country.


Mr. SPROULE:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was not in the chamber when the minister was explaining the radio system. Several
complaints have been received because radio owners did not know they were required to secure licences. In the rural districts some of the people have bought separate parts and put them together in an effort to build a small set, so that they may be able to entertain their friends in the evenings. Particularly in the rural districts, where storage batteries have to be recharged and the cost of radio upkeep is therefore greater, the licence fee is a burden. It may be that an inspector may come along, and seeing an aerial outside a house he will go in and ask the occupant if he has a licence. That person may reply, "No, I let my licence expire," or his answer may be that his set is not then in use.
I do not know that I have any very helpful suggestions, or that I am in a position to assist the minister, but in my humble opinion licensing of radios should be treated similarly to the licensing of motor cars. A man wdio can afford to operate a high price motor car has to pay a high rate of licence. Plenty of people on the back concessions are not financially able to buy good radios. There was a time when those people could afford to go and see a ball game or indulge in other luxurious pastimes, but to-day they have to stay at home and listen to their radios. Undoubtedly the radio offers a great deal of amusement to many people. True, they may be using a radio set somebody else has discarded; they have gathered the pieces together and put it into service. Undoubtedly the man with the cheap set should be taxed, but not as much as the man with the set costing $400 or $500. While radio listeners in the cities find that static interferes with reception, the people in the country have no difficulties of that nature. Some people own radios which bring in the programs from the most distant stations, while others can afford only those machines which have been discarded by the wealthier people and are capable of picking up only the nearby stations.
In western Ontario most of the programs come from Detroit. Programs from Detroit stations come in clearly at times when radio listeners can hear neither London nor Toronto. They never hear Ottawa. I suggest that the licence fee on high priced radios should be three dollars, and that the poorer people who have not money to buy licences should not have to pay as much. To my mind radios are in a position similar to cars in this respect.
I have seen radios that did not cost any more than $7 or $8, and it would be unfortunate if a two dollar licence Were charged on such machines. There is some justice in
Supply-Marine

the contention that if a man can afford to buy a good radio he should pay a higher licence fee. We know that the inspectors go round and visit the homes, showing their authority, and sometimes they frighten the ladies at the homes they visit. Whether the radio is used or not, however, the owner has to pay the fee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
_ River St. Lawrence ship channel, dredging, including the maintenance and operation of Sorel shipyard, $3,518,000.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister tell us how they are getting along with this work?


Alfred Duranleau: The dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel up to thirty-five feet is in progress. According to Sir Alexander Gibb's report and the information I have, up' to date eighty-six per cent of the thirty-five foot channel has been dredged, leaving fourteen per cent still to be done.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When does the minister
expect to complete the dredging of the thirty-five foot channel?


Alfred Duranleau: As the committee
knows, there is a contract with the General Dredging Company for part of the dredging. That contract will expire on December 31, 1S33. The other part of the dredging is being done by the fleet of my department, and we hope to have the program completed at the end of 1933, or at latest in 1934.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated cost of the remainder of the work?


Alfred Duranleau: We have to dredge
about six million yards to complete our program.


Robert Gardiner: What is the cost per yard?


Alfred Duranleau: It depends on the
material encountered. When the material is soft the dredging is cheap; when it is hard material or rock, of course the cost is high. We estimate that the cost will be between seven and nine million dollars.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any
figures to show what it has cost to dredge the thirty-five foot channel from Quebec up to the point where the work was suspended last fall?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not under my hand the information as to the exact cost of the dredging from Quebec up to Montreal

and from Quebec down towards the gulf. The total cost up to March 31,	1930, was


Robert Gardiner: Is that from Quebec up to Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: No, that is for the
whole ship channel from Montreal down to the sea.


Robert Gardiner: What is the mileage
from Quebec to Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: From Montreal to
Sorel, forty-five miles; from Sorel to Batiscan, not including lake St. Peter, thirty-six miles; lake St. Peter, twenty miles; from Batiscan to Quebec, fifty-nine miles-making a total of one hundred and sixty miles.


Mr. LUCAS:: What width is the channel?


Alfred Duranleau: The minimum is about three hundred and fifty feet, and about six hundred feet in the curves.


William Thomas Lucas: I understand the work when completed will provide a thirty-five foot channel at low tide up as far as Montreal.


Alfred Duranleau: That is the program.


William Thomas Lucas: When the work is completed will the channel take care of the largest ships that are now in service on that route?


Alfred Duranleau: There are certain
large ships that will not be able to come as far as Montreal, but all the Empresses will be able to reach Montreal.


Eugène Fiset: Even the Empress of Britain?


Alfred Duranleau: I hope so.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the
minister is mistaken.


Alfred Duranleau: When we have the ship channel dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet, all ships drawing not more than thirty-two and a half to thirty-three feet will be able to come to Montreal; but there are ships drawing up to thirty-eight feet.


Robert Gardiner: What are you going to
do with those ships?


Alfred Duranleau: They will have to go elsewhere.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has stated that about fourteen per cent of the dredging remains to be done in order to complete the thirty-five foot channel up to Montreal. He has also stated that the estimated cost of the

Supply-Marine
remainder of the work will be between seven and nine million dollars. He has not been able to give me the cost of dredging the thirty-five foot channel from Quebec up to the present point where they stopped last fall. I would ask him to secure that information, because there seems to be a feeling on the part of many people in Montreal that no money should be spent above that port for the purpose of improving navigation. I desire to get information as to what we have spent in order to provide this deep channel for the service of the port of Montreal more particularly, although of course it is also for the service of the country as a whole.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend any information available to the department.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any
figures of what has been spent on aids to navigation between Quebec and Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: It is not possible at the present time to give any definite information.


Robert Gardiner: Perhaps I can get that
later.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: In what vear was
the dredging contract entered into, 1930?


Alfred Duranleau: The dredging contract was entered into during the spring of 1930.


Eugène Fiset: For how many
years?


Alfred Duranleau: It is for different
sections of the ship channels, at so much per yard.


Eugène Fiset: What is the name of the company?


Alfred Duranleau: The General Dredging Company, Limited.


Eugène Fiset: Where are they
located, Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so.


Eugène Fiset: The work these
people are doing is based, I suppose, on the amount of money voted yearly by parliament?


Alfred Duranleau: Of course it is always conditional on the amount voted yearly, but they have a contract by which they are bound to complete the dredging in these sections by December 31, 1933.


Eugène Fiset: It is hard to understand how such a contract could be entered into between the department and this company, extending over four years, when the amount of work to be done depends upon the amount of money voted by parliament each year. Why could not tenders be called for yearly to cover the amount of money voted by parliament? Why was a fixed price set in 1930, when I think prices were rather high? I believe a better price could be obtained if new tenders were called for each year. After all, the contract calls for so much per yard, in accordance with the kind of work to be done, and even though the contract was let by a Liberal administration I do not see why it covered a period of four years.


Alfred Duranleau: I might tell my hon. friend that this contract was entered into by the previous administration, and I might say further that when we came into power I asked the Department of Justice whether or not this contract could be cancelled. After due consideration the answer was that the contract was quite legal and could not be touched, so we had to carry on.


Eugène Fiset: I have had a certain amount of experience in connection with contracts given for a definite number of years, and I know that such contracts are based entirely on the appropriation voted yearly by parliament. I do not see how the Department of Justice could give such a ruling, because there is nothing on earth to prevent the minister calling for new tenders at the beginning of the fiscal year, for a specific amount of money voted by parliament. If that were done now the amount of the tender might be much less than it is at the present time. The minister might be well advised, even at this late date, in view of the fact that the work cannot possibly start for a month or so, to call for new tenders. It is curious that such a large contract should be given one particular company for a period of years.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
quite correct when he says the contract depends on the amount of money voted, but in order to stop work under that contract we would have to stop dredging entirely.


Eugène Fiset: I think the work
stops when the amount of money voted by parliament is exhausted.


Alfred Duranleau: When the amount
voted has been exhausted it is the privilege of the department to give notice to the company that the amount available for the current year has been spent. If the company
1854'
Supply-Marine

go ahead with the work following such notice they do so at their own risk, but if we vote similar estimates the following year their contract is still in force and they are entitled to go on.


Eugène Fiset: Once the minister
has notified the company concerned that the appropriation voted by parliament has been exhausted, when further money is voted the following year further tenders may be called for.


Alfred Duranleau: I had to comply with the opinion of the Department of Justice.


Eugène Fiset: Usually an opinion given by the department complies pretty well with the wishes either of the minister or the deputy minister. That has been my experience in the past.


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared
to accept the views of my hon. friend on this point.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am under the impression that an opinion given by the Department of Justice on any question depends very much on the way the question is drafted. Here I see a sharp distinction is made between postmasters and contractors; postmasters are dismissed, but contractors keep their jobs. They are very fortunate. I should like to know who are the gentlemen forming the General Dredging Company, Limited.


Alfred Duranleau: I may frankly tell
my hon. friend that I do not know the directors of the company. I know one or two of them but I do not know to what extent they are interested, and really I do not know who control the company. The contract was entered into before we came into power; I was advised that the contract was legal, and I had to carry on, I do know that subcontracts have been let by the General Dredging Company, but I do not know who are the owners of the other companies. If they do their work properly and in accordance with the contract we do not care who are the owners.


Jean-François Pouliot: The reason I asked was
that my hon. friend from Rimouski and myself wanted to know those names in order to write them a joint letter of congratulation on having kept their contract for so many years.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask if the dredging in the lower St. Lawrence has been completed?


Alfred Duranleau: It is almost finished,
except for a few spots.


Charles A. Stewart: There is not very much left to be done?


Alfred Duranleau: No, only a few spots, and at high tide there is no interference with navigation.


William Thomas Lucas: Is the channel below Quebec being deepened?


Alfred Duranleau: Our program calls
for a thirty-five foot channel from Montreal down.


Eugène Fiset: What portion of
this vote is used for the operation and maintenance of the Sorel shipyard?


Alfred Duranleau: About $300,000.


Eugène Fiset: Is that just for
maintenance?


Alfred Duranleau: For maintenance and operation.


Eugène Fiset: Is any part of this money used for dredging in the port of Sorel?


Alfred Duranleau: No.
'Sir EUGENE FISET: The minister is sure of that?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the company does not
do the work satisfactorily this year will the minister tell us if he will cancel the contract upon the report of his engineers?


Alfred Duranleau: I think it is needless
to say that if the dredging contractor does not comply with the requirements of the contract my department will take the necessary steps to protect the government and the exchequer. If we are entitled to have the contract cancelled by the courts we will do so. I will see that the exchequer is protected.


Eugène Fiset: What prices are paid for ordinary clay and rock?


Alfred Duranleau: The prices vary according to the classes of material. For class A, which is rock, the prices are $8 and $7 in certain places; for class B, clay, they are 45 cents, 50 cents, 60 cents and 90 cents, depending upon the location.


Eugène Fiset: It depends on the report of the inspector.


Alfred Duranleau: It depends upon the reports of the engineers as to the quality of the material.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are Mr. Simard and Mr. DufreSne members or directors of the company?

Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: I know that Mr. Simard is interested in the company; as to Mr. Dufresne, I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighthouse and coast service - agencies, rents and contingencies, $203,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are these agencies?


Alfred Duranleau: Their duties include the administration within their districts of the aids to navigation, comprising lighthouses, lightships, fog alarms, buoys, steamers, wharves and so on, and generally they look after the interests of the department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How is the decrease of
833,000	accounted for?


Alfred Duranleau: By the ten per cent reduction in salaries, and, perhaps, more rigid economy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to ligntkeepers, $1,860,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Can the minister say why a lightkeeper by the name of Morin was dismissed at Pilgrims' islands, and whether he was submitted to an investigation? If so, what was the report of the investigator?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the record here and therefore I cannot answer the question. We have so many lightkeepers that it is impossible for the minister to remember the case of each one, but if my hon. friend wants the information I can supply it on Monday.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want it for myself but for my colleague from Kamouraska, who is unavoidably absent. If the minister cannot give the information now, I would ask that the vote be allowed to stand until the hon. gentleman who is interested in it has an opportunity to discuss the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know that it would be fair to allow the item to stand until the hon. gentleman can be given the information. I can place the record of this man in the hands of his colleague at any time. I can say, however, that if this particular lightkeeper, Mr. Morin, has been dismissed, his dismissal must have come after a thorough investigation, and on the report of the investigator. At any rate, I shall have the record placed at the disposal of the hon. gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret very much that the record is not available now that the vote is
before the committee. It does not seem reasonable for the minister to ask that the item be passed without giving this information. I am well acquainted with this man Morin. I met him this summer and he assured me that he has taken no part in any election in a good many years. He was lightkeeper on one of the three Pilgrims' islands, where he was doing his duty conscientiously. He was very hospitable to all who went there either for fishing or for hunting. Indeed, he was quite friendly to all and he had friends in both parties. As a matter of fact, he did not bother at all with politics. He is a young man, very intelligent and capable, and had been appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, before the house rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Quebec East informed me that he had known the man's father, who had taken no part in politics. The minister is aware, I know, that the man was recommended by leading Conservative lawyers in Montreal whom it is unnecessary to name but who are influential with the department by reason of personal friendship and associations. All that has been ignored; why? Because of the hatred displayed by some Tories in Kamouraska county. That job was taken from Morin and given to a man who is well off, and who, I may say, is the most disagreeable man in his parish.


Alfred Duranleau: Who is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister knows him. Seeing that I have said something disagreeable about him, I do not wish to mention his name, but the minister knows to whom I am referring.


Alfred Duranleau: I should know by the record.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister cannot very well ask me for information when he has not given me any; I am not his deputy. Here we are voting this item blindly, and it does not' seem reasonable. Usually when a minister brings items before the committee, and particularly a minister of the hon. gentleman's standing, he has full information with him; if not, his deputy should be able to supply it. I do not wish to hlame anyone, but this is my eighth session in the house and it is the first time I have seen a minister unable to answer a pertinent question when he was piloting his estimates through the committee. I can understand that if, on the orders of the day, I ask a question of the minister in connection with the dismissal of a Mr. Morin on Pilgrims' island, he might very well reply: I will let the hon. gentleman know to-morrow or in two or three days. But the minister has had twelve months in which to prepare his estimates, and when he tells me that he will
Supply-Marine

give me the information after the item is passed, I do not think he is treating me fairly. I would direct his attention to the example set by his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). When that hon. gentleman is dealing with his estimates and is asked a question, he gives a full answer and not a fool answer-there is all the difference in the world. The Minister of Public Works can be cited as a minister who will always deal fairly with his colleagues in the house.
The Minister of Marine does not come from Hudson bay or the Northwest Territories, he comes from the great city of Montreal. He' occupies the honoured position of president of the Quebec Bar Association, of which I am a member. A man of his learning should know that when,' he is presenting estimates to the committee he should be prepared to supply all information required. I am very sorry, but I must puit the blame upon the minister and not upon his staff.
The general impression in the district in which I live is that this man Morin has been dealt with unfairly. This opinion is held not only iby Liberals but by good Conservatives who have never voted for me; it is thought that Morin has been dismissed for no good reason, yet when, in a polite and courteous way, I ask the minister for information in this connection, he tells me he will be ready to give it after the vote is passed. The minister may say 'that the hon. member for Kaimouraska is not here. That is quite right; he is unavoidably absent, but I am asking this question on his behalf. I may not know all the minor details of the case, 'but I am fairly well posted thereon and I know that Morin has suffered an injustice. He has been replaced by another who is not worth what 'he is receiving. I ask a question of the hon. minister and he replies by answering another question which I have asked. Apparently he wants me to give him the details of what has happened in his own department; he wants me to tell uffiat has happened in the dismissal of one man and the appointment of another. If I appointed a man, I would remember the details of his appointment.
This is a free country, and if the hon. gentleman does not give me the information I require I cannot do anything about it; but if the information is not forthcoming I cannot vote for the item. I have too much respect for the hon. gentleman to lecture him, but I am surprised at his declining to supply the information to which I am entitled and which has been asked for in the proper way, on the proper day and of the proper minister. I understand a return has been tabled in con-
[Mr. Pouliot.l
nection with this matter, and if that is so, it should be very easy for the hon. gentleman to obtain the information. I will let him in on one of the secrets of parliamentary procedure-if a return has been tabled, he can obtain a copy. If the file happens to be in the Hunter building he can obtain a copy from Mr. Horton, chief of parliamentary papers. A page could be sent to obtain the file. I do not know if this is the procedure in the Quebec assembly, but that is what is done here. I believe the hon. gentleman knows this, but he does not want us to know that he knows it. I asked the minister why this man had been dismissed, and whether such action had been taken after investigation, and he replied that if he was dismissed after an investigation it was not without good reason. We may have a different opinion as to the sufficiency of the reason. I have no desire to be disagreeable or to take up too much of the time of the committee; when we ask for information, it is not to cause delay or trouble, it is only to be able to answer the questions asked of us by our constituents.


William Duff: The hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) is quite within his rights in asking for information with regard to dismissals by the Department of Marine. However, I take a different view from that of my hon. friend; as far as I am (personally concerned, I have not the slightest objection to a .member of the government in power or a defeated candidate recommending to a minister that a certain official be dismissed. The only objection I do raise in this regard is that this or any other government should be hypocritical about the matter. The Prime Minister believes in economy and is practising it to a -certain extent, but I am -going to ask him to go a little further in his practice. During the past year tens of thousands of dollars have been wasted -by the different departments in investigating the actions of public servants. As I said a moment ago, I have no objection if a defeated candidate or a member supporting -the government recommends to any minister that , the occupan-cy of a certain office be changed; I sit back and take my medicine, and . tell my friends that that is ail that they are entitled to. But I do object to any minister or any government spending thousands of dollars for no good purpose. In the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, a number of lightkeepers, postmasters and others have been dismissed, -and it is nothing short of scandalous the amount of money paid these investigators who go round and hold investigations with their minds made up before-

Supply-M arine
hand as to what they are going to do-they know they are going to recommend dismissal. I say to the minister, to the Prime Minister and the government that they should stop that practice, and let the minister concerned take the responsibility and dismiss any Grit he wants to.
This vote is for the construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances of light-keeipers. I note that there is a decrease in this vote from last year of $494,600, and I would like the minister after I sit down to be good enough to explain to the committee how that reduction is made up. He will notice that the first part of the item refers to the construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation. Now, if there is one important service in this country it is that which has to. do with aids to navigation, whether they are on the Atlantic coast, the Great lakes, in the river St. Lawrence or on the Pacific. I trust the minister will be able to tell the committee that in spite of this reduction no instructions will be issued to those in charge of our marine agencies that aids to navigation are not to be put where they are necessary, because the whole marine life of this country depends upon aids to navigation along our coasts and in our navigable waters.
The second part of the item refers to the salaries and allowances of lightkeepers. I assume that part of the reduction is made up of the general ten per cent cut in salaries. I would plead with the minister, with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance was good enough on Wednesday last to move that the committee rise and report progress on the bill reducing civil servants' salaries, that before we proceed any further with that bill it be determined that no reduction be made in the salaries of lightkeepers. Do the minister, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance realize what these lightkeepers all along our coasts and in the river St. Lawrence have to put up with? Take my hon. friend from Cape Breton North-Victoria, in whose constituency I believe St. Paul's island is. The lightkeepers are out there in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, one hundred miles from civilization, with no chance for their children to go to school, isolated practically the whole year; yet the minister and the government are going to cut their salaries by ten per cent. Take the lightkeepers on Sable island, the worst place in God's world for any person to live; and yet the lightkeepers who are there from one year's end to another, sometimes 41761-117
coming back fit for no other occupation, are to lose ten per cent of their salaries. It is a shame and disgrace, Mr Chairman, that any government or parliament should dare to cut the salaries of these men. The same thing applies to every lightkeeper in the country. Some of them are doing this work for only two hundred dollars a year, and you are going to cut their salaries ten per cent. Some of the ilightkeepers who were receiving salaries of $800 had their salaries cut last year to $420, and now the government proposes to cut them still further by ten per cent. I say it is not right. Surely the Prime Minister and the Finance minister, if they want to economize, can save in some other direction rather than that of taking the bread out of the mouths of the lightkeepers on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the gulf of the St. Lawrence and the Great lakes. I plead with the Prime Minister, the Finance minister and the Minister of Marine to allow this item to stand, or that the Minister of Marine bring down an item in the supplementary estimates so that the salaries of these lightkeepers shall nob be reduced by one cent.


Alan Webster Neill: I have, much pleasure in
supporting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. Certainly the life saving service is the last place where we should try to economize. We might perhaps with the consent of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough substitute the lightkeepers for the lieutenant-governors in the civil service salary reduction bill exempting the lightkeepers from the cut and bringing the lieutenant-governors under it. I think the general public of Canada would appreciate that.
I would like to make a very mild protest at the remarks of my hon. friend from Temis-couata. If I understood him aright, he had the idea that the intelligence, of Canada was centralized in Montreal and that the further you went from that city the less gray matter was possessed by hon. members. I do not know whether he applied his remarks to other individuals as well, but I presume so, and in that case I would suggest that he go west and examine some of the people as he goes along-and the examination might be reciprocal.
I would ask the minister if he has taken any steps to carry out the promise which he was kind enough to give us last year. He will find the matter to which I refer recorded in Hansard of May 21 last. I notice that I was supported on that occasion by the hon. member for Pariy Sound, who spoke

Supply-M arine

very strongly on the matter. Put briefly, the situation is this. The lighthouse keepers are. of course, civil servants, and there is an arrangement between this government and the provincial governments that if the lighthouse keeper meets with death or accident in his duties the Dominion government will pay to the workmen's compensation board of the province concerned, such a sum as, capitalized, will enable the workmen's compensation board of that province to pay the proper pension or compensation just as if the man had been employed in ordinary industrial work. But a case arises in which that is not possible, and that is the case of the lighthouse keepers' assistants. They are not paid by the Dominion government except indirectly, although really they may be considered as being paid by the federal authorities. The way it is done is this: the lighthouse keeper is paid a salary which is, supposedly, sufficiently large to enable him to employ one or more assistants. But the extra allowance for the assistant is so small that the ordinary lighthouse keeper cannot find an able-bodied man to do the work at the price, consequently he has to fall back on some member of his family, a growing boy or his wife-because the work is generally not very hard-or some old man he happens to know. The lighthouse keeper pays to such assistant a small sum, and it has been ruled that because of that, the assistant is not in the employ of the federal authorities. I brought the question up last year and represented that it was rather a hardship on these lighthouse keepers' assistants, who were subject to the same risks as the lighthouse keepers themselves, that if they were killed or injured in their occupation there would be no compensation or pension paid, and the suggestion was made by myself and the hon. member for Parry Sound that the government should pay the lighthouse keeper a few extra dollars-it would only be a few extra dollars a year, not a month-to enable the lighthouse keeper to pay to the workmen's compensation board the fee current in that province. It is always optional for them to do that even in occupations where the workmen's compensation legislation does not ordinarily apply. I am glad to say that the matter was fully discussed and that the minister spoke as follows:
The question is very important and I will give consideration to it.
I should be glad to know if the minister has taken it into consideration, and if so, with what results.


Alfred Duranleau: Answering my hon.
friend from Comox-Alberni, the question was discussed between myself and the officials of the department, and a solution has not yet been arrived at. It would mean an entire change in the policy of the department. The lightkeeper receives a full salary and has to hire the services of an assistant. If we were to pay a salary to the lightkeeper and one to the assistant we would have to change our policy.


Alan Webster Neill: No, no.


Alfred Duranleau: I understood that from my officials.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps the minister .will
allow me to explain. It is not desirable to have two salaries, for many reasons. In actual practice it has been found preferable to have the lighthouse keeper employ his assistant, because nine times out of ten the assistant has to live in the house of the lighthouse keeper. Naturally the lighthouse keeper should have some say as to who the assistant should be. The suggestion is that the department should pay the lighthouse keeper a little extra so that he might take care of the small sum to be paid as the workmen's compensation fee for his assistant. The sum *would not exceed ten or fifteen dollars a year. There would be no necessity to upset the present system, which, I admit, has its merits. The lighthouse keeper, who is receiving so much a year, would be given very little more and he would have to take care of this particular obligation.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend understands that to give compensation to the assistants by raising the salaries of lightkeepers would mean that we would have to ask the Civil Service Commission to increase the salaries of those lightkeepers. Their salaries are established by the Civil Service Commission.


Alan Webster Neill: It would be an allowance.


Alfred Duranleau: I can assure my hon. friend the matter has been discussed two or three times with my officials, and has not yet been solved. We are trying to find a way out. The question put by my hon. friend is of a serious nature, and I am of opinion that the assistants should be helped. We will try to solve the difficulty to the satisfaction of the assistants and my hon. friend.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Alfred Duranleau: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough I may say that the reduction in the

Supply-M arine
amount will not be on the salaries. Of course we will have to abide by the law so far as the ten per cent cut is concerned; if the cut applies to lightkeepers, they will have to accept it.


William Duff: It has not yet been passed.


Alfred Duranleau: There will be no other reductions, as to salaries or number of employees.


William Duff: The law has not yet been
passed; that is the reason I appeal to my hon. friend.


Alfred Duranleau: I was referring to a time when the law would be in force.


William Duff: What will the minister do in the meantime?


Alfred Duranleau: The reduction in the estimate is in connection only with the construction works. Last year our construction program was 81,000,000, and this year it will be only 8200,000.


William Duff: That sum is for the building of new lighthouses?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, in order to save money, we are cutting down practically all capital works this year. I am sorry I cannot supply the information asked by my hon. friend from Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry, too. .


Alfred Duranleau: I appreciate the fairness of the remarks of my hon. friend, and I should be very happy to give him the information he has requested. I know he is fair enough to admit however that it would be very difficult for a minister to have the files before him concerning 1,200 lightkeepers, and it would be even more difficult for a minister to remember the facts concerning all those lightkeepers. The name of Morin is not unknown to me, but I cannot recall the facts well enough to give the information to my hon. friend. I assure him that if a real injustice has been done I will reopen the case and see that any wrongs are rectified.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you very much.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall study the
record, and correct any injustice which has been done.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very satisfactory.


Mr. MUNN:: In this vote there is mention of maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation. Is it the intention of the government to remove Ripple rock in Seymour Narrows, which was discussed last year? Is 41761-1174
there provision for that in this vote, or is it the intention of the government to have Ripple rock removed during the present year?


Alfred Duranleau: As the hon. member knows, last year we had the report of a commission on the Ripple rock question. The matter is in the hands of the Department of Public Works, but I do not think the government intends this year to make an expenditure in that connection.


Mr. FOURNIER:: On March 2, I made a motion for the production of documents in connection with way shoal traverse at Angers in the county of Hull. The complaint in this case was made by Mr. Beauchamp, the Conservative candidate in the last federal election in the constituency of Hull. His letter dated October 23, 1930, recommends that one Onezime Proulx replace Louis Mon-geon, and is as follows:
(Translation):
To replace him, I recommend Mr. Onezime Proulx, who previously held this position, but was dismissed without reasons being given, in 1929, and replaced by Mr. Louis Mongeon.
An inquiry was held in this matter, and on May 20 Mr. Mongeon was dismissed because of political partisanship. Later on in the record I have before me there is a letter stating that Mr. Onezime Proulx could not again be recommended because he had been dismissed in 1929 for negligence in the discharge of his duty. His brother was appointed. In the record however one document seems to be missing. In this particular case the lightkeeper was receiving $150 per year, or $12.50 per month, and an inquiry was held at which lawyers and stenographers attended. A bill was submitted to the minister which I suppose was paid. That bill, however, is missing from the file I have before me. I should like to know if the minister will tell me the amount of the costs in connection with this inquiry. I see in the file that the commissioner, Mr. Tache, on the 9th of April, 1931, closed his remarks by stating: (Translation):
I have enclosed my account in triplicate as requested.
"I am enclosing my -bill of costs, in triplicate as requested." Will the minister tell me the amount of the costs in connection with this inquiry?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, the
account must have been sent to the accounting department for payment and removed from the file accordingly. That is why it does not appear in the file as laid on the table
Supply-Marine

of the house. We shall be pleased, however, to supply my hon. friend with any information we can. We will give him a copy of the account, if he desires to have it. I do not think that stenographers were employed.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, they were.


Alfred Duranleau: As a rule we do not
employ reporters, so that costs may be kept down. The stenographers are the greatest expense in connection with inquiries. I shall be very happy however to supply the bill to my hon. friend.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister, in view of the gracious reply which he has given to my colleague from Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) would be kind enough to give me the same encouragement. He will remember that last year Mr. Thibault, the lighthouse keeper at the island of Bicquet in the county of Rimouski, a returned soldier, was dismissed on the recommendation of a commissioner who happened to be the defeated Conservative candidate in that county. The lighthouse keeper was dismissed on the evidence of three smugglers, who sought the protection of the court before they would give evidence. More than that, those three smugglers are the very same men who were supposed to -have been protected by the lighthouse keeper when he was accused of taking part in smuggling while on duty. The minister will remember that last year I registered a protest against the fact of the two ex-Conservative candidates in the county of Rimouski being employed as commissioners on inquiries. I am glad to say that after my complaint no further inquiries were held in the county by those two commissioners. I think the government came to the conclusion that those two gentlemen had been engaged in electioneering to such an extent that they were not proper persons to conduct such inquiries in their own county. Will the minister kindly peruse the evidence placed before the commissioners in this case? I think if he does so he will find that the man was the victim of vengeance on the part of those people. It so happens that the man appointed in his place was a shirker during the period when the man dismissed volunteered for service overseas. I hope the minister will do me the kindness to peruse the evidence, for if he does so I shall be quite willing to leave the case to his own sense of justice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I desire, Mr. Chairman,
to express to the minister my appreciation of his attitude to-night. I desire to commend especially to his kind attention the case of

the lighthouse keeper at Hare island. The island is situated in the middle of the river, which is between ten and fifteen miles wide at this point. Consequently it is very hard for the lighthouse keeper to attend to his duties in the spring and to leave the lighthouse in the fall on account of the ice. This man, named Dube, is a very handy man, and during the fifteen years he has been lighthouse keeper he has saved the department a lot of money by doing carpentry repairs and painting, thus keeping the lighthouse in excellent condition, although his salary is rather small. This lighthouse, as the minister knows from his inspection, is on a strategic point in the middle of the river, and the light is of the greatest importance to those who go up or down the river. The man has never failed in his duty, he has, as I say, kept the lighthouse in a very good state of repair, and therefore I take the liberty of recommending his case to the minister in order that in due course this very deserving man may have his position improved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $99,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Do the beacons at Anticosti island and at West Point come under this vote?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $218,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that there is not a school for pilots in this country. At the present time I know several young men who want to become pilots. I can recommend especially to the minister a young man named Pelletier who has been sailing the seven seas for several years. He comes from Notre Dame du Portage. The profession of pilot was very popular some years ago, and it would be a good opening for many young men to-day. That is why I am submitting to the minister my suggestion for the establishment of a pilot school for the training of young men.


William Thomas Lucas: What proportion of the vote is for salaries?


Alfred Duranleau: Salaries represent
185,000; operating and general expenses, $25,000.


Alan Webster Neill: Ten per cent of $85,000 is
$8,500; there is a reduction of only $7,000.


Alfred Duranleau: There may be a few
increases in some of the other items.

Supply-Marine


Olof Hanson: How many pilots are there in British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: There are thirty-four in the province.


Olof Hanson: Are any stationed at Prince Rupert?


Alfred Duranleau: Some are stationed
at Prince Rupert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
Peter John Veniot: Would the minister tell
the committee how many wharves are under the control of the Department of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot give that
information offhand.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister prepare a list of the wharves, together with their location, and let me have it some time in the future?


Alfred Duranleau: With pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $121,000.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Before this item carries I should like to say a few words in connection with a matter which I think comes under it. I refer to the inspection of tackle used in loading and unloading ships.
The minister will remember that earlier in the session I placed a question on the order paper with regard to the intention of the minister as to the bringing down of legislation in this connection. The question was whether the minister had received from the Vancouver harbour commission a draft copy of safety regulations applicable to the loading and unloading of ships, together with the recommendation that these be made a by-law of the harbour board. The minister informed me that this communication had been received but that the by-law could not be approved by the department because they had obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice holding that the Vancouver harbour commissioners were not competent to draw up such a by-law.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, may I say that a large number of people are engaged in what we call longshore work, the loading and Unloading of ships, and although their work is extremely hazardous, as I will show by statistics furnished by the compensation board of British Columbia, there are no safety regulations covering that work. The municipalities in which this work is carried on claim that they have no jurisdiction in
the matter of making regulations; the provincial government says it has no jurisdiction, and now the Department of Justice maintains that the harbour commisisoners have no jurisdiction either. So we find that these men are working under conditions which are extremely dangerous, and there is no one who can enforce safety regulations.
Some time ago a conciliation board was considering an agreement between the waterfront workers of the city of Vancouver and the stevedoring association. One of the present members of the Vancouver harbour commisison, Mr. Thompson, was a member of that conciliation board, and that board recommended that such safety regulations should be made. I should like to read from a statement submitted to that board by the chairman of the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia in response to a request for information. This letter is dated June 18, 1930, and is addressed to Mr. J. B. Thompson, chairman of the conciliation board which was sitting at that time. Mr. Winn, chairman of the Compensation board of British Columbia writes:
Referring to your telephone conversation today, we find on looking up our records that as far back as 1919, we endeavoured to obtain the appointment of a tackle inspector for this port. In recent years we have also taken up such an appointment with the Vancouver harbour commissioners.
The board is without jurisdiction to deal with such matters as come under the heading of navigation and shipping, that being distinctly a matter over which the federal government, either through its various departments or through the harbour commission, has sole authority.
It is, we believe, self apparent that an independent inspector having to do with the inspection of tackle, equipment and proper lighting and having authority to enforce regulations, is the one who should deal with all accident prevention matters.
The chief efficacy of such an inspector is that he would be an independent arbiter as to the means to -be used to safeguard the life and limbs of workmen. One cannot get the same independence of thought and action from an employee that die would expect from an independent official. We have undertaken to supervise,-
That is, the compensation board have undertaken to supervise.
-without cost to the department or commission making the appointment, the work of such an inspector so as to ensure uniformity of direction as well as fair treatment to all. We have on our commission and staff competent engineers who, by reason of their accident prevention experience, would be able to hold a firm hand on any official so appointed, and in this way ensure competency. Inasmuch as our board is the one to collect funds and to pay for disabilities we are naturally more able to keep close supervision over those matters which go to accident prevention.
Supply-Marine
[Stage Direction]
I should like the minister to pay particular attention to this paragraph:
As it is now, a foreign boat may come into the harbour with defective tackle and equipment; may employ its own longshoremen, kill or maim them and then leave (unless it is libelled by the injured workman or his representative), without in any way accounting for its casualties, thus leaving the cost to be borne by our citizens. The average longshoreman in case of serious disability-and I take it we would be in much the same position-does _ not think of his legal rights until he feels the pinch of need. By that time the ship has gone.
I should like to point out that in a case of that kind the injured person or his dependents would be entitled to no compensation whatever. On the other hand, of course, if a longshoreman were employed by one of the stevedoring companies having its head office in some part of British Columbia, he would be entitled to compensation. Mr. Winn points that out; he says:
On the other hand, if the boat in question employs one of our stevedoring companies then the stevedoring company and its employees are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the result is that in event of accident the workman is compensated.
Now I wish to give some figures with regard to accidents, and also to give illustrations of the causes that lead lip to accidents. I have the figures from 1918 to 1930, but I will not take the time of the house reading them all. If it were possible, I should like to put them on Hansard without reading them, but if I am not allowed to do so I will content myself with quoting them in part.
In 1918, the first year on record, there were 239 claims. Of these there were seven permanent or partial disability awards and one fatal accident. The total cost in that year was 817,666. By 1923 the number of accidents had increased to 388, with twelve permanent or partial disability awards; there were no fatal accidents in that year. The total cost was over $36,000. I would observe here that up to 1923-I cannot speak for any point outside Vancouver-'the longshoremen of that city were strongly organized, and in the fail or early winter of that year there was a strike in longshore work. The workers' organizations were defeated. Now I want .to show what difference that made in the number of accidents that occurred in the following year when the men were without an organization to protect .the worker. As I have pointed out, the total claims in 1923 were 388, with twelve permanent or partial disability awards; and there were no fatal accidents in that year. The total cost, as I have stated, was over $36,000. Now, in 1924 the number of claims totalled 536, with twelve permanent or partial dis-
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
ability awards and ten fatal accidents, and the total cost was over $119,000.
Generally speaking, from 1924 up to the present time accidents have been increasing, along with the cost; so that in 1930, the last year for which I have figures, there were 582 claims, with forty permanent or partial disability awards and three fatal accidents, involving a total cost of $152,000. It seems to me, in face of such a condition, that the minister should take steps to have the lives and limbs of men engaged in this sort of work protected.
The chairman of the compensation board of British Columbia stated that the only competent authority in (the matter was the federal government, through some of its departments, and undoubtedly the Department of Marine is the one under which this should come. I hold that under section 674 of the Canada Shipping Act the minister has power even now to make regulations in that regard if he thinks fit. I shall read that section, and if it does not fully cover the situation, them I .think that minor amendments could be made to render it applicable. It .could easily foe amended to serve the purpose intended. The section reads:
Every inspector may, at any time, visit any ship, whether registered in Canada or elsewhere, and whether propelled wholly or in part by steam, except ships belonging to His Majesty; and although any such ship is classed in Lloyds register of British and foreign shipping, or in any other corporation or association for the survey and register of ships approved by the governor in council, may inspect and examine the tackle, machinery or apparatus used for the loading or unloading thereof, and, if he considers such tackle, machinery or apparatus defective, so as to be dangerous to life, he shall report thereon to the minister, who may order that such tackle, machinery and apparatus shall not be used until permitted by the minister.
I suppose when the act says "may report" to the minister, that means either to the minister or to his representative in the locality; for it would be a very slow process if a report had to come from Vancouver or from Halifax to the department here in order that instructions might be sent as to what should be done. As regards the words "may inspect and examine", I should think that the minister might very well construe that as "shall", and that would serve the purpose.
Under that section of the Canada Shipping Act, the minister has jurisdiction and the necessary means to fulfil the requirements for safety. I believe that the Vancouver harbour commissioners are favourable to safety regulations. I understand that in November, 1931, they forwarded a copy of rather full regulations for the approval of the minister. They

Sup-ply-Marine
wanted to have these regulations approved as a by-law. I believe that, while the harbour commissioners have not the power to draft and enforce regulations, if these by-laws were approved by the minister they would have the effect of departmental regulations and could be made applicable under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. I am not a lawyer but I take it that this could be done, once the regulations had the approval of the minister. There are twenty-five sections in these regulations, which were approved by the Vancouver harbour commissioners, by the workmen's compensation board, by the council of thei city of Vancouver and by the waterfront workers themselves, through their association; so that they are opposed only by the stevedore companies of the province of British Columbia. The last section of the resolutions of the Vancouver harbour commission reads as follows:
The safety inspector shall have authority to inspect all loading and unloading berths and the equipment thereon, and shall have authority to prohibit work if he considers conditions unsafe.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable authority to give, and it should be given in this instance. In most other industries in the province of British Columbia the workmen's compensation board has authority and can enforce safety regulations. I have in my hand a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Marine by the assistant secretary of the workmen's compensation board of [DOT] the province of British Columbia, and which deals with the matter I am now discussing. It is rather lengthy, but it gives a very good picture of the conditions which prevail. The minister may have forgotten having received this letter, and I bring it to his attention,. It is dated November 14, 1931, and reads:
On or about the 23rd ultimo, we were informed that the Shipping Federation of British Columbia which, we understand is composed of employers engaged in stevedoring in or about Vancouver, wrote you opposing the appointment of an accident prevention inspector for this port.
Experience throughout the continent has emphasized the supreme importance of accident prevention as the surest and soundest way of curtailing human wastage in industry and to reduce for the employers the cost of accidents in lengthy time loss, medical attention, increased labour turnover, permanent disabilities and loss of life. Each accident prevented and each safeguard installed means not only a reduction of the strain on the funds of the industry hut also the saving and preserving of manpower both to the province and to the nation. An accident prevention inspector would be continually carrying on an educational safety campaign, which could not help but develop a "safety consciousness" and therefore a more careful and efficient employee.
At times in the past we know that the Vancouver Harbour Commission has had a safety inspector, but his only authority, as we gather from him, has been to report to them any unsafe practices or unsafe equipment. He would also advise officials in charge of the work as to dangerous places and practices, but he had no authority whatsoever to insist upon any remedies.
The Vancouver harbour commission is trying to do whatever it possibly can in this connection, and, as is pointed out by this letter, it has appointed at its own cost a man to inspect the equipment used in the loading and unloading of ships. But this inspector has no authority to enforce any regulations after he has found a defect in the equipment used; all he can do is direct attention to such defect and try to prevail upon the shipping federation to discontinue the use of such defective equipment. The letter continues :
We know too that the shipping federation has had a safety inspector. In discussing the matter with him we were informed that his only authority was to advise his employers of the various hazards undergone from time to time by the workmen and to, at times, recommend an alleviation. He had no power of a definite nature to cause the remedy of any dangerous or faulty equipment, nor to insist upon the prevention of unsafe practices. It is apparent that he occupied an unenviable position, because from time to time he would be in the position of having to advise his employers that their equipment was faulty or that the vessels employing these firms to do their work had dangerous machinery or poor equipment. In advising his employers of defective equipment he would be, in effect, asking them to expend money to remedy such conditions. The possibilities were that his employers would not care to insist upon those in charge of the incoming vessels stopping work to repair or replace faulty machinery or equipment. If the inspector were active in accident prevention measures, it can be quite easily understood that he could not hope to hold his position for any length of time.
The holding of a position is an important matter in these hard times, and this so-called inspector would not be very keen to detect defective equipment. The letter continues:
From the foregoing it is apparent that a great part of the work of either of the above inspectors would be abortive by reason of his lack of authority.
The Workmen's Compensation Act of British Columbia has been in effect approximately fifteen shears. When it had been in effect for about two years it 'became apparent from evidence taken in hearings on accident cases, from complaints received from workmen, from reports of accidents on our records, that there was a very great need for definite accident
Supply-Marine
[Stage Direction]
prevention measures in stevedoring work. In 1919 we started to take steps to bring to the attention of your department, through representatives, the necessity for greater protection on the Vancouver waterfront.
Although the minister has not been in office since 1919, I would direct his attention to the fact that since that year the workmen's compensation board has been drawing this matter to the attention of the federal Department of Marine, yet nothing has been done and the workers are being killed and maimed in accidents, many of which could be prevented. The letter continues:
Frequently since that time, as the opportunity presented itself we have joined with other interested parties in seeking to achieve the same end. We believe that as a result of these efforts the hereinbefore mentioned inspectors were appointed, but with their lack of jurisdiction of a mandatory nature it^ was realized that their efforts were mainly fruitless. It is true, however, that some faulty gear and some unsafe practices were remedied.
The Vancouver and District Waterfront Workers' Association, as our records indicate, endeavoured on a number of occasions to obtain the sought for objective, the federal appointment of accident prevention inspectors. They were joined in their efforts by the Amalgamated Carpenters of Canada;-
These carpenters are employed in lining ships to be used for the shipment of grain, and have to work under the same hazardous conditions as the longshoremen. The letter continues:
-the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, composed of captains, masters, mates, etc., operating in our coastal waters; the British Columbia Safety League, whose sole objective is the prevention of accidents, and the city of Vancouver.
Everyone connected with the business carried on in the shipping district of ,the city of Vancouver is interested in the drafting and putting into effect of regulations which will prevent accidents on the waterfront. The letter continues:
You will notice, therefore, that all of the bodies actively interested and vitally affected by the cost of the accident toll and its suffering 

save the employers-have recognized the necessity of the appointment of an accident-prevention inspector with proper authority.
The members of our board have met the various affected labour organizations on a large number of occasions and discussed with them the Vancouver waterfront situation and agreed to the necessity outlined herein. We could not handle the thousands of waterfront accidents that we have; meeting the injured workman and discussing the type of accident with him; meeting business agents of the various labour organizations and meeting the various employers' representatives as well as others having a practical knowledge of the necessities outlined herein without coming to a very definite conclusion as to the needs of the situation.
We have on several occasions met the representatives of the Vancouver Harbour Commis-

sion and discussed with them the proposed accident-prevention regulations and have agreed *with them that the regulations submitted were an absolute necessity; that while they are not sufficient to meet all possible contingencies, yet they are a fair start on the problem. It has been agreed with every representation that the proposed regulations are only those which a reasonable man would expect to see placed in effect.
I would ask the minister to take into consideration the reasonableness of what is asked in this case. The workmen's compensation board is not much interested in this matter except as regards the prevention of accidents, and may I say that they have done good work in reducing the toll of accidents in the industrial concerns in the province of British Columbia. Still quoting from the tetter:
The board does not keep a list of accidents happening in any particular locality, but to prove the need we have, out of a mass of waterfront accidents, looked up the files and selected a few of the cases to which some of the regulations would apply. Attached hereto and under the number of the particular section of the proposed by-laws is a list of a few cases that have actually happened in the last few years and which could have been remedied had there been a safety inspector qualified and fully authorized to act as an independent arbitrator-
George Spotton: The
hon. gentleman has spoken forty minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. MacINNIS:: With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that I have not spoken forty minutes, and with your leave I shall proceed. In any event I believe the information I am giving to the committee is of such importance .that I should be allowed to continue even had I spoken forty minutes. Quoting from the letter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Have I the privilege of
the floor, Mr. Chairman?


George Spotton: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but according to the information I was given when I took the chair, his time would be up now. But if the committee are unanimous in the view that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to proceed, or if the information given me was not correct, I shall be glad to allow the hon. member to proceed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is an astonishing thing, Mr. Chairman, that in committee of the whole forty minutes should elapse in what seems to the rest of us to be twenty minutes.

Supply-M cirine
I should like to impress upon the committee the seriousness of the situation which exists on the waterfront in Vancouver, though some hon. members may think the matter is of no particular importance. It is several years since I brought up this very question on the floor of the house and received assurances from the minister then in charge that something would be done. However, nothing has been done, and the situation is a serious one. It seems as if the responsibility for accident does not rest with any one party. At times it is the harbour board that is held responsible, at other times it is the Dominion government, and so on. To use the ordinary slang phrase, it is a case of passing the buck. In the meantime there are a great many accidents, and there is no safeguard for the waterfront workers. I speak rather feelingly in the matter because I know the situation very intimately. I know some of the men engaged in this work; I know how much they realize the need for protection of this kind, and I trust the committee will take seriously this letter which is being read and the representations which are being made. I hope the hon. member will now be allowed to continue.


Angus MacInnis: I am quoting from this letter, Mr. Chairman, because it puts the case much better than I could put it myself. All I am interested in is in making the best possible case for the waterfront workers, in the province of British Columbia in particular, but also in other parts of the dominion. I am not talking just for the sake of filling up time. I have never done that, and I have no intention of doing it to-night. Quoting from the letter:
The board does not keep a list of accidents happening in any particular locality, but to prove the need we have, out of a mass of waterfront accidents, looked up- the files and selected a few of the cases to which some of the regulations would apply. Attached hereto and under the number of the particular section of the proposed by-laws is a list of a few cases that have actually happened in the last two years, and which could have been remedied had there been a safety inspector qualified and fully authorized to act as an independent arbitrator in seeing to it that faulty gear and equipment and unsafe practices were not used or operated.
Then it goes on to give the cost rates charged to employers engaged in stevedoring work in British Columbia from 1924 to 1931. I shall not read all the figures, but simply wish to point out that in 1924 the charge was 84.87 per $100 of pay-roll, and in 1931 it had almost doubled, amounting to $8 per $100 of pay-roll. That is sufficient, Mr. Chairman,
to show the increasing seriousness of waterfront accidents in the province of British Columbia. Quoting again from the letter:
The above figures indicate the increase in number and severity of accidents in the last five years. As you know, therefore, no profits under workmen's compensation and moneys are only collected from employers as required to meet the cost of accidents. While it is true that these rates cover all of the stevedoring operations in the province, yet examination or the record of the various employers in and about Vancouver gives no general indication that their experience is in any way different from the experience of employers operating elsewhere. Substantially two-thirds of the accidents that happen in the stevedoring industry occur in the port of Vancouver. In the case of some of the vessels where serious accidents have happened elsewhere these same vessels in completing their cargo took a portion of it a.t Vancouver, so that, for example, if a workman's leg were crushed and possibly amputated by reason of faulty gear or equipment on the vessel at some other port, the same condition could have happened on the same ship in the port of Vancouver.
During the arbitration between the Vancouver and District Waterfront Workers' Association and the Employers in the port of Vancouver in June, 1930, the whole situation was very fully discussed with Mr. J. B. Thomson, who was then chairman of the arbitration committee, and is now a member of the Vancouver harbour commission, and we are sure that he was very fully convinced of the necessity of the course outlined herein.
He was undoubtedly convinced to the extent that in 1931 he forwarded to the department for the approval of the minister the regulations I have already mentioned. Quoting again from the letter, I read the following:
Our board, through its chairman, advised Mr. Thomson under date of June 18, 1930, that it was self apparent that an independent accident prevention inspector having authority to enforce regulations should be the one to deal with the inspection of tackle, equipment, proper lighting and all accident prevention matters, together with the necessary accident prevention education which would be brought about by his frequent visits to the various docks throughout this district. It was then pointed out that the chief efficacy of such an inspector was that he would be an independent arbiter as to the means to be used to safeguard life and limbs of workmen. It is quite apparent we believe that one cannot get the same independence of thought and action from an employee that one would expect from an independent official. The board's viewpoint has been concurred in, as outlined before, by all parties having to do with the actual work on the -waterfront, save the employers in question.
Might we suggest that the passing of the proposed harbour board regulations could not act detrimentally to the port of Vancouver. We fail to find a single regulation that can be said to be extreme or arbitrary or that would place any additional penalty on a vessel coming into this harbour other than is necessary
Supply-M arine

to protect life and limb. There isn't any doubt in Taw but that a foreign boat may come into this harbour with defective tackle or equipment; might employ its own stevedores, kill or maim them and-unless libelled by the injured workman and possibly his dependents-might leave without in any way accounting for the havoc so created; thus leaving the cost of maintaining the injured workman or his dependents to be borne by our citizens. Is there any doubt but that in the average case of disability -and I take it we would be in the same position-a workman does not think of his rights until he feels the pinch of need, by which time the vessel might be gone from our shores.
There are some further paragraphs, Mr. Chairman, but I shall not take time to read them. I think I have read sufficient to convince hon. members of the extreme need for safety regulations in loading and unloading ships.
I now come to a few cases which the workmen's compensation board have pointed out might have been - prevented had there been proper inspection.
Claim No. 344409-N. J. Donovan: Head injury-fatal.	Defective hook on beam
spreaders opened out, flew across deck and struck man on head.
The board claims this accident could have been prevented had section 8 of the regulations sent in by the harbour board been in operation.
Claim No. 338533-P. McDonough: Fractured arm. Derrick fell, striking man on arm.
This might have been prevented had section
7	been in operation.
Claim No. 298594-G. B. Sparrow: Head injury-fatal. Ring bolt in bulkhead gave way, snatch block fell, striking man on head.
This might have been prevented had section
8	been in operation. I think I have read enough to convince the minister that regulations are necessary in order to protect life and limb in the province of British Columbia, and I assume that conditions are no different in other parts of Canada. By approving the regulations drawn up by the waterfront workers and the Vancouver harbour commissioners, I think the minister could give effect to the clause in the Canada Shipping Act which I have quoted.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has occupied an hour's time in reading communications which are on the files of the department, and in connection with which those of us who are in close touch with this matter have full and complete knowledge. For the past few months the minister in charge, myself and others who 
have taken a direct interest in this matter -.more than merely talking about it on one or two occasions-have been endeavouring to find a suitable way of dealing with this matter, for which we have been desirous of seeking a remedy. At first it was thought that the by-law of the harbour commissioners to which the hon. member has referred on so many occasions to-night might have been the proper way to deal with it. However, after the by-law had been formulated, forwarded to Ottawa, and examined by officers of the department, it was learned that the harbour commissioners did not have the jurisdiction which we had at first supposed. Under such by-law it would have been useless to appoint inspectors, 'because the first case challenged would of course have disclosed the weakness of the whole procedure. Then the minister, his staff and myself sought other means to deal with the situation. It was hoped that amendments to the Canada Shipping Act might have been prepared for this session. That procedure was delayed, however, as hon. members know, because of the very extensive nature of the changes due to the statute of Westminster, which was completed only a .few months ago. During the past week or two the minister and his officials have been studying the matter, and only yesterday I was in touch with the Department of Marine in connection with it. Possibly the situation may be met in part by instructing the inspectors of ship hulls and boilers to enlarge their inspections so as to include tackle. Personally I think there is still some question as to the soundness of that procedure-I will not say the advisability of it, but as to whether or not authority goes that far. It is thought, however, that the difficulty may be met in that way until such time as the general shipping act is amended, or until power could be given to the harbour board to pass regulations.
I wish to assure the committee that this matter has been under close observation and study by the department, its officials, the minister and myself, and has not in any sense been neglected. It must be recognized that in matters of this kind a pious wish that something be done is not sufficient; there is the question of working out the constitutional and technical details. True, we sometimes express a little irritation at delays, but in this instance I think the delays have been warranted, and every possible effort has been made to meet the situation. I do not know that anything further can be said on the subject at the present time. The minister, I know, will support me in what I say, that

Supply-Marine
without any unreasonable delay the matter will be completed. I might also add that there have been some changes in the senior officials of the Marine department which has made correspondence and discussions a bit awkward, because Mr. Johnston retired a little while ago, the deputy was ill for some time and the present acting deputy comes on the job without having knowledge of what has passed between myself and the other officials. This has caused delay, regrettable no doubt, but nothing further, I think, could have been done under the circumstances.


Angus MacInnis: I regret the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to go out of his way to find fault with the time I had occupied in bringing the matter to his attention, but I did not take even thirty minutes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A solid hour.


Angus MacInnis: There were less than five pages in the letter, and I did not read the whole of it. I am not a very fast reader but 1 can read more than five pages in an hour. I pointed out that this matter had been before the department since 1919, that the present Minister of Marine had not been in office during part of that time, and that I was not finding any great fault with him, but simply drawing it to his attention. Surely we have the right to draw to the attention of the committee matters which affect the life and limb of workers in their daily avocations without being accused of taking up too much time.


Alan Webster Neill: I heartily support the very able presentation of this case made by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). I do not quite grasp what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said as to what action would be taken. He said they contemplated giving authority to the steamboat and hull inspectors by enlarging their jurisdiction to include the inspection of tackle, but I understood him to say there was some possible objection even to that. If that is the case, the obvious remedy would be to amend the Canada Shipping Act in its entirety this session. But while that might not ibe possible, it would be quite simple to pass what I might term an interim revision of such sections of the act as deal with this matter. Do not let us have any mistake so that after parliament has adjourned we shall find that for another year the government is prevented from taking the necessary action. It would be a very simple matter to pass an amendment. Indeed I understood the minister to say on another occasion he was going to amend the Canada Shipping Act this session dealing with some specific thing which he named. If that is so, it would be very easy
for him to take authority to do what is required to give full force and weight to whatever action may be necessary regarding this matter. I agree entirely with the member for Vancouver South, that it is of no use to appoint a man merely to advise these people. Some of these tramp steamer people are not open to advice; they will simply laugh at him. The hon. member read some regulations, one of which said the inspector should report any case to the minister, and he assumed that that would not mean reporting to the minister at Ottawa. To my mind it would, and it would foe highly undesirable to have the thing hung uip while the report was going to Ottawa, because in that time the boat would be loaded, somebody might be killed, and the boat would have sailed. Surely we should give the inspector power to order an immediate change in the tackle or other equipment, if faulty, and then if his action is found to be too arbitrary it would be subject to revision later on. That would ensure safety for the men in the meantime. I am much interested in this matter because we have the same situation on the west coast, where we are loading a large number of ships every year. Port Alberni is now the third largest shipping port in British Columbia, which gives an idea of the amount of business done there. We aTe having too mimy accidents. But you cannot^ expect one ship to go to considerable expense if others are not compelled to do so. Put them all on an even basis and give the inspector ample powers.
The member for Vancouver South, spoke of the workmen's compensation board having a safety officer. I had an opportunity on one occasion to observe the action of such an officer. I was coming down from a logging camp some years ago, and even to my untrained eye the roadbed was in a horrible condition. I said to the lad who was on the speeder bringing me down, "This roadbed is in a rotten condition." He said, "Yes, that is what the safety inspector told the boss yesterday." I made inquiries and found that the inspector had condemned a mile and a half of that track, and he did not allow an engine to move over it until the track was put in a proper state. Probably that saved a bad accident. There is no kick among the lumber people, for those who are alive to their responsibilities realize it is a good thing, and in the long run, economical, to have a man in that capacity. He does not ask unreasonable things, but he is down on the men who, as they say in lumber circles, run a "haywire" proposition. That is the sort of power we want to give the inspector in connection with the stevedore operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

[Stage Direction]
Civil Government-Trade and Commerce- salaries, $554,310; contingencies, $40,000.
Mr. YENIOT:: I note, Mr. Chairman, there is no reduction in contingencies, while in quite a number of other departments the contingencies have been cut down. Why were they not out down in this department?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The contingency vote is a comparatively small vote for the activities of this department, and we found on carefully scrutinizing it that it was impossible this year to cut it down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation, maintenance and equipment of elevators, administration of, $2,400,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think the committee will remember, Mr. Chairman, that the Stamp commission report made a certain recommendation with respect to the appointing of a supervisor over the grain exchange. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether consideration has been given that recommendation, and if it is intended eventually to carry it out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No action in that regard
has been taken as yet.


William Thomas Lucas: Is it intended to take any
action?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not give a definite answer at the present time. The matter is still under consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: Has my hon. friend any information with regard to a similar appointment made in Chicago? Does the inspector appointed there seem to be of any use, or is the appointment looked upon as a nominal appointment to .constitute a certain safeguard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are not satisfied that the official referred to by my hon. friend is of any real value. Of course we would not offer any criticism of the action taken by a neighbouring country, but we are not satisfied that it is really of any great advantage. However, the matter is still under consideration.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I notice a decrease of $331,000 in this item. Could the minister tell us how he proposes to make this saving?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the preparation of this estimate) the Board of Grain Commissioners and the department must anticipate the possible requirements of the season. Of course it is quite impossible to make a precise
[Mr. Neill.1
estimate, because, if the crop happened to be very heavy the services required would be much enlarged. It would be quite possible this year-and I would say it was quite likely -if we were fortunate enough to have an unusually large crop, that this estimate would not be sufficient. However, considering a normal crop we anticipate that the provision made here will be sufficient.


John Vallance: Could the minister say whether it was necessary to use all the money voted last year for the operation of- the act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think there is possibly
$75,000 or $100,000 left, and of course out of the appropriation last year we paid all the administrative costs of the wheat bonus.
* Mr. VALLANCE:	What was the cost of
the administration of the wheat bonus?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The administration of
that bonus cost $107,000, or just about one per cent. It must be recalled that three million individual cheques were sent out, and I believe the cost of printing alone, was about $40,000. The, total cost for printing, mailing, clerical help and so on was about one per cent, or $107,000.


John Vallance: Then in view of this
decrease in the estimate are we to assume that it is not the intention of the government to continue the bonus this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the moment that
assumption is not germane to the discussion. As far as the Board of Grain Commissioners and their estimate are concerned, they have no instructions on that point. If anything of the kind is carried on this year an additional estimate will have to be brought down to take care of it.


John Vallance: In view of the short
crop that was grown last year, and the fact that of the total appropriation of $2,731,000 only some, $100,000 is left; the minister cannot anticipate similar legislation this year when 'he makes a reduction of $331,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That includes reductions
in salaries, and there were some improvements and extensions to elevators which are not anticipated this year.


John Vallance: Is the elevator at
Churchill completed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not under this
department; it is under the Department of Railways.


William Thomas Lucas: Could the minister state how the revenue compared with the previous year?

Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: The revenue is down,
necessarily. We have not the figures to March 31, because all the accounts are not in, but to February 15 the revenue was $1,229,000, in round figures, as against $2,144,000 for the previous year. Due to the comparatively short crop the revenue is down.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Is anything included in this estimate for the operation of the elevator at Churchill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; that comes under the railway department.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The operation of the elevator also?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: Has the minister before him the total number of bushels handled through the terminals last year, and the percentages of the five or six practical grades?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is all reported in
the crop year report, and the report of the grain commissioners for the crop year was laid on the table the other day. I will look it up and get the figures in a moment.


Albert Frederick Totzke: In the meantime perhaps
the minister would tell us why the operation of the elevator at Churchill should come under the Department of Railways instead of the grain commission. Is the railway department equipped for that sort of thing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Churchill terminals
were constructed by the Department of Railways as part of the Hudson Bay railway scheme. It is very much the same as the elevators in Montreal, which belong to the port of Montreal. It is similar to the Prescott elevator, which is a railway elevator, and to the elevator at Port Colborne.


John Vallance: Then am I to understand that these elevators mentioned by the minister are not under the control of the grain commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The inspection of grain,
the grading, the weighing in and out and so on, as in any other terminal elevator, is under the Board of Grain Commissioners, but the ownership, the cost of operation and the management are under the Department of Railways.


John Vallance: Why are these elevators mentioned by the minister under the Department of Railways instead of the grain commission? What peculiar thing is there about those elevators that there is not about the others?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will of course realize that there are a great many terminal elevators in the country owned by private companies, and others are owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by the Canadian National Railways as part of their systems. It is a matter of very long standing. It has been going on for the last thirty years, and the National railways, now taking the place of the old Canadian Northern Railway, have carried on the policy of certain elevators being operated under their direct jurisdiction, just as the Canadian Pacific Railway did in years gone by.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Then there is included a certain amount for the inspection and control of the elevator at Churchill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this vote?


Albert Frederick Totzke: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There would be supplied under this vote the necessary inspectors and the usual officers of the Board of Grain Commissioners for the inspection and handling of grain.


Albert Frederick Totzke: That comes out of this vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Then, in spite of the fact that the minister will have more expenditures this year, he is reducing the estimate by $300,-
000.	Does he think he will have enough?


Mr. SI EVENS:: Yes. We have cut down on any extension to construction, and we have, of course, the usual wage reduction of ten per cent.


Robert Gardiner: Do the Canadian National Railways operate any other terminal than Churchill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly I gave the wrong impression. It is the Railway department that operates the Churchill terminal. The Prescott and Port Colborne terminals are under the Railway department. I will now give the information asked for a moment ago by the hon. member for Caanrose. The volume of grain handled by the five elevators in 193031 was: Port Arthur, 3,537,500 bushels; Moose Jaw, 4,539,454 bushels; Saskatoon, 1,771,984 bushels; Calgary, 3,044,196; Edmonton, 2,619,897. This makes a total of 15,513,031 bushels.


William Thomas Lucas: Can the minister also give the number of bushels that have gone through the eastern elevators at Halifax, St. John and Montreal?
Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: The elevators at Halifax, St. John and Montreal are under the respective harbour commissions.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any information as to the volume of wheat going through these elevators?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not in the report, so far as I can see at the moment.


Alfred Speakman: I assume it is under the inspection department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; my assistant will look it up.


John Vallance: How many terminal
elevators are operated to-day by the government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The ones I mentioned a moment ago.


John Vallance: Then all government-owned elevators are operated by the Railway department and not by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the supervision of the grain commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: ' The elevators I referred to-Port Arthur, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Calgary, Edmonton-are operated under the Board of Grain Commissioners. The terminals at Port Cdfoorne, Prescott and Churchill are operated under the Railway department.


Peter John Veniot: And Halifax and St. John?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Halifax, St. John and
Montreal are under the harbour commissioners of t'he respective places.


William Richard Motherwell: Surely the Board
of Grain Commissioners have supreme authority over the whole.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already stated
that all of these, together with all privately-owned elevators in the country, scores of them, are administered under the terms of the grain act as regards inspection, grading, weighing-in and out and so forth. It is the ownership of elevators that we are speaking of.


William Richard Motherwell: I asked the question for the reason that for some considerable time Montreal was hesitant about recognizing the authority of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Does it fully recognize that authority now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; I think it is working sweetly.


William Richard Motherwell: It came along reluctantly.


Robert Gardiner: As regards the terminal at Montreal, I notice that recently there seems to be trouble between the wheat pools and the commissioners of Montreal in respect to the using of pool wheat to fill orders belonging to other companies. What control has the grain commission over such procedure?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have no direct juris-diotion over or knowledge of 'the point raised, but I understand-I am speaking now merely from hearsay-.that there has been some dispute oveT something of that sort which is now in the courts. As I say, I am speaking with some hesitation because I am not well informed on the matter at the moment.


Robert Gardiner: Probably the minister
could give the committee some information with regard to the practice of the Board of Grain Commissioners in controlling the outflow of wheat from the terminals. Have they jurisdiction over the flow-out of wheat, apart from inspection, so that wheat, that belongs to 'certain persons will not be shipped out to the order of some other company, other wheat being substituted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The grain commissioners
exercise fairly complete control over the output of the terminal elevators other than those in the east.


Robert Gardiner: Other than those in the east? What is the reason for making an exception of those in the east, in view of the fact that they come under the grain commissioners? Why should there be an exception of the eastern as against the western terminals?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will 'be recalled, of
course, that up to a very few yaars ago the eastern elevators were not under the Board of Grain Commissioners-that is, so far as the full administration of the grain act was concerned. They now are, buit the administration has not been carried to the point it has reached at Port Arthur or Vancouver. I am not able at the moment to give the reason for this. I presume it is a question of enlarging the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Com-misaoners over the eastern terminals, and I am not certain that there is warranty for it. If the real necessity of it is disclosed there is no objection on the part of 'the board or of the department to arranging it or attempting to arrange it. Of course, we have to remember that the development of the grain export facilities in Montreal-we will speak of Montreal for the moment-is something that has grown up entirely under the control of the harbour commissioners and the authorities of

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
the port of Montreal, and I should not like to say that we will step in and arbitrarily do this or that. Up to the present time the control exercised has appeared to be adequate and satisfactory.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the cost of administration of the Canada Grain Act being met by the charges made thereunder?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There have been deficits
both this year and last year, largely due to the amendments of 1930 and the enlarged service which is now given as compared with the service prior to the last amendment of the act.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to come
back to the question of terminals. It was my understanding at the time of the last revision of the act that the conditions applying to terminals other than at eastern ports would apply also to those at eastern ports. From time to time communications are received from eastern Canada, particularly from those cities where terminal elevators are located, upbraiding the western farmer for the fact that so much wheat is shipped through the United States. Only the last day or two such a communication was received from one of the eastern cities. If the harbour commissioners which are operating the eastern elevators object to coming under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners to the same extent as do the elevators in Vancouver or at the head of the lakes, I cannot see how they can expect the western farmer or the grain firms doing business in western Canada to have the same confidence in their elevators as they have in those under the control of the board. The minister has made the statement that these eastern terminals were developed by the different harbour commissions, and seemed to imply that because of that fact there was some reason why they should not come under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners to the same extent as do the other elevators. The minister is aware of the fact that although the terminal at Vancouver was a government undertaking it was finally turned over to the Vancouver harbour commission, and for a very substantial period of time after it was turned over, the development of terminal facilities was carried on wholly and solely under the control of the commission. As far as I know, the harbour commission at Vancouver has not objected to being completely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Commissioners; consequently I am at a loss to understand why the elevators at St. John, Halifax and Montreal object, if they do
object, to coming under similar jurisdiction. I should like to know if they have raised any real objection. If the eastern ports desire to obtain a greater volume of Canadian grain they must instil the same confidence in those who will use their ports as is now felt in those terminals which are under the control of the grain board. Has the minister any information as to whether or not the harbour commissions at Montreal, St. John or Halifax have registered any objection to coming completely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The ports of Halifax, St. John and Montreal are as completely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Commissioners as is possible under the grain act as at present drafted. The mistake, if I may call it such, in the reasoning of my hon. friend is this: Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Port Arthur are what are known as inspection points at which inspection certificates are issued'-terminal inspection certificates are not issued at the eastern outlets, as this would already be done at Port Arthur or Fort William. There is a question as to the advisability of making these eastern ports inspection points, and to do so would require an amendment to the act.


Robert Gardiner: Do I. understand that as far as outward cargoes are concerned, there is no inspection at any of these three ports?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right.


Robert Gardiner: The certificate is merely transferred from Port Arthur or some other inspection point?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The certificate follows the grain.


Robert Gardiner: What has been the experience with regard to complaints in connection with outward cargoes shipped from these ports, as compared with shipments from Vancouver or Prince Rupert?


Henry Herbert Stevens: For some years the conditions have been very satisfactory.


William Duff: Considerable discussion has
taken place in the newspapers as to why more grain should not pass through the port of Halifax. It would be very informative if the minister could state to the committee the policy of the government in regard to endeavouring to have more grain shipped through that port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The terminal at Halifax is not under the Board of Grain Commissioners, so that that information is not available at the present time. I shall try to have it by
1S72	COMMONS
House of Commons-Representation
the time the committee next meets, unless it is the desire of the committee to have this item passed before eleven o'clock.


William Duff: I do not think the minister understood my question. I asked if he could state to the committee the policy of the government with regard to trying to arrange for grain shipments through the port of Halifax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will obtain that information.


Peter John Veniot: What quantity of Canadian grain was shipped through the ports of Halifax and St. John in the winters of 1929-30, 1930-31 and 1931-32?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will obtain that information. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 11, 1932