MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 98, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1894.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The purpose of this proposed legislation is to vest in the crown all the properties of the Montreal harbour, not only those within the limits of the harbour but also those outside. Under 4 and 5, George V, chapter 42, all the properties of the harbour within its limits are vested in the crown. Harbour development in the last decade has obliged the harbour commissioners to extend their facilities beyond the official limits; for
instance, the extension of elevator No. 3 which was built in 1928 is outside the boundaries of the harbour. We think it is an anomaly that the harbour facilities outside the boundaries should not be vested in the crown as the other properties are.


Ernest Lapointe: Do the boundaries include both shores of the St. Lawrence river?


Alfred Duranleau: We have not many facilities on the south shore; they are mostly on the north shore in Montreal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) with unanimous consent moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Soldier Settlement Act be amended to provide for the transfer to the province or municipality of any land which for two years preceding such transfer has not been the subject of a contract of sale; to authorize the director of soldier settlement to pay rates, taxes and assessments on lands not under contract of sale; and to enable the department to convey areas greater in extent than five acres for the purposes specified in section 29 of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Mr. GORDON:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is to enable the governor in council or the director of soldier settlement, as the case may be, to dispose of lands presently in the name of the director of soldier settlement which are unoccupied and vacant by transferring them to the provinces where the lands are in an unorganized territory, and where they are located in organized territory to transfer them, if deemed advisable, to the municipalities.
The question of vacant dominion lands has caused a good deal of difficulty throughout Canada, the municipalities having no power to assess them, and the director of soldier settlement having no legal right to pay the taxes. Fortunately the number of locations is decreasing each year, but it has been suggested by the director that this power should be vested in him, particularly as the provinces at the present time are endeavouring to place settlers from the urban centres upon the land.
Soldier Settlement Act

This amendment to the act will facilitate such work.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Is this limited to vacant
lands? It would not appear so from the resolution.


George Gordon: It deals with lands that
are not under a contract of sale, but have come back to the director.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: Will these lands be
transferred without cost to the provinces in lieu of arrears of taxation?


George Gordon: There may be tracts of
land which will be turned over to the provinces for a consideration, but I think in the majority of cases the transfer to the provinces or to the municipalities will be for little or no consideration.


Mr. BOWMAN:: But I presume only upon the request of the provinces or the municipalities?


George Gordon: Yes.


Mr. REID:: I commend the minister for
the introduction of this resolution. It has been long sought in British Columbia with respect to the payment of taxes. I notice the concluding lines of the resolution read:
-and to enable the department to convey areas greater in extent than five acres-
And so on. In many of the municipalities in the lower Fraser valley the acreage is 4-9 -five acres with the road allowance taken off. There are many areas of that size in that section, and I should like to know if all lands will be included, no matter how small in area?


George Gordon: The act empowers the
director to sell portions of land up to five acres, but it has been found that in many cases it is desirable to sell a larger piece of land out of a location. The act is designed to vest the director with that authority.


Thomas Reid: But with regard to the payment of taxes, all areas will be included irrespective of size?


George Gordon: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: I assume from the
wording of the resolution that the director is to be given discretion whether he will pay the taxes and still carry the land, or turn it over to the province or the municipality to be dealt with.


George Gordon: That is the intention.


Mr. SANDERSON:: If I am not out of
order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if he has the information for me in 
regard to the 4,165 men who last year were put on the land in Ontario. I would remind him that this information was promised to me on April 22 last, then again on May .3, then again on May 11, but so far I have not received it. What progress if any, is he making in getting this information?


George Gordon: Following	the requests
made by the hon. member, some time ago I asked the officers of the department to prepare a list of those placed upon farms segregated by counties. As I have explained already, the placing of people upon the land was not kept track of by counties, but by districts. This morning I received a partial list which I think will cover the majority of oases distributed by counties throughout Ontario. I do not think it would be desirable to lay upon the table a list of the names of those who were so placed. I think the reason for not doing this is obvious. Many of these men were working for small salaries, some for larger; there are men who had occupied different positions in life before going on farms with a desire to look after themselves. During the course of the day I shall give to the hon. member the list by counties, as it has been prepared, but I do not think the names of the individuals should be disclosed. With respect to those placed by the railway companies, I communicated with the companies and I shall be glad either to lay upon the table or show to the hon. member the reply I received. The companies do not keep track of the names by counties and they did not think it desirable to put their staffs to work to prepare this information.


Frederick George Sanderson: On May 11 the minister stated that it would not be possible for him to give me a list by counties, and I said I would not press that point if he would give me as much information as he had on the matter. The minister has stated that he has a back to the land policy and on April 22 he stated that during the last calendar or fiscal year he had placed 4,165 persons back on the land in the province of Ontario. Since that time I think I have been very patient in regard to the information promised to me by the minister on April 22. He now tells me this morning that he has not the names and he does not think it would be fair to give them. I cannot see why he should not give the names of those placed back on the land in the province of Ontario during the past year. I should prefer if the minister would be frank and candid with me and tell me that he does not want to supply the information

Soldier Settlement Act
which he has volunteered to give not once, not twice but three times. Since April 22 he has been stating that he is getting this information for me. I do not like this process of stalling-I hope that is not unparliamentary-because I think any hon. member of this house is entitled to the information. Will the minister give me what information he has obtained after having his officials work on this matter since April 22? It is a simple request and the minister should tell me frankly either that he does not want to give me the information or that he has not the information. I am inclined to think that he has not got the information he said he had on April 22.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I resent
the last statement made by the hon. member. I do not want to get into any acrimonious discussion with the hon. member on this matter, but I think, it is obvious that it would not be in the public interest to give the names of peoiple who heretofore have occupied probably prominent positions in urban life and who of their own volition-perhaps prompted by the efforts of our department- have gone on to the land in inferior and obscure positions. I do not propose to lay these names on the table of the house but I would be glad to show them to the sceptical hon. member. The information was not kept by counties but I have a list showing the distribution by counties and I shall be very glad to give it to the hon. member during the course of the day.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Frederick George Sanderson: It is not carried yet.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why not see the list?


Frederick George Sanderson: When I want the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) to give me any advice, I will ask for it.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member needs a lot.


Frederick George Sanderson: When I do seek advice I will seek it from someone in whom I have confidence, and I do not think I have confidence in the hon. member for Lincoln.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member will
never have confidence in anyone.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think hon. members should come back to the resolution before the chair.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister stated he resented my remarks. I am very sorry if he does, but I have no apology to tender. Since
April 22 I have been seeking for information and the minister has not been frank with me. He has not been candid and has been stalling and bluffing along since April 22.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is too old a parliamentarian not to know that that is not parliamentary.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister has referred to me as being sceptical. I really think he has been bluffing.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the minister expects me to do what he suggested, to go down to his office and make out a list, I am afraid I must disappoint him. He promised to give me the information I asked for and I do not think he has any intention of giving it to me.


Mr. GARDINER:: During the discussion
which has just taken place between the minister and the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) the minister made a remark which I think should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. For some time this house has been regaled with an outline of the efforts of the department to get people back on the land. The hon. member asked the minister for the names of those who had gone back to the land in certain counties and the minister replied that he would not like to give the names because of the fact that many people from the urban centres who had occupied good positions had gone back to the land to inferior positions. I do not think that that statement should pass unchallenged because if the policy of the government is to put people back on the land, surely it cannot expect the people to go back to inferior positions.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Apparently this resolution is intended to help the municipalities in the organized and unorganized districts to collect taxation. Undeeded land in the province of Ontario, land which has reverted to the province or to the crown has never paid taxes to the school sections in the unorganized districts or to the municipalities that are organized. The province never paid taxes either to school sections in unorganized districts or in organized municipalities. This is an anomaly from which we have suffered for many years, particularly in northern Ontario-I do not know about southern Ontario. Under this legislation, with respect to any lands that may revert to the province, will the province see that the taxes are paid to the school sections and also to the municipalities?
Soldier Settlement Act


George Gordon: This house has no jurisdiction whatever over lands that may revert to the provinces. This legislation refers only to lands that presently stand in the name of the director of soldier settlement. I am very well acquainted with the difficulty the hon. member refers to, and it is a difficulty, particularly in those sections of Canada and in northern Ontario where lands are alienated from the crown, subsequently reverting to the crown after the organization of school sections and the other paraphernalia of municipal government. Unfortunately we have no authority to deal with matters of that kind under this legislation.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Will this enable the
municipalities to collect back taxes?


George Gordon: No.


Mr. VALLANCE:: With regard to insurance placed by the soldier settlement board on soldiers' property, the policy of the late government, and, I think, of this government until quite recently, was that any member of an insurance company who was a returned man should have the preference in placing insurance with that company. It seems that the policy has been changed. Has the matter been brought to the attention of the minister? In the city of Saskatoon there are some firms with whom the soldier settlement board has been placing insurance right up until quite recently, and now they are denied the right of this business which heretofore has been theirs. Will the minister give some explanation, if there is one, of the situation in Saskatoon at the present time with reference to insurance?


George Gordon: It would be difficult for me to answer that question without having had some notice that I was going to be interrogated in that regard. Wherever there are available returned soldiers in the insurance business, I think it would be highly desirable that they should be preferred in the placing of fire insurance policies. I do know of one case where in 1926, I think, the insurance was taken away from a firm composed of returned soldiers and given to another firm who were not returned men That is only one illustration, however. It would be impossible for me to cover the whole field without having had notice that the question would be asked. If the hon. member would like to see the list of insurance agents with whom policies are placed, I should be glad to place it at his disposal.


John Vallance: I would suggest that
the minister investigate the situation in Saskatoon.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the policy in
regard to the payment by the government of taxes on land that has been sold to soldiers, the taxes not being paid either by the department or by the soldiers? Schools have been built and telephone lines constructed, and debentures have been issued and the lands all assessed. Some of the soldiers are still living on these lands and the taxes are not being paid. What is the government's policy in that regard?


George Gordon: As the hon. member knows, lands held by the crown in the right of the province or of the dominion are not subject to municipal taxation. The policy of the department with respect to the payment of taxes can probably be best put in this way. Under the terms of the legislation as it now stands, with respect to land occupied in the manner defined by the act, the director of soldier settlement, in his judgment, has the right to pay and as a matter of fact in a large number of cases does pay, these taxes from time to time. The taxes on other lands are in somewhat difficult position, and as will be observed, the resolution now7 before the committee will, in a measure, remedy the situation that has existed heretofore. The hon. member probably knows that an arrangement was entered into about April 1, 1930, whereby taxes were paid on all land. The legality of that course was questioned at the time by the Department of Justice and this legislation will, in a measure, correct the situation, giving to the director those powers that will be indicated in the bill when it comes down. This bill was the subject of a number of conferences between the soldiers' representatives and the provinces and municipalities, and it is with the desire to assist throughout Canada-not in any one province-those municipalities that find themselves in the position indicated by the hon. member, that this legislation is proposed.


Alfred Speakman: I wish to ask the minister two questions, one with respect to the position of civilian settlers under the board and the other with reference to certain rental leases on the third crop share basis. That would come more properly under the estimates when they are before the house, and I assume that I shall have the opportunity then to bring the matter up.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

S upply-Fisheries



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Department of Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,022,000.
Mr. NEILL:: This vote, which is a very
large one and, indeed, the largest one in fisheries estimates, reflects the activities of the department or what might be called the active efforts towards conservation of the industry, the work actually done in the field as compared with the overhead expenses of the clerical staff. I am glad to see that the cut in this estimate has been less than that in many others, and while on account of the increasing demand made by the growing necessities of the industry, we regret to see this item cut at all, we realize we must make sacrifices in this branch along with others of the government. We have been told very often, and quite properly so, by the Prime Minister how under present economic conditions expenses must be cut and cut to a very great extent. We see that recorded in the slashing of the estimates by many millions of dollars. Some of us perhaps think the slashing has gone to the point where it has ceased to be economical and has become almost wasteful inasmuch as a penny saved is sometimes a pound lost later on. But we must recognize the fact that where economy can be practised with any regard for efficiency, it must be done.
I wish to say a few words by way of suggesting a method whereby the minister in this case can make a very considerable saving in expenditure without, I think, lessening in the least the efficiency of the service to be carried out; in fact, I think it would increase the efficiency of the service. I refer to the expenditures in connection with the Vancouver office of the Department of Fisheries. I am comparing this with the Nova Scotia office, and I think the comparison is a good one. Conditions are not exactly similar, but the activities are very much the same. In Nova Scotia they have five district supervisors; in British Columbia, while technically they have only three, let us say they have four. In Nova Scotia the number of inspectors is thirty-three, while in British Columbia it is thirty-two, but I notice that the expenditure for the thirty-two is very much less than for the thirty-three in Nova Scotia. This bears out what I have always maintained, namely
that the inspectors in British Columbia, taking into consideration the work and responsibility involved, are underpaid. As regards the special guardians, they are not enumerated in the Auditor General's report, but the amount expended on them is given and we can gauge by the amount expended some idea of the work carried on. In Nova Scotia in the last year of which the Auditor General's report has record, there was spent for special guardians $56,669, and in British Columbia only $28,714, or just about one-half. So the situation is this: Nova Scotia has more supervisors, more inspectors and apparently double the number of special guardians, if we gauge it by the expenditure on them. That represents the work done on the ground where we get dollar value for every dollar expended, money actually spent in the work of an official in the district.
The situation is very different when we come to the cost of the clerical end of the office. In Nova Scotia the number on the staff is fourteen, in British Columbia it is tw'enty-four, or an increase of 70 per cent. In Nova Scotia the cost of the staff is $15,717, and in British Columbia it is $31,509, or an increase of 106 per cent, showing that in the Vancouver office they are paying not only more people but higher salaries than in the Nova Scotia office. Then there are a couple of odd items under the heads of "disbursements" and "various"; they apply to both districts. The disbursements, being what the name would indicate, that is odd payments, amount in Nova Scotia to $3,099, while in British Columbia they are more than double, or $6,491. In the case of "various," which again indicates the nature of the expenditure, the amount spent in Nova Scotia was $3,327 and in British Columbia, $12,448, or nearly four times as much, making the total cost in Nova Scotia of the clerical staff at the head office, $22,143, and in British Columbia, $50,448, or something like 140 per cent greater.
By analyzing the figures in the Auditor General's report, because that is where I get my information, we find that the increased cost in British Columbia is due to three things: first, a much bigger salary paid to the chief supervisor; second, lavish expenditure on those items of "disbursements" and "various," and, third, too large a staff, or at least many more than in Nova Scotia. Let us compare the total costs of the work, on the ground. The three items I have enumerated, namely, district supervisors, inspectors and guardians cost in Nova Scotia a grand total of $152,782, and in the expenditure of that sum they spent
Supply-Fisheries

clerically 822,143. In British Columbia tho total expenditure on the items of district supervisors, inspectors and guardians is only $117,360; but they expended, in overseeing that expenditure, $50,448. Therefore, British Columbia spent on actual work nearly one-third less than that spent in Nova Scotia while it cosf twice as much to take care of the spending. Let me put this in another way. In Nova Scotia each dollar spent in the office means an expenditure of $6.89 in the field. In British Columbia each dollar spent in the office means an expenditure of only $2.30 in the field. Note the difference. Let me put it on a percentage basis. In Nova Scotia on a field expenditure of, in round figures, $153,000, it cost 14 per cent additional to spend that sum, not 14 per cent of that expenditure, but 14 per cent more. In British Columbia, on a field expenditure of $117,000, it cost 43 per cent more to spend it. There is a great disparity between that and 14 per cent.
Take a line of expenditure very often criticized, and quite unjustly, namely, the pension department of the government; it is often said this branch is over-run with red tape officials. But its expenditure in administering the enormous amount spent on hospitals and so forth runs only to 3-607 per cent.
I wish to ask the minister and the committee: What are we getting for this expenditure of $50,000 on the Vancouver office? I can tell the minister one thing, and that is we are not getting $50,000 worth of results. A great deal of this money is spent in red tape. This is the procedure: let us begin at the very bottom. There is a fishery guardian out in the district seeing that there is no poaching over perhaps one biggish river, if it is in an isolated place, or if there are two or three creeks or small rivers close enough so that he can get around them, then he may have charge of half a dozen of those little rivers or creeks. If anything goes wrong or he wants further authority, he reports to the district inspector who has from ten to thirty guardians under him covering an area of thirty to fifty square miles. Then the district inspector reports to the district supervisor. There are three or four of them at strategic points in the province. He reports to the division supervisor in Vancouver, at this office the cost of which I am criticizing, and in turn the supervisor reports to Ottawa, where there are two heads, two competent men, one for the east and one for the west. They in turn report to the deputy, and presumably the deputy reports to the minister. I may 
say just here that these men who are called eastern and western heads are thoroughly familiar with conditions in the east and west; they have been over almost every mile of the territory. The deputy minister also has a good working knowledge of the different areas and different matters involved. Then when the decision is given by the minister, this same process is slowly and painfully reversed, and finally it drifts back to the man in the field. The process is cumbersome and tends to produce delay, and in fishery matters which are often a question of hours, delay produces inefficiency.
My suggestion is that we wipe out the Vancouver office and save about $35,000. I said that the cost was $50,000, but I realize that we could not save that whole amount. Some of these expenses would have to be carried on; for instance, telegrams would have to be paid for, and presumably a little more clerical help would be needed here, and I would suggest that we pay better salaries to these district inspectors, who are greatly underpaid. A few years ago I knew of one of these men, who had a great deal of responsibility, who was not getting a salary as large as that paid the engineer working under him. These men must have sound judgment, and sometimes they are subject to extreme temptation. I do not suggest that this is the case now, but many years ago I recall that one of these men gave a decision permitting some person to do such and such a thing for three days. And then he disappeared for three days so that the head office could not get at him, and I believe it was made well worth his while to disappear for that time. This is a fine body of men and they are not being paid enough for the responsibilities they must carry. We could pay these men better salaries and still save a great deal of money in connection with that office. We would still have the fisheries guardian reporting to the district inspector, who would report to the district supervisor. These three men are familiar with local conditions, and their opinions would be sent direct to the division head here in Ottawa, who is also familiar with those conditions and who would forward them to the deputy. Surely that is enough, three men in British Columbia and two in Ottawa familiar with the problems which may arise in that area.
We hear a great deal about economy, and as I have said some of it is unwise. Here is an opportunity to save money and at the same time promote efficiency. The business men-and I am talldng principally about the canner, by which I mean more than the man who just cans fish; I refer also to the man

Supply-Fisheries
who buys, sells or packs fish-wants three things particularly from the department. First he wants efficiency, then he wants speed and in the third place he wants economy, though he is not so keen on that because the cost does not come directly out of his own pocket. Efficiency and speed are very material to him, and here is an opportunity to improve both, at the same time effecting economy to the extent of something like $35,000. The minister is here in a dual capacity; he is also Minister of Marine. Perhaps if we saved this $35,000 he would not have to cut by ten per cent the men drawing the miserable salary of $65 a month on marine boats. Let us economize in the right places, and then we will not have to scrimp ten per cent from a married man getting only $65 a month.
I should like to make the suggestion that we save the cost of this office. Why is it necessary in British Columbia to spend this $50,000 every year to supervise an expenditure of only $117,000, when in Nova Scotia we only spend $22,000 on an expenditure of $153,000? In all courtesy I might say my brother members from Nova Scotia have not the record of being unwilling to spend government money when they get the chance. Nova Scotia is always willing to milk the federal cow when the opportunity offers, so I suggest that when it comes to economy we in British Columbia should be at least on a par with them.


Mr. VENIOT:: I object to that reference to Nova Scotia.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like the minister to give to us an explanation of the great difference in cost as between the two offices.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend has based his whole argument on a comparison of the administration of the fisheries in the eastern provinces as against British Columbia. I do not think the base of his argument is very sound, in the first place because there is a great difference between the fisheries in the east and in the west, and also because geographical conditions make a very great difference. It is really impossible to make any proper comparison between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. For instance, the sea fisheries on the Atlantic coast, which produce nearly one-half of the product of the fisheries, in value, need no supervision on the sea. On the other hand all the fisheries on the Pacific coast, with the exception of the halibut and black cod fisheries which make up less than ten per cent, of the total, need close supervision and administration.
That is one reason for the difference. Again, all along the coast and rivers of the maritime provinces there are good roads, so that
a great deal of the work can be done more economically from land. Hence the cost of our land service there, made up of supervisors, inspectors and guardians, is relatively large. On the other hand there are practically no coastal roads in British Columbia, so the work has to be done mainly by boat, though necessarily there is a large amount of work to be done in protecting the spawning salmon in interior waters. Hence the cost of the land service in British Columbia is relatively small as compared with that in the maritime provinces, while the cost of the boat patrol service is very much larger.
I have some figures for the year 1930-31 which will clarify this point. I do not like to give too many figures, but I think in fairness to the committee and to my department I should place this statement on Hansard. For supervisors and inspectors the expense by provinces was as follows:-
Prince Edward Island	 $ 21,459
Nova Scotia	 118,268
' New Brunswick	 63,642
British Columbia	 138,093
Now take the cost of the guardians:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 4,667
Nova Scotia	 56,669
New Brunswick	 42,779
British Columbia	 28,714
I give these figures to show the committee that the argument of my hon. friend is not sound, because in some parts of the country we must spend more money on certain branches of administration, because of geographical conditions or for other special reasons, than we spend in other parts of the country. My hon. friend has directed his criticism principally against the head office in Vancouver, and he has given $50,000 as the cost of that office. I think my hon. friend is mistaken; he must have taken the figures for the whole district. I have here the cost of the main office in Vancouver, and if you compare this with the expenses of the eastern division you will not find very much difference. Take salaries, for example; in Vancouver they amount to $27,960. Deducting ten per cent leaves about $25,000 for salaries. The whole amount is $23,419, and for the eastern division the amount for salaries is $21,660; so the difference is not very large. In the west the amount to be expended for contingencies is $8,000, including telegrams, telephone calls, freight, cartage and so forth, and in the east contingencies amount to $2,500. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that these expenses are not incurred simply for the pleasure of incurring them. We have to incur them on account of geographical considerations and because of the difference in the

Supply-*Fisheries

fisheries as between east and west. I do not think much can be said against the expenses of the head office at Vancouver. We have there a chief supervisor, one district supervisor, one accountant, grade 2; two principal clerks, one collector of fish revenue, one clerk, grade 4, one clerk, grade 2; three stenographers, grade 2; one typist, grade 2; one messenger, one stenographer, grade 2 who is employed temporarily during only seven months of the year. My hon. friend will see by the last item that we are trying to cut expenses as much as possible because someone in the head office is employing a stenographer during the rush season only, for seven months. So I do not think my hon. friend's criticism is very fair under the circumstances. My hon. friend, however, has offered some suggestions, and I am always glad to get suggestions from him because I know that he has had a large experience in these matters. But anything that is acceptable will be studied by my department and if anything can be done to reduce the expenses we shall do it,' but I am told that in the past we have done our best. If my hon. friend has any complaint to make against a particular employee I should like to hear it.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I have not.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the
employees that I have just enumerated, and whose salaries amount to about $25,000, are absolutely necessary for the good administration of the fisheries in the west.


Alan Webster Neill: I had anticipated, of course,
that some defence would be put up and I was curious to know what it could be and what it would be, but I certainly did not anticipate such a lame reply as I have received.
To begin with, I would say in reply to the minister's last remark, asking if I had any complaint to make against any particular employee, that I have none whatever. I am not acquainted with the personnel of the office, except the head of it, and I would regret to see in these hard times any man or woman lose his position through curtailment of expenses, although many people in Ottawa have had to lose their positions. If the office was wiped out, I would suggest that provision be made to try to take these people on in other branches of the service either here or elsewhere.
As regards the criticism of my comparison, the minister says that my argument is not sound. He says that the fish in British Columbia waters are different from the fish in Atlantic waters. I admit that, but I was not dealing with fish. I was dealing with the

clerical expenses of an office. It does not cost any more to take care of a salmon than of a cod. As to the argument that there are different geographical considerations, that there are roads in Nova Scotia and the employees there can travel over the roads, I would point out that the people to whom I am referring are engaged in clerical work in the head office at Vancouver, and whether there are trails or roads makes absolutely no difference because their work is done in the office, and the roads do not affect the cost of their work one particle. I grant that where the local guardian has to travel, that would add to his expenses, but that has no relation whatever to the cost of the clerical assistance in the head office.
The minister also says that in British Columbia we have a sea patrol. Yes, we have, and it is an expensive one and I have much pleasure in saying that it is also an efficient one. But that has no bearing on this vote. The minister would almost imply that that made the cost of the office in Vancouver more expensive, but as he very well knows, or ought to know, there is another vote entirely that covers the cost of the patrol port. So that has no bearing on the subject whatever.
Again, the minister says that he will show the difference in cost, and he quotes figures which with one exception are a duplicate of my own figures. He says, with an air of backing up his own argument and opposing mine, that in Nova Scotia the guardians cost $56,000 and in British Columbia $28,000. That just confirms my argument. That Nova Scotia can take care of $50,000 of guardians' work at such a low percentage of cost as fourteen per cent, while British Columbia with an expenditure for guardians of only $28,000 requires 43 per cent, just confirms my argument and does not combat it in the least.
But the minister did combat my figures in one respect. He said that I had put too much into the Vancouver office, and he quoted the figures, and I noted one figure that he omitted. He gave the total as $28,000, and my figure was $31,960, and the minister said that I was wrong. But he forgot to put in the salary of the chief supervisor, who is essentially the head of the Vancouver office. If he adds to the figures he gave, the $3,960 which the chief supervisor gets, he arrives at exactly the same figure that I gave for salaries alone. Then the minister enumerated some of the employees. I am not going to go into details. I cannot say that this man or that man is not necessary. It would be invidious and. unfair for me to do so because I do not know them. I have no doubt that every man and every

Supply-Fisheries
woman according to their lights are doing the work for which they are paid, but I am saying that on the principle of economy and efficiency the whole office at Vancouver could be wiped out.
Let me give an illustration, a precedent, a Dominion government precedent for the minister if he likes. Many years ago I was an Indian agent out there on that same coast with the same geographical conditions, only they were worse then than they are now, and when I wanted to buy five dollars' worth of stamps at government expense, I had to make out elaborate vouchers in quadruplicate, and send them to the head office, which was very much like this Vancouver one, although it was situated in Victoria. Then the head office man wrote back to Indian Agent Neill and said that he had received his letter enclosing vouchers, which he had forwarded to Ottawa. That took some time. Later on the Ottawa office wrote to the man in Victoria, "You can instruct Indian Agent Neill to buy five dollars' worth of stamps." There was more correspondence. The cheque followed the same devious course. As Indian agent I was familiar with the ground and knew the circumstances, and nine times out of ten my advice was taken and had to be taken. I forwarded my recommendations to Victoria and they went the usual rounds again. Finally I cut out those formalities and did what I thought ought to be done, and by the time I was due for a vote of censure, the incident was too far back for anything to be done about it. But suddenly some man with some idea of efficiency said "All this is unnecessary. What is the sense of it?" The office in Victoria was closed and the agents communicated direct with Ottarva. I would suggest to the minister that the whole head office in British Columbia could be dispensed with at a great saving of expense and with no loss of efficiency on the grounds I have mentioned.
Then I buttressed it with the fact that in Nova Scotia, where, I may say, they are wholly alive to their opportunities with respect to spending money-the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) will allow me to say that?


Peter John Veniot: That is fair.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not blame them; I
would do the same. But when they can do it so cheaply, there is no reason why it should not be done in British Columbia. I would wipe the whole thing out. Pay the inspectors better money and they will rise to their 41761-2025
responsibilities. Give them more work and pay them-that is a good business principle- and save from thirty to thirty-five thousand dollars.


Peter John Veniot: When we were dealing with oyster culture I brought up a question which I think I am in order in bringing up again under item 171.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Item 176 covers oyster culture.


Peter John Veniot: I know, but 171 also covers it to some extent because it has to do with the salaries of guardians who are employed in this line of industry. On that occasion I brought up the question of containers or barrels for oysters. Under its new regulations the department has specified that oysters shall be packed in a certain way. Designs for the container or barrel have been submitted to the department. Under the ways and means bill before the house the sales tax has been increased from four to six cents, and if the department is going to insist upon a costly container being adopted it will be an injustice to the fishermen. Has the department made up its mind with respect to what design of container it will impose upon the oyster fishermen?


Alfred Duranleau: A regulation was
adopted in 1931 as to the dimensions of oyster containers. This was done, I am told, after consultation between the officials of the department and the fishermen and others engaged in the industry in the east. But since then representations have been made against the cost of those containers, and my deputy tells me that at the present time he is communicating with the interested parties in order to come to some agreement on the matter.


Peter John Veniot: I thank the minister for
the information. Let me now draw this to his attention. When deciding on the design of the container, in the name of conscience do not leave it to those interested in the manufacture of containers to say what shall be adopted; and be careful that the price does not exceed, to any great extent at least, the price at which our oystermen have been buying their containers in the past. Why should there be a special design of container for the shipment of oysters any more than for the shipment of anything else? Why should regulations be adopted which impose that extra duty upon the oyster fishermen as well as upon the oyster exporters? An oyster
Supply-Fisheries

is just as sweet in its flavour when packed in an apple barrel as it is in a barrel that costs $1.50. I would prefer to have oysters shipped in boxes rather than in barrels, and I think if the fishermen were consulted and a reasonably sized box could be decided upon, it would be more satisfactory than the barrel. For the past few years our oyster fishery has been going down somewhat, and if you impose extra burdens upon the fishermen you are certainly not going to do them any good. I fear that these extra burdens may drive some of our fishermen, not all, into violations of the law by fishing out of season in order to make up the extra cost brought about by the imposition of the department's regulations during the open season. I wish the department would go very fully into this matter before adopting a design on which the fishermen will have to pay a sales tax and which will impose on them extra burdens.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will admit that we must have a minimum size container in order to protect the trade. People want to know what they are getting.


Peter John Veniot: They will not know any better if the oysters are packed in a $1.50 barrel than if in a 75-cent barrel.


Alfred Duranleau: No doubt; but we
must have a standard size of container for the protection of trade. We are as much concerned as my hon. friend to minimize as much as possible the expenses to be incurred by the fishermen in packing their oysters. To-day we are studying the suggestion made-now repeated by my hon. friend-to put oysters in boxes as well as barrels. I can assure him that the interests of the manufacturer of boxes or barrels will not prevail; we are looking after the interests of the fishermen themselves and the protection of the industry.


Mr. RALSTON:: Under this item there are two or three matters which I wish to bring to the minister's attention. I submit to him that it does seem as if we have not yet realized the importance of the fishing industry in the province from which I come and the necessity for more careful consideration being given to the interests of those engaged in it. Let me point out what was done soon after this government came into power. A firm of engineers was employed to make a report in connection with the marketing of Canadian fish and fish products, based on a general survey of the industry. That had already been done two years before by a commission which investigated the maritime fisheries-a commission which I think all members regard as

being thoroughly competent to deal with the question. Nevertheless my hon. friend felt that he wanted a fresh view on the matter and he employed this firm to make a report. The newspaper notices intimated very clearly that something would come from this which would be of great advantage to the fishing communities, but when the report did come down, with all due respect to the gentlemen who made it I think the minister and the department generally felt that in so far as it proposed practical means of assisting the fishermen it turned out to be practically a dud. The report dealt with information which was already in the hands of the department; I am sure the competent departmental officers had collated it long before, and I am sure the department already had full access to practically all the information which was gathered by that firm at some considerable cost to the country. I do not say a word against the firm; I understand they are a reputable firm of engineers, though I do not know them at all. I feel, however, that this effort on the part of the present Minister of Finance to get a new viewpoint in connection with the fisheries, did not result in any real accomplishment.
Let me give my hon. friend an example. The report has been laid on the table of the house, though I have never had an opportunity of reading it. The report is very long and no copies were printed, but the minister prepared a summary, and just to give an idea of how practical it is in connection with the marketing of fish, let me read the headline recommendation at page 80 of the summary:
That the Minister of Fisheries consider the announcement of a fiscal policy with respect to fisheries, and all industries and trades dependent thereon, based upon the following principles:
(a) That the government refrain from levying any taxation-other than that which applies to all industries and groups-particularly directed to those engaged in the production, processing and marketing of fish, until such time as the industry has attained a reasonably prosperous and self-reliant status.
I cannot suggest a more futile or more meaningless recommendation. I never heard and I cannot conceive that the former minister, the present minister or the government as a whole intended to levy any special tax upon the fishing industry, yet the first recommendation is that the government refrain from doing so. I do not think it needed a firm of engineers or a commission to make a recommendation of that kind. What they mean. I do not know, I am sure. I am not going through all the recommendations contained in the report.

Supply-Fisheries


Alan Webster Neill: The second recommendation is a good one.


James Layton Ralston: It is this:
(b) That consideration be given, subject to ^insurmountable constitutional or other obstacles, if any, to the ultimate withdrawal-within a specified period, announced in advance-of the fishing bounty, except any that the government may decide to apply to destructive species, and that the sum so released be devoted by the department to assist in the execution of educational and other measures directed toward the permanent improvement of the industry.


Alan Webster Neill: That is the only good thing in the report.


James Layton Ralston: I want to give the government credit for efforts along educational lines in connection with the fisheries but in doing so I am paying a lefthanded compliment to their predecessors in office also. Educational work in connection with the fisheries has been carried on by both governments, and a great deal has been done in that respect. I believe we are all convinced that this is one way in which we can assist the fishing industry, but I do not think it needed any recommendation from a commission to establish that fact, and I do not think the assistance which will result from the withdrawal of the bounty will mean a great addition to the funds available for that purpose.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: You would not be in favour of withdrawing the bounty?


James Layton Ralston: No. Then the recommendations go on to deal with the fisheries conservation policy, with which I dealt last night in connection with lobsters. A sort of lefthanded recommendation is made in connection with the trawler in paragraph 2 (b):
That, in general, conservation policy shall be directed to restriction of seasons, locations, and of licences-partly as a means of securing adherence to and respect for regulations-but not of the gear or equipment used. Only such reasonable and effective regulation shall be exercised, in the latter instance, which may prevent uneconomic destruction of the species, or any serious deterrent to the quality of the fish caught.
I suppose there are more teeth in that recommendation than in any of the others, though they are well veiled and covered up. At least that is a direct recommendation against restrictions on trawlers. The next paragraph has to do with the classification of information, and the following paragraph states solemnly that the Department of Trade and Commerce shall consult with the officials of the Department of Marine and the Department of Fisheries in connection with the information thus made available in order to initiate discussions with the various steamship companies operating from or to Canadian ports in reference to the adjustment or improvement of their services, schedules or facilities. I hardly think it was necessary to recommend consultation between various departments of the government and I venture' to say that these officials have discussed many times with the steamship and railway companies the question of rates on fish and the' cost of transportation. Then there is a reference to the sockeye salmon treaty, and in paragraph 5 the biological board is urged to direct greater concentration upon the solution of practical problems of fishery research. Paragraph S is as follows:
That consideration be given by the minister to the advisability of a reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada of the whole question of railway rates and tariffs respecting freight and express shipments of fish and fish products . . .
That question has been before the board more than once on applications by individual shippers. So far as I know there has been no case prepared or reference made by the minister, and it seems to me that if this recommendation had been really intended to mean something it should have been positively to the effect that a reference be made to the-Board of Railway Commissioners with regard! to this very important matter of the cost of transporting fish instead of gently suggesting consideration of the advisability of a reference. I do not think anything has been done in that connection at all.
The next paragraph suggests that the Canadian Fisheries Association be broadened in scope, and the following paragraph suggests that the Department of Fisheries conduct a campaign of education, as previously mentioned. Paragraph 9 recommends that the information collected be made available to the trade. Paragraph 10 suggests that encouragement be given to the formation of a lobster canners' association, and in paragraph 11 it is suggested that the biological board be requested to carry on experiments with a view to developing small fish reduction units suitable for establishment in the less important fishing centres. Units of this kind were established years ago; I do not think that is any new policy at all, and obviously this would! meet only a small part of the real problems of the fishermen. Paragraph 12 recommends that every effort be made to extend the degree of diversification practised in the curing industry, and in paragraph 13 it is suggested that:
Supply-Fisheries

means be sought for reducing the number of brands of canned salmon. Paragraph 14 states:
That encouragement should be given to fishermen's cooperative unions for the purpose of obtaining their supplies cheaply and of improving their standards of production.
Everyone is trying to do that. Paragraph 15 states:
That overlapping of the inspection acts . . . should be adjusted; that inspection service by the proper authorities should be extended to cover fish reduction plants and retail stores . . .
and so on. Paragraph 16 suggests the employment of express rather than freight for the shipment of fresh fish. That is the report in connection with our fisheries, made by a so-called expert commission. Does anyone wonder why I suggest that so far as any actual help to the fisheries is concerned the report is practically a dud, because I believe whatever it contains of importance already has been taken up by the department, and whatever is contained in the report that is not important was not worth appointing a commission to find out. My bon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has given me the proper word for the report, and I thank him for it; the report is one of platitudes.
I should like to say just a word with regard to the matter of taxation, the first point mentioned in the report. The other night there was a discussion in connection with the sales tax on salt; a good deal was said to the effect that fishermen should use Canadian salt, and that the government was quite right in imposing a 6 per cent sales tax on salt imported into Canada. Since then I have found that there are 380 men engaged in the whole salt industry in Canada, including the part of the country from which you and I come, Mr. Chairman. I think probably the minister has a report dealing with Canadian salt in connection with our fisheries, and I doubt very much whether it unreservedly supports the ideas expressed by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with regard to the usability of that salt in the operations of the fishing industry. As a matter of fact the situation is just this: I have talked with those engaged in the fishing industry in my own constituency and I myself did everything in my power to assist Mr. Chambers, in connection with Malagash salt. I endeavoured to get packers and fishermen down there interested in it, and it was with difficulty that they were induced to take it up. So far as its use in connection with their fish was concerned, I am bound to say that the reports were not too satisfactory. My hon. friend 
knows what the difficulties are. Mr. Chambers tried to do all he could to meet them, but the unfortunate situation remains. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) knows more about the fishing industry than I ever hope to know, and the other night he said that it had not proved satisfactory to the industry. What is the use, under the guise of helping the fishermen, of trying to force them to use material that they consider is not satisfactory, and imposing this six per cent tax on them in connection with salt, which is one of the basic materials they use in their industiy? In addition to that, there is a three per cent excise tax, but at the moment I am discussing the sales tax. Salt was always free of sales tax. The Minister of Fisheries suggested that most of the fish is exported anyway and that a rebate could be obtained. Let me give him an illustration and ask him how the fishermen can really get a rebate in connection with salt used on their fish. The fish are placed in butts into a salt pickle. Some of the fish is taken out and made into dried fish for use partly in Canada, and some of it is sent green to the United States. How will anyone tell how much salt is used in connection with exported fish and therefore how much of it is entitled to the rebate? The fish is sold, perhaps, to a jobber in Canada, part of it finding its way to the domestic market, some of it in this part of the country but most of it in the eastern provinces, and a portion is sent to the United States. It is simply impossible, therefore, to tell what proportion of it is entitled to the rebate, and this is merely the imposition of an irritating tax from which the fishermen gets no benefit whatever. Who pays? There is only one man who pays, and that is the fisherman. The minister might say, "But you do not take the tax on a pound of salt and deduct it from the price of the fish." Supposing the dealer pays a cent or a cent and a quarter or a cent and a half a pound, he does not take a fraction of a cent per pound off for the salt. What he will probably do is this: he says, "we have to reduce the price of fish at a certain time to meet market conditions." And the reduction comes three or four days earlier than it otherwise would in order to take care of the sales tax on the salt, and the fisherman pays it. If there is to be an increase in the price of fish, it comes later, that is what takes place, and the fisherman pays the difference. In common with the others who spoke the other night, I protest that this government is not even carrying out

Supply-Fisheries
the spirit of the first paragraph of the report, and are certainly not helping the industry by putting on that sales tax.
With respect to coverings, I do not know what the minister was thinking of when he permitted, at least without any strenuous objection-perhaps he did object to some extent-a tax on the coverings, articles which in themselves are free of the sales tax, and on barrels, butts, boxes and everything used in connection with the packing of fish. Here again there is only one man who pays, and that is the fisherman, because the people who supply the boxes say that if they have to pay the sales tax the man who supplies the raw material must have the deduction made. Again, it is done in the same lefthanded fashion. No direct charge against the fisherman is made, but just as before, the reduction in the price of fish comes a little earlier. There again, you cannot possibly make a case for the reduction of the tax, because you do not know how much is exported. The man who actually produces the fish and pays the tax is probaly not the man who exports at all, and therefore he cannot get his money back. I know of little industries, all over the western shore particularly, where the men, with their families, in little outhouses, put up a certain amount of dried or boneless fish, as it is called. They may sell it in the domestic market, or possibly to a jobber. How will these people get the rebate on coverings in connection with exports? It is merely an additional tax on this basic industry, and while it does not come within the recommendation of the Cockfield-Brown report, which says that you shall refrain from putting a special tax on the industry, at the same time it contravenes that report to this extent, that it imposes on the industry a tax which up to the present time it has not had to bear. I submit that it is in direct contravention of the principle which we are all trying to establish, namely, assistance to this basic industry.
I spoke of boneless fish. That is boxed. But so are haddies and fillets. Some of these come to this market up here, but many of them do not. Often round fish are boxed and iced. You will never get a rebate of these taxes and, as I say, the fisherman is going to pay. I submit that the minister would be well advised to take up with his colleagues in cabinet this matter of the sales tax, which is of so much importance to the fishing industry.
Further with regard to the sales tax provisions, I find that on one article of fishermen's gear which was apparently considered as exempt, the tax has never been attempted
to be enforced until this government came into power. I am not suggesting that the wording of the schedule is such that the department is not justified if they construe the wording, strictly in imposing the tax; but, trawl kegs, which are buoys used for the purpose of keeping up trawls, were never taxed before; they were regarded as part of the gear of the fisherman and exempt. Last year trawl kegs had a sales tax, a. very heavy item, imposed upon them. I know some men in the cooperage business who are engaged in making trawl kegs, and one of them has had to pay on the kegs not only for last year but for previous years as well. Again, the burden is passed on to the fisherman, and this contravenes the intent of the exemption schedule to the sales tax, which provides, or at any rate is supposed to provide, that gear used in connection with the fishing industry shall be free of the tax. This is a matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and of the Minister of Finance. I have already brought it to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and pleaded for some amelioration of the present situation.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough and I do not agree on some things in connection with the fisheries; naturally, as regards the length of season in our respective constituencies, we differ. He got a fifteen-day extension to the first part of his season, and I had fifteen days cut off the latter part of mine.


Mr. RHODES:: Plus six weeks.


James Layton Ralston: That was a special relief
season in December and January. Guys-borough got a continuous season, having fifteen days added in the spring of the year when the catching is good, without having to outfit twice, whereas the western shore got a split season, having to outfit twice, and that extra season in the most inclement part of the year.
With regard to halibut, reference has been made to Newfoundland fish. Here is another case in which the Minister of Fisheries would be well advised to give direct attention to the situation with regard to fish coming from that dominion. Last year I protested against fish from Newfoundland being made exempt from the special one per cent excise tax. I considered that this was an extra tax which Newfoundland fish should bear the same as the others. This year I protest more vigorously still against Newfoundlfand fish being exempt from the three per cent excise tax, and I hold in my hand a telegram which I received
Supply-Fisheries

the other day, and which probably the minister has also received. I shall read it. It is dated May 3, and reads:
Newfoundland halibut being dumped in this country duty free is demoralizing our very limited Canadian market and has already driven prices to a point where our fishermen cannot operate and pay expenses. On behalf of our Atlantic coast halibutters, four of whom are tied up at our wharf this week, we vigorously protest this lack of protection for one of our primary industries, when practically all other Canadian industries are enjoying a large measure of protection by tariff and when we are virtually excluded from United States market by tariff and transportation charges. Can we not get some prompt action on this matter which is of such vital importance to our hard pressed fishing population.
That is signed by Ralph P. Bell of the Lockeport company in Lockeport, Nova Scotia. That is a ease where the Newfoundland fish are completely demoralizing an industry in Nova Scotia, the halibut industry. These fish are now to be exempted from the three per cent excise tax instead of the one per cent, and I ask the minister to view this matter in the light of giving assistance to the fisheries. The fishermen are entitled at least to the preservation of the domestic markets regarding which the report of Cockfield, Brown and Company was supposed to be particularly concerned.
What is on the other side of the sheet? For the last two years there has been a consistent and persistent effort to tax those things used by the fishermen which were formerly free. I refer to food, clothing, gasoline, oiled clothing, and tin plate which I forgot to mention in connection with the sales tax. These things are -being taxed and these taxes, as well as the sales tax on packages are being paid by the fishermen as well as by other members of the community. For the first time taxes are being put on these articles used by our primary producers and I submit that the minister, considering this matter in the light of what was supposed to be the purpose of the report of Cockfield, Brown and Company, should take off these taxes.
The mention of tin plate reminds me that when I was dealing with the sales tax I neglected to mention the lobster canning industry. A tax in connection with coverings means a tax on the tin plate and the cans used for packing lobsters. Many of these cans go outside of Canada and many are sold within Canada; those sold within Canada must pay the tax, while a rebate can be obtained on those sold outside of Canada. However, the rebate is obtained by the exporter and not by the man who actually supplies the can

in the first place. The cost comes out of the fisherman.
This whole fishing industry, the third largest in Nova Scotia so far as money is concerned, is in desperate straits at this time. If the minister had access to the budgets of these lobster fishermen he would realize the large contribution they make to the communities in which they live. Only allowing a small amount for depreciation on boat and engine, it costs a fisherman about six or seven hundred dollars per season for gasoline, help, rope, traps and so on. It is not as if the man could go out and use only his labour; he has got to do more than that, he has got to invest money, and they have to earn their expenses before they get anything for their families. These men are in such a position that the matter of taxation becomes vital to them. The taxes should be taken off those things which they use instead of new taxes being imposed.
The suggestion has been made that a bonus should be paid on fish. A strong delegation from the salt banker industry waited on the minister and urged that a bonus be paid. The shore fishermen of Nova Scotia are in need of assistance and the only practical way to meet their needs is by way of a bonus on all shore fish, not trawler fish. If this were done the industry would be given a chance to live and it would be doing only that which was done for the wheat farmer in the west and for ' other primary producers, such as coal producers. An -opportunity would be given to these men to compete with trawler-caught fish and at least get hack some of the domestic markets which they have lost.
I urge upon the minister, as I urged upon his predecessor, that he carry on negotiations of the most impressive character, if I may use that word, with the country to the south of us whereby its tariff regulations may be so adjusted as to give us proper access to that market. The minister knows that since 1923 there has been a provision on the statute books-this was put through by Mr. Fielding -with regard to reciprocal trade in natural products. I submit that the time has come when negotiations should be resumed to permit an opportunity of entry to that market. Let me remind the minister that at the presenttime the tendency in the country to the south is all the other way. The tendency has been to exclude our lobsters except above a certain size, and if this government does not change its present attitude with regard to high tariffs I fear that that market will be seriously endangered. I do not want to take up the time of the committee any further except to say

Supply-Fisheries
that these points with which I have dealt have come up from time to time and I have put them together to discuss under this item in order to urge upon the minister that he give serious and earnest consideration to the desperate plight in which the fishermen of Nova Scotia find themsevles at the present time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) in his remarks, which I could not help but observe were highly and wholly critical, has covered a very wide field. At the outset of his remarks he proceeded to criticize very severely the report of Cockfield, Brown and Company. It may be that the findings as read by my hon. friend from that succinct and abbreviated digest of the report which has been brought down to parliament have not been happily worded, thcj7 may be more or less general in their terms, but I would point out to my hon. friend that he should bear in mind the fact that there was a very exhaustive examination made by this company covering a period of approximately nine months.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure of that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Whatever criticism may be levelled at the terms of the findings, as read by my hon. friend, I think he should remember that as the result of that survey, the contacts formed and the interest stirred up in all branches of the fishing industry, ultimate benefits will be derived and up to the moment there have been some substantial benefits derived by the industry as a result of the work of that company. I think the best answer I can give in general terms to my hon. friend is to say that so far as I am aware no branch of the industry and no individual of whom I have heard has had anything but favourable comment to make in connection with the work of this company. I am speaking from memory, but that is my recollection of the situation. It may be that in the odd case there is an individual who may feel critical, but that happens in connection with all movements.


James Layton Ralston: There was nothing to
criticize because there was nothing there.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me say this in a general way: We must walk before we run; we cannot, so far as government activity in regard to the fishing industry is concerned, create a new heaven and a new earth overnight. But I think in recent years there has been a marked stimulus in the fisheries, and there is a feeling throughout the industry that sympathetic consideration is being given to
their problems by the department and particularly by the officials to whom I wish to pay a tribute for the outstanding devotion they have displayed towards the interest of that industry.
My hon. friend referred to some remarks I made the other night with respect to the subject of Malagash salt; he did so in connection with observations made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I am at one with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth in agreeing that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has a very wide and practical experience in the fishing industry, and I would be prepared at any time to defer to his judgment on practical points. But when I made the statement the other evening with respect to the merit of Canadian as against imported salt, I had not reference to Malagash salt as such, although I am prepared to deal with the question of Malagash salt. What I had in mind at that time was this, that while the salt as it is extracted in its natural form from that mine, may not be as suitable for the fishing industry as salt brought from the Mediterranean or Turks island, I am assured by those who are experts in the chemical side of the industry, that there is no reason in the world why, by a process of refining we cannot produce in Canada a salt that would be as suitable for the fishing industry as salt imported from Turks island. In fact I might say there are in that particular salt certain properties which have a deleterious effect on some of the fish cured. That, however, is more or less by the way.


James Layton Ralston: Why impose the sales tax until that is demonstrated?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend brings up the sales tax and I am going to deal with that. He devoted the major portion of his remarks to a criticism of the tariff and the sales tax as applied to the products of the fishing industry. In that regard, I have no doubt he was within his right, and I think he was within the item itself in bringing that to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries but that subject is one which more properly ought to be discussed in ways and means. I have a hope, before the day is concluded, we shall be in ways and means, and at that time I shall be very happy to discuss the sales tax especially as applied to salt and to the usual coverings. I have a hope I shall be able to answer my hon. friend, possibly even to his satisfaction, when the subject is under consideration then.
My hon. friend would endeavour to make it appear that because of the action of this
Supply-Fisheries

government some special burdens have been imposed upon the fishing industry. As a matter of fact I do not subscribe to that point of view. As a government we have been compelled, in view of the strenuous times through which we are passing, to impose taxation, and this has had to be of general application. He referred to the fishing industry which, I admit very readily, is in a bad way, but if this is any comfort to those in the industry, it is the fact, nevertheless, that they are in no worse plight than is the farming industry, nor, in many respects, the mining industry, nor, in many respects, the lumbering industry. So far as the fisherman is one of the general community in this country, he must be prepared to bear his fair proportion of the general taxation which the people as a whole must bear in these times. If my hon. friend could make it appear there was some special taxation imposed upon the fishermen to the exclusion of any other class of people, there would be some point in his criticism.


James Layton Ralston: Cockfield-Brown say that
you must not do that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; that there must not be applied to them any special tax which is not of general application. I subscribe to that view and we are within the general bounds of it. My hon. friend says that since this government came into power we have been taxing trawl kegs. He admits at once they are taxable under the law.


James Layton Ralston: I was quite frank about
that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thank my hon. friend
for having been so frank. Maybe he thought his government was lax in its application of the law-


James Layton Ralston: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -and this government has been observing it.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend
we would have had an order in council exempting them if that were necessary.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Apart from the merits of the case he has at least given a tribute to the efficient manner in which this government applies the law.


James Layton Ralston: No, I resent it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is altogether irrespective as to whether there ought or ought not to be a tax on trawl kegs.
My hon. friend referred to a bonus for the fishing industry and in that connection he spoke of the bonus which, he says, exists upon

wheat. He knows full well that the bonus upon wheat was a special one under extraordinary circumstances for a year and that it has not been renewed for this year. I do not wish to enter into a discussion as to the merits of this or that or the other industry; but leaving aside the question whether a bonus is or is not in itself sound, if you bonus fish, you must bonus the products of the farm in toto. Indeed, I do not see how a bonus could be limited to that; there is no reason why it should not go into the realm of the forest. If you do that, you will run into a sum of money which the treasury of this country cannot possibly provide. As a matter of fact, to be logical in the matter, if you are going to bonus every activity in a dull period for the purpose of trying to carry it through until conditions become better, you are just indulging in a process of trying to lift yourself by your bootstraps. If your bonus is applied logically and generally, in another sense you are simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other, because you must tax in order to provide the money.


James Layton Ralston: But you bonus the manufacturers by imposing duties.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is not at
this stage going to get me into a discussion of that, although at a proper time I will be glad to talk on it.


James Layton Ralston: We have had that discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not for a moment admit the tariff is in all cases a tax. I am not, however, going to be led into a discussion on the tariff at this stage of the session and especially when the estimates of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, are under discussion. I do not wish to be a party to attempting to retard the progress of his estimates.
My hon. friend has referred to the relationship which exists between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. In that connection he mentioned the fact that there has been on the statute books since 1923 an offer to our friends in the United States. I do not say this in any hypercritical sense, but let me point out to him that his party was in power for nine years of that period; we have been in office less than two. In the light of the division of power since 1923, he has no basis of criticism or of finding any fault with us That is merely an aside. Let me say to him that this government-and because I was Minister of Fisheries, I can speak very clearly on this point-was at pains to take every step and make every effort to make the contacts

Supply-Fisheries
and to enter into discussions with our friends to the south with a view, if possible to ameliorating conditions, not only to the advantage of the fishing industry in Canada but to the mutual advantage of the United States and ourselves.


James Layton Ralston: You cannot do that by
imposing higher duties on their products.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I sat and listened to my hon. friend, I hope with courtesy and without a single interruption although he spoke for twenty minutes, and I think he should accord to me the courtesy of allowing me to have at least one completed sentence without in interjection. My hon. friend is getting along in years but he still shows the impetuosity of youth. He does not seem to be able to contain himself for more than half a minute. It is a nice spring morning and if he would just contain himself in peace and relax a little I am sure he would find it very good for the nervous system.


Mr. POULIOT:: The smile of my hon. friend is just as welcome as the spring morning.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know why my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth refers to the question of the tariff in association with the United States of America because if there is one country in the world which has been noted for its high tariff it has been that country, and if there is one country in the world which formulates its tariff policy to suit the needs of its own people without regard to the rest of the world it is the United States. I do not complain of that because that is their right and their privilege. But my hon. friend must not attempt to make it appear that we must place ourselves in the position where we are to defer entirely to the whims and whimsies of out friends to the south. My hon. friend must realize, and I think the people of the United States themselves would be the first to say, that the question of our tariff is entirely a matter for ourselves, and they would be the last to take exception to our altering the tariff on any item as in our judgment we deemed to be in our own best interests.
My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth has taken the position that the excise tax of three per cent ought to be imposed on fish imported into this country from Newfoundland. If my hon. friends from Antigonish-Guysborough and Queens-Lunenburg were here I am sure they would unanimously take exception to any such proposal. The question of our relationship with Newfoundland, as my hon. friend knows, is a very old story. It goes back over a long period of years, and
it has been distinctly understood that we would never impose any form of taxation against the importation of fish from Newfoundland, which after all is the only commodity they have to sell to us, and there is the further fact that the balance of trade between Canada and Newfoundland has for all time been very largely in our favour. But the fishing industry itself in Nova Scotia is vitally interested in the importation, duty free, of fish from Newfoundland, for a very considerable portion of the fishing industry of Nova Scotia is based upon the processing of Newfoundland fish for re-export.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was dealing with the question of the imposition of a duty or tax upon importations of fish from Newfoundland. I had pointed out that the subject was by no means new. It has been discussed over a number of decades, and I do not know of any branch of the fishing industry that has been more opposed in the past and so far as I am aware, is still opposed to such a tax or duty than those associated with the ownership, operation and management of the Lunenburg fleet. Apart from the consideration that the importation of salt fish from Newfoundland has hitherto proven a profitable branch of the Canadian fishing industry, there was the further consideration that one of the strongest arguments used by those who were opposed to the imposition of the duty or tax was that if by any chance we impeded the importation of their fish we would invite reprisals on the part of Newfoundland, perhaps quite properly so, and that those reprisals would take the form, amongst others, of not permitting the sale of bait to our bankers. If they were not able to get their bait in Newfoundland ports it would mean their return periodically to the ports of the maritime provinces, with consequent loss of time and also loss of profit in their fishing operations. So that while I do not for one moment suggest that when these considerations are borne in mind the last word has been said, I do submit that they are of such moment as to preclude, for the time being at least, our entertaining the imposition of such a duty. As I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further in passing the estimates of my colleague the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), I will content myself with these few observations.
Supply-Fisheries


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman, about the last thing I would wish to do at this late stage of the proceedings would be to hold up the estimates of the minister, but by reason of the fact that certain statements were made Tuesday evening and again to-day of a derogatory character as to the quality of the salt produced in the riding I have the honour to represent, I feel I am drawn into this controversy, and that something in the interests of truth, justice and accuracy should be said with respect to this product. The Malagash salt industry was established in Malagash some years ago, and in normal times it employs upwards of a hundred hands. It was felt at the time of its establishment that it would more or less interlock with the fishing industry of Nova Scotia. The district in which the industry has been developed is not by any means what might be termed affluent; the people there have been struggling along under most severe handicaps particularly during the last couple of years. To show the community spirit on the part of the employers as well as the employees, the committee will be interested to learn that a cooperative working arrangement has been entered into by them.
Now, the derogatory statements made by the hon. members for Antigonish-Guysborough and Shelburne-Yarmouth with respect to the quality of this salt in the curing of fish ought, I think, to be answered by those in the industry who know what they are talking about. In this connection I am going to read into the record certain telegrams I have received from those who know the fish business with respect to the value of this salt in the curing of fish. The first is from S. R. Giifin and Son, of Goldboro, Nova Scotia:
Malagash' salt best we ever used for hard cured dried codfish,-never dampen again after being dried or turn red in hot countries if held any time as sometimes happens when fish are cured with salt such as Turks island.
The next telegram is from Austin E. Nickerson carrying on business in the constituency of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston):	He says:
Understand discussion regarding Malagash salt now going on. Wish to advise that we have used Malagash salt solely for the past ten years with absolutely good results, and on account of good keeping qualities of our fish have been able to obtain extra prices. Have never seen any indication of red fish, but there is a slight sediment, apparently gravel, in salt, but that can be overcome by proper methods of curing. Have used many other salts, including German, and prefer Malagash.

Another telegram is from McCormack and Zatzman, Limited, of St. John, New Brunswick. They say:
Regarding Malagash fishery salt, we have used thousands of tons of it in the last few years, shipping a large portion of our products to southern countries, with absolutely no spoilage losses and without cold storage charges, whereas when formerly using solar or sea salt we have experienced losses in these markets. Malagash is the best salt we know of for all cures of smoked herring and Gaspereau, and you will be making no mistake whatever in doing everything possible to increase the use of Malagash salt by Canadian fishermen.
Another telegram is from A. Haydon, Magdalen islands. It is dated from New Glasgow and is as follows:
Visiting here to-day noticed controversy in house on salt and cures of fish. After an experience of many years supervising fish packing in Nova Scotia and Magdalen islands, wish to state I have used Malagash mined salt on the curing of codfish and mackerel, and have found it very satisfactory. My opinion is that codfish cured with mined salt has a much milder flavour than fish cured with solar salt.
That point was emphasized this morning by the hon. Minister of Finance. I have another telegram which comes from the fisheries experimental station at Halifax. This station, I understand, is under the biological board, which is composed of representatives of the fish industry, the fisheries department and the universities. The telegram reads as follows:
Regarding Malagash salt, can state that if proper precautions are taken mined salts will prevent red fish. Tests here recent lots of Malagash salt, there was very little sediment on fish, and we have proof that large amount of equal salt has been mined at Malagash.
The last telegram I desire to read is from the Malagash Salt Company, Limited. They say:
If Hansard records statement that Malagash salt leaves red streaks on the fish and that sediment is unsatisfactory . . . correction should be made. Many people make such statements without advising themselves on recent result with Malagash salt. Their conclusions are really based on results that are out of date.
Such erroneous statements on Malagash salt have been very damaging and have retarded the development of the industry the importance of which you fully appreciate. Malagash is cheapest of few salts available here that does not produce red fish. The fishermen's losses from reddening is now recognized by Halifax station officials and trade generally as a terrific handicap. Malagash being germ free is definitely stated on page twelve of Harrison's honorary research council paper number eleven. Regarding sediment Dr. Leim, director Halifax station advises this difficulty no longer a factor with salt from vein that we have worked past two years also on reddening. Our sales talks on fishery salt all based on American bureau fishery

Supply-Fisheries
findings and recommendations bulletins numbers 884 and 919 and Malagash salts are those most nearly meeting the specifications recommended. If such evidence is acceptable it shows the fishermen's troubles are in a large measure due to failure to adopt the scientific information available to them. The Cockfield-Brown report draws that conclusion. S. R. Giffin and Son, Goldboro, claim our salt best for hard dry cure. A. E. Nickerson, Yarmouth, claims they did not have a loss from reddening on shipment many million pounds cut fish to American market where colour is also an all important factor. McCormack and Zatzman, St. John, very large users have had greatest satisfaction our salt. W. H. Smith, Lunenburg Sea Products, Lunenburg, reports Malagash salt very satisfactory for their processed fish trade. W. C. Smith and Company, Lunenburg, have also long appreciated tile better keeping qualities Malagash salt. Fisheries department Gaspe cure demonstrator Peter Mercier wrote us last fall Malagash salt only salt with which he could produce that cure on the Magdalen Islands. While fish cured by these firms represent practically all different cures produced in maritimes rve have very many maritime references including Robichaud, member of McLean commission. Several Newfoundland as well Morue Francaise St. Pierre among our best and largest customers and highly satisfied _ with results over several years on their cure similar to Lunenburg. In many of these cures the difference in return from the use of salt of the specification recommended will more than pay for all the salt used and Canadian Malagash salt meets the requirements.
I have every sympathy, as every hon. member from Nova Scotia has, for the fishing industry; we all realize that it has suffered a great deal and that, due to world conditions, it is in a most unfavourable position to-day. But I cannot see why a blow should be struck at another legitimate Canadian industry, the Malagash salt industry, by depreciating the quality of their product, which I think has been conclusively demonstrated by the telegrams I have just read to be equal to any other salt produced for the curing of fish. I think in fairness to this industry the hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this way should withdraw or qualify their statements, as they seem to be labouring under a misapprehension. Of course, if hon. gentlemen opposite are not interested in industry in the maritime provinces they will not withdraw, but I contend that this is a legitimate industry which should not be dealt a blow on the floor of this house with respect to the quality of its products, which a great many fishermen say is eminently suitable for the purposes for which they use it.
One other point and I am through. When this industry was started a seam was developed which contained some material which caused reddening. That vein or seam has been abandoned, and to-day they are developing another seam producing an excellent quality
of salt for fisheries purposes. In addition, with the scientific improvements that have been adopted by this company, they are able to produce a salt that is claimed by many fishermen to be better than any other salt used in the curing of fish.


Mr. SHORT:: I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that took place last evening and this forenoon in connection with the fishing industry. I have been interested in that industry for the past thirty years, and I was especially interested in the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, who seems to be the champion of the fishing industry in western Nova Scotia.
I cannot agree with many of the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman last night and this morning, but on one point I do agree with him. That is that the government was badly advised in that they did not grant the full two weeks extension of the season to May 31, though they did give us five days more than we really expected at first. Of course, when the six weeks season was granted last winter it was understood that two weeks would be taken off the other end of the season, which would close on May 15 instead of May 31. Those six weeks were of great benefit to the fishermen of western Nova Scotia, and it is a fact that they made that bargain. Of course they expected then that they would secure their usual catch of lobsters during the month of March and April, but unfortunately March this year was a very severe month along the coast of Nova Scotia, during which few if any lobsters were taken. I have the figures here showing the catch during the months of March and April for the past three years. They are:
Pounds Value
1930	
3,271,300	$650,3721931	
2,956,100	497,7331932	
1,751,000	264,239
So it will be seen that there was a great shortage in the catch this year as compared with the two previous years, and that is accounted for entirely by the severe weather along the coast. I made representations to the government asking that the fishermen be given the extra two weeks in order to make up for the loss they sustained particularly during March, but in their judgment the government did not see fit to grant that extension. I think they made a mistake, but I am not going to censure them for that. I believe the fishermen in western Nova Scotia are grateful for the extra five days, which will compensate them somewhat.
With regard to the drain on the lobsters, or the conservation of the fisheries, that is an
Supply-Fisheries

exploded idea; there are just as many lobsters in the sea to-day as ever there were. As I say, I have been connected with the industry for some thirty years or more, and in each of those thirty years we were told that unless something was done in connection with the lobster season they soon would be extinct. What has been the result? Last year the catch was better than it had been for many years, and I noticed in the press the other day that when the season opened in Cape Breton they had the largest catch they have ever had. I believe in conservation, but I also believe that the department should be advised by those who know something about the industry. I am not censuring the government for what they have done; perhaps they were wise, but I think they go too much on theory rather than on practice.
I was particularly interested in the remarks of my hon. friend for Shelburne-Yarmouth. He had nothing to offer but complaints and criticisms. He criticized this government for everything that has been done by the Department of Fisheries since this government came into power, but I want to tell the committee that in the two years it has been in power this government has done more for the fishermen than the government of my hon. friend did in the nine years they were in power. They never turned a hand to do anything for the fishermen. During the few months that the present Minister of Finance was in charge of the Fisheries department, he did more for the fishing industry of Canada than any minister who has ever had charge of that department, and it was with extreme regret that the industry learned that he was giving u,p that portfolio to take the more responsible one of Finance. Had the Minister of Finance retained the portfolio of Fisheries, I believe he would have done something worth while for the fishing industry, for which nothing has ever been done by any minister who has ever managed the department.
My hon. friend speaks about the excise duty and the sales tax on salt. In my opinion our Canadian salt industry should receive the support of the fishing industry. It is good salt. I have had experience in the use of Malagash salt, for we have used quantities of it, and while, as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said the other night, it does leave a little scum on top of the pickle after it is made, that does not interfere with the curing of the fish. We have used thousands of tons of it and have found it very good salt indeed. We have used, occasionally, Mediterranean salt, and sometimes Turk's island salt, because vessels comfMr. Short.]
ing up from the West Indies can bring Turk's island salt to Nova Scotia cheaper than we can obtain the Malagash salt delivered to our plants. But so far as quality is concerned, the Malagash salt is perfectly good. It is a reliable brand and if it is properly used there is no reason why the fishermen of Nova Scotia should not be using Nova Scotia salt instead of Mediterranean or West Indies salt.
My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth spoke about a bounty on fish. That started, of course, with the Lunenburg fleet; they asked for a bounty. I suggest that if the government grants a bounty on salt fish it will have to give a bounty on fresh and smoked fish. Moreover, it will have to extend the bounty to farm produce, lumber and all other industries. I think it would be a mistake to begin giving a bounty to this or that industry. We are not in a position to grant bounties to all the natural industries of the country, and in my opinion the government would be ill-advised to give a bounty to any one particular class of fish produced in Canada.
As regards the sales tax on packages and coverings, this, of course, will include the tins as well as the outside package for canned fish. It includes the parchment covers for fillets, haddies and kippers, as well as the package. But this sales tax, it must be remembered, applies to every other industry as well as fish; it applies to every business. If we protest on behalf of the fishing industry, we must protest also on behalf of fruit and poultry, the butter and milk industry and every other. It is absolutely necessary for us to raise taxes this year from every source possible, and if it is unavoidable to tax the packages used for fish, then I say that the fishing industry will accept the tax just as other industries are accepting it. If, however, exemptions are to be made, the fishing industry must get the benefit of them along with the others. Personally, I have heard no complaints from those engaged in the fishing industry. Many of these people interested in the industry are carrying on a very large business in Nova Scotia, and I have had no complaints from them with regard to packages. They intimate, that they realize the necessity for raising taxes from every possible source. The fishing industry will have to bear its share along with the others, but if exemptions are made then, as I say, we feel that we must be included.
The fishing industry has been hard hit, particularly in the last two years. During that time there is not a concern engaged in Ihe industry that has broken even. But

Supply-Fisheries
they are not discouraged. We feel that we are over the worst of it now, and I believe that conditions are going to improve. When they do, the fishing industry, along with others, will benefit.
I do not intend to say anything further, because I realize that the committee is anxious to get through, but I must say that this government is doing what it can for the industry, and I believe it is disposed to do all in its power to further the interests of the fishermen. My hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth spoke of the report submitted by Cockfield, Brown & Company. He called it a dud, saying that there was nothing in it. I say that there is a great deal in it. If many of the suggestions contained in that report are carried out, as I believe they will be carried out by this government eventually, the result will be highly beneficial to the industry, and I think that the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Fisheries, deserves a great deal of credit from the industry for having employed this firm, and for the report that has been submitted.


Mr. GAGNON:: Has the minister received any official request for cooperation on behalf of the Quebec provincial government with regard to the maritime fisheries in the gulf and the St. Lawrence river?


Alfred Duranleau: Not to my knowledge.


Onésime Gagnon: Of course, the minister's
answer does not satisfy me to any great extent. I understand him to say that he has no knowledge of any communication. I should like to know precisely whether the Department of Fisheries of the province of Quebec has sent a letter or a telegram or any other communication asking for the cooperation of the federal government, with a view to improving the situation in the maritime fisheries, especially in the last six months.


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed by
my officials that during the past two years no communication has been received from the department of fisheries of the province of Quebec.


Onésime Gagnon: I am very much surprised to hear that. As was stated on the floor of the house during the discussion which took place some weeks ago on the motion of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), a great number of people from the Gaspe coast, especially from the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure came to Quebec to interview the government and ask that necessary representations be made by the
Quebec government to secure the cooperation of the federal government. I hold in my hand a copy of the memorandum submitted by that delegation to the provincial government, and I should like to quote as follows:
We affirm our confidence in the diplomacy of the provincial cabinet to conduct negotiations in view of joining with the Ottawa government and to regularize our position by way of cooperation. Since a few years, under the influence of new knowledge and the requirements of commerce, a quiet revolution has taken place in the domain of fisheries that we cannot ignore. Consequently many new initiatives are now on the order of the day; a ministry of fisheries has even been created to look after this evolution.
That memorandum was submitted to the provincial government on March 19, 1932. Since that time the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has moved very eloquently a resolution which was agreed to unanimously. This resolution asked this government to cooperate with the provincial government of Quebec in order to give assistance to the maritime fisheries. I understand that such a policy of cooperation cannot be carried on or attempted by the federal government alone. It is not an easy thing for this government to intervene. But I have no hesitation to say that this question of the development of fisheries is as vital to the province of Quebec as it is to the maritime provinces and British Columbia. In discussing this question I should like to refer to a memorandum prepared by one of the fisheries' experts in the province of Quebec, dealing with the development of fisheries in that province.
During the period from 1900 to 1920, thanks to modern scientific discoveries, numerous scientists have applied themselves intensely and successfully to the study of the sea. They have succeeded in making many discoveries relating to fish migration and have formulated many laws which have resulted in increasing the productivity of the fisheries. These studies, still practically at their inception, are being prosecuted actively year by year. In Europe alone, fourteen nations, by common consent have divided the waters in which scientific research is to be carried on. They have grouped themselves into a great intellectual cooperative society. Universities are popularizing the practical knowledge to be derived from their investigations in connection with fishing. The complete courses are already fairly extensive and cover from three to five years.
It is now generally admitted that if accurate knowledge of the different soils is essential to rational farming, some knowledge
Supply-Fisheries

of the sea is equally essential to the profitable pursuit of fishing. In his book entitled The Products of the Sea Dr. Loir writes:
Just as rational farming proceeds from chemical laboratories, so rational fishing finds in oceanographical laboratories all the elements essential to its development.
The natural resources conservation commission, which .has devoted several of its sittings to the study of the fishery problem, has given expression to similar views. If we are to believe the high authorities who have given the deepest thought to this serious question, scientific institutions, study circles, research and demonstration centres have become as indispensable to the promotion of the fishing industry and its proper administration as they are in the case of agriculture. The solution of the problem lies in study and teaching: a technical staff is necessary to provide the required guidance. It would take too long to enumerate the different subjects one must master to qualify as an expert or specialist in fishery matters.
Scientists have not only confined themselves to the thorough investigation of marine life but they have devoted themselves no less intensely to the transformation of the industrial processes in vogue during the last century and to the improvement of commercial methods with a view to obtaining a better return. By 1900 these men were associated together under the name of International Sea Exploration Committee, which is now divided into the following three great intellectual associations:
The International Sea Exploration Committee.
The International Mediterranean Committee.
The International Fishery Research Committee of North America.
The United States, France and Canada are members of the latter committee.
As the fisheries of the province of Quebec have been entirely under the control of the provincial government since 1922 and as the fishery map of our province, according to the annual report on fisheries issued by Ottawa, seems to have been deleted from that of the dominion, it goes without saying that we are not represented on this International Fishery Research Committee of North America. We do not belong to any group as we do in the case of agriculture, and the official circles of our province have appeared to be perfectly satisfied with this state of affairs, at least up to the last session of the legislature. They have not even thought of providing us with an intelligent nomenclature of the fish varieties to be found in the province of Quebec. Our provincial fishery service is composed of

a staff which lacks scientific, industrial and commercial training. After eight years of groping there are no institutions of learning, there are no demonstration establishments and the service is .powerless and absolutely incapable of solving the many problems which arise. The lamentable failure of its undertakings in connection with porpoise destruction, refrigeration construction and so on justifies amply the criticism which has been directed against it. Establishments of this kind have existed for several years in all parts of Europe, even in the least advanced countries such as Esthonia, Bulgaria and so on. Establishments are to be found in the British, Italian and French colonies and even Indo-China. The fishermen of the province of Quebec are placed at a disadvantage when compared with those of Indo-Ohina who enjoy a leadership which keeps in contact with modem progress.
For about twenty-five years prior to 1922 public opinion in the province of Quebec was misled by the constantly reiterated claim that the organization of our fisheries depended upon the question of jurisdiction. This formed the subject of endless discussions between Quebec and Ottawa. It will be remembered that since 1898 there has been a constant conflict between the governments at Quebec and Ottawa with regard to jurisdiction. Three cases have been submitted by the courts of the province of Quebec for decision by the privy council. British Columbia had to cope with the same difficulty but that province was parotical enough to use them as a pretext to delay the organization of its fisheries. In spite of its conflicts, it never ceased to cooperate with Ottawa, and at the present time that province possesses two marine biological stations located at Prince Rupert and Nanaimo, and also a well organized and complete fishery service which, according to the statement of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on April 3, 1922, costs the federal treasury $400,000 a year and yields but a trifling revenue. On the other hand, the maritime provinces led by practical men have applied themselves with sincerity and perseverance to the study of the various aspects of the fishing industry. Instead of fighting the federal authorities and confusing the minds of the people, they have cooperated with them in order to strengthen their hand. As early as 1900 the maritime provinces had a marine biological station located at St. Andrews, the first of its kind in Canada. Later, about 1922, under the direction of Professor Cobb, of Washington university, they founded the Halifax Fishery School at a cost of $100,000 provided by the federal government. A few

Supply-Fisheries
years later, a second biological station, more up to date and better equipped, was constructed at Halifax, again at the expense of the federal government. All these institutions contribute to the training of industrial executives and others who fill the most difficult positions in the fisheries service.
Towards 1915 there was organized the Canadian Fisheries Association, to which the best minds of the country, representatives of the federal and provincial governments, of the universities and of big business, contribute their valuable cooperation, and, at the annual meetings, which mark epochs in the life of the movement, discuss all questions affecting the fishing industry. It is this well organized and effective influence, which the province of Quebec has always ignored, that, on July 12, 1928, brought about the appointment of a deputy minister of fisheries separate from the Department of Marine, and, in 1930, the creation of a department of fisheries.
It is likewise to the efforts and recommendations of this association that we owe the reform that has been going on for fifteen years of the whole federal service; information offices in all the provinces except Quebec, a service composed of trained and disciplined men, marine biological laboratories at St. Andrews, Halifax, Prince Rupert and Nanaimo, improved transportation by rail and water of the products of the sea, and all the advantages that have brought about the development of the fisheries of the other provinces to the point where they command the attention even of foreigners.
The spirit that has guided the evolution observed beyond our boundaries has been altogether different from that seen in Quebec,
Province
British Columbia	
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
Ontario	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island	
Quebec	
where politicians, apparently indifferent to the promotion of our fisheries and unconcerned with their future, have contented themselves with boasting of their exploits and of their achievements before the courts. Quebec has ignored too much the cooperative and educational movement. Who amongst our public men has set himself up as the qualified defender of our population of 50,000 souls who, drawing their livelihood from the fishing industry, inhabit a territory capable of maintaining 100,000 persons and more? Lack of vision, indifference, want of organization and knowledge, together with an absurd policy, have caused our fishermen to emigrate in large numbers and have brought about stagnation in the region of the gulf. As Monseigneur Roy, the well known educator, has said: "Our provincialism is heightened by an intellectual provincialism that is a Canadian form of ignorance. We are too little acquainted with the intellectual accomplishments of our neighbours."
The province of Quebec now bears the sorry reputation of being the most backward of all as regards the capacity of its fishery staff and the application of scientific research to fisheries. The success or failure of any industry being dependent upon the attention given to it and upon its good or bad administration, it is not to be wondered at that Quebec fishermen have an income lower than those of the other provinces, as is shown by the following table taken from the statistics of 1919-20. The figures which I am going to quote have been extracted from a memorandum which was submitted by a delegation of fishermen who interviewed the provincial government on March 19, 1932. The figures are as follows:
Number of		Average income
fishermen	Total income	per man11,464	$28,301,607	$2,2071,665	1,649,044	1,1704,156	3,410,750	82622,085	15,171,929	68710,452	4,979,574	4773,399	1,536,844	46310,699	4,358,731	398
Mark the great difference between British Columbia and Quebec. In 1920, in British Columbia the fishermen had an average income of S2,207, while in Quebec it was $398. I should not like to be considered a detractor of my province, but the figures I am quoting are of interest as showing that all governments which have been at the head of affairs, whether in Quebec or Ottawa and of whatever party, have neglected their duties to our fishermen. Since I put all parties on the same footing, I think I shall not be accused of being inspired by narrow political criticism.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. gentleman
tell me where he gets his information that the British Columbia fisherman's income is $2,000?


Onésime Gagnon: These figures, as I said a moment ago, are taken from statistics of 1919-20.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member is decrying his own province.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member for North Timiskaming, who is interrupting, knows

S upply-Fisheries

nothing about fisheries; he has never opened his mouth in the house in regard to that industry. Why, then, should he interrupt me?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am interrupting the hon. member because he is decrying his own province.


Onésime Gagnon: The figures have been
chosen for the year 1919-20 because it was in that year that the judgment of the privy council was rendered giving exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government over the fisheries in the maritimes and Quebec. Our fishermen in 1919-20 were thus at the foot of the list with an average income per season of S398. The insufficiency of this income clearly explains their demoralization and their tendency to emigrate. It would appear that the courage and patriotic spirit displayed by the late Hon. Mr. Perron, Liberal Minister of Agriculture in Quegec, on the subject of agriculture, was needed to secure the admission of this cruel truth concerning our fisheries and to proclaim it loudly in official circles in order to arouse our administrators.
Such were the circumstances under which the provincial government, in 1922, negotiated the administration of the whole of our fisheries, the federal government consenting, without opposition, to surrender them to the province, and this was done at the expense of the provincial treasury and the sacrifice of our reputation. If not one of the objectives at least the consequence of this transaction, cleverly engineered by certain high federal officials and escaping the penetration of our provincial ambassador, was to get rid of (he province of Quebec, in order to keep all fishery subsidies for the other provinces, particularly for the maritimes, which are the competitors of our fishermen even in our domestic market.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has reflected on my own province. There is a rule that no hon. member may read his speech and that rule should be followed.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member is inconsistent, because at the beginning of the session he made about two or three speeches in the house and he has not been able to deliver one without reading it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I never read my speeches and I want the hon. member to withdraw those words, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member for Dorchester must accept the denial of the hon. member for North Timiskaming.

That is the well-known rule. So far as the reading of speeches is concerned, any hon. member has the right to consult his notes, but the rule is that no member may read his speech.


Onésime Gagnon: I gladly bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and if the hon. member for North Timiskaming says that he never reads his speeches I am obliged to tell my eyes that they have not seen what they have seen and I must accept his denial. I was simply quoting some notes from a memorandum which has been given to me by one of our fishery experts in the province of Quebec.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
quite entitled to quote from his authority. While no member is allowed to read his speech, every member is entitled to consult his notes and to quote from memoranda.


Onésime Gagnon: In order to close the
controversy, Mr. Chairman, I shall try to raise my eyes a little higher so as not to offend my hon. friend from North Timiskaming, who does not like to see a sheet of paper in the hands of an lion, member.
The agreement which was entered into in 1922 between the federal government and the provincial government whereby the federal government transferred to the provincial authority the administration of the maritime fisheries of the province of Quebec has been most detrimental to the interests of fishermen and to the fisheries in general, as was admitted in this house three weeks ago by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. He then stated that it was a mistake on the part of the federal government to transfer these fisheries to the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, who is also an expert in fisheries, admitted the same thing, and said that it would be more in the interests of the fisheries if that agreement should be cancelled. As I stated in the house during the debate on the motion of my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay, this agreement, which was not approved by parliament and was effectuated only by a mere order in council, is absolutely illegal and ultra vires because by the British North America Act the maritime fisheries are vested solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
In 1921, a few weeks before that agreement was made and after the judgment of the privy council was rendered giving complete jurisdiction to the federal government over all maritime fisheries in the province of Quebec, the federal government inaugurated a long series of reforms and especially it proposed the

Supply-Fisheries
establishment of a fisheries bureau in the province of Quebec. The establishment of such a bureau, Mr. Chairman, would certainly have been a great help to the fisheries of Quebec just as it has proved beneficial to the fisheries of British Columbia and of the maritime provinces. Last j'ear at the beginning of April I wrote to the present Minister of Finance, who at that time was Minister of Fisheries, the following letter, and as it is a letter 1 hope that my hon. friend from North Timiskaming will not be offended if I am obliged to look at it in order to read it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Very clever.


Onésime Gagnon: serve as a disinterested intermediary between the producers and consumers; a centre of general information, etc., etc.; in short, to fulfill all the functions mentioned in the annual report of your department, to wit:
(a)	To enforce the laws, regulations, and the articles of the various treaties with regard to the construction of fish slides in dams, the cleaning of rivers, etc.;
(b)	To enforce the law regarding the inspection of fish. For the future, it is necessary that the province of Quebec be as well organized in this respect as any other and have the service of real technicians at its disposal;
(c)	To enforce the law respecting the manufacture of preserved fish. This branch could be considerably developed with the help of a competent personnel;
(d)	To participate in the organization of a biological marine service. We have not as yet profited by the biological marine service as constituted in 1912 by act of the federal parliament. Its intervention would be necessary for us in order to harmonize the conduct of fishing operations with our particular conditions, to instruct the fishermen and the leaders of the industry, and to create a staff to serve the industry;
(e)	To centralize the knowledge relating to fishing, in its triple branches, scientific, commercial and industrial;
(f)	To direct a centralizing service for
catches, as exists, for example, in the maritime provinces;	_
(g)	To see to the distribution of fishing premiums and to the compilation of statistics;
(h)	To carry on a publicity movement for sea products and to augment the consumption of fish;
(i)	Etc., etc.
The above mentioned activities are organized elsewhere as federal services, are equally necessary in my province, which desires to have them, but our provincial government does not appear to have jurisdiction.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Mr. MARCIL (Translation):: 
Mr. CIIEVRIER (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Charles Marcil: I know as a fact that in the constituency I represent, the people would condemn this administration. However, this is not the time to discuss
politics.
I would request the hon. member for Dorchester, who read to us a long list of requests he addressed to the former Minister of Fisheries, to strongly insist with the present minister that he must grant his requests. If the hon. member can be of service to the fishermen of his native province, they will feel very grateful to him and I trust that before long we shall see him at the head of the Department of Fisheries in which he seems greatly interested. He delivered just now a very interesting speech on the situation existing in Europe and elsewhere. All this is very well, but what we need at present, are markets. The sadest part of it all is that, meanwhile, the people have no markets and we must find them some as soon as possible. Instead of devoting any more time to the question of fisheries-let him blame one government or the other, for they are often both at fault- I think that he should set aside this question of jurisdiction and endeavour to use the influence which he certainly has to convince the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that he must, necessarily, find markets for the products of the farmers and fishermen of Quebec and the other sections of the country.
We have very often heard speeches advocating bonuses to coal, wheat and their transportation. The new trade treaty with New Zealand is almost exclusively to the advantage of British Columbia. The government has made concessions of every description. There are bonuses on Nova Scotia steel, on coal, on the carrying of Western wheat. In a word, all groups who support the present government seem able to exert on the administration an influence which, I am sorry to note by the results secured to date, is not exerted by the Conservative deputation from the province of Quebec.
Supply-Fisheries

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Dorchester is a talented young man who will probably be called upon to play a commanding part. If he wishes to render a real service to his province, he should assume the leadership of a movement to secure for the mother province of the dominion the help farmers require, for they are the backbone of this country. To repeat the words spoken by one of his predecessors as representative of the Quebec district, I believe: The last citizen to stand under the British flag in Canada will be a French-Canadian. I believe those words are true. The inhabitants of Quebec were the first Canadians, they have remained Canadians and they will so remain for ever. We have a right to expect from the federal government the treatment we are entitled to receive. I trust the Conservative representation from Quebec will bring its influence to bear while it is in a position to do so and holds the balance of power. The present administration would not exist without the Quebec representation. Without the 25 ridings which the Liberals lost in Quebec, the Government would not have attained power. I understand the minister is only directing the Fisheries department provisionally. The member for Dorchester will probably be entrusted with the administration of that department at no distant date. I would ask the members supporting the government to improve their tenure of office by coming to the assistance of the people of Quebec who are greatly in need of it from every standpoint. I will not insist further.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity you have given me to make these observations. I would ask mjr colleagues who sit to the right to put politics aside, to devote their attention to the real interests of the fishermen, the farmers of the province of Quebec, also to the poor workingmen of the city of Montreal who to-day are out of work and in a most distressing situation, and their number runs into thousands. The administration has a splendid opportunity to come to their help. Let us forget the past, let us face the present and the future.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to say just a word in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend from Cumberland. I think he will search in vain to find anything I said derogatory to Malagash salt. What I did say was that I had done my very best to assist Mr. Chambers and those connected with him m finding a market for that product among the fishermen of Nova Scotia and that at lpast some of the men found difficulty in using it.
JMr. Marcil.]
The objection which I was taking to the sales tax on salt was the objection he has taken, namely that a blow should not be struck at a Canadian industry. The industry to which I am referring is the fishing industry of Nova Scotia, which is to use his own words, 100 per cent Canadian, and which is being struck a blow by this six per cent sales tax on a raw material used in connection with that industry, plus three per cent excise tax. I say the fishermen of Nova Scotia do not deserve that, and in that sense I object to the taxation which is being imposed by this government.
There is one other matter. The minister suggests that the reason the excise tax is not being made applicable to Newfoundland is because of the fear of reprisals. I thought that was the one thing about which this government cared nothing at all. They were going to make a Canadian tariff and enact Canadian laws without regard to what anyone else did. Now it seems they are changing their attitude. I only want to say that I do not v'ant to see the fishing industry of Nova Scotia sacrificed in order to avoid reprisals. I suggested to my hon. friend that the three per cent tax was imposed as an excise tax and not a duty, and V'as made applicable to Great Britain and the dominions overseas, so it seems to me that it could hardly be regarded as a hostile act if it were made applicable to the dominion of Newfoundland as well.
My hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis paid a high tribute to the record of this government in connection with fisheries. I would not expect my hon. friend to do anything else; he is a loyal supporter of this government through evil times and good, and even though the government did not accept his recommendation and mine with regard to-the lobster season-


Harry Bernard Short: They did accept my recommendation in part.


James Layton Ralston: Even though they did not accept his recommendation and mine with regard not to the extension but the restoration of the lobster season, I would not expect my hon. friend to complain. I want to tell him that when the time comes I am quite prepared to discuss with him or with anyone else the record of this government, as compared with that of the previous government, with regard to fisheries. I think he will find that the only two things that have been done by this government-he may know of something more, though I doubt it-in connection with fisheries were the appointment of the Cockfield Brown commission, which made the report to which I

Supply-Fisheries
referred this morning, and the adoption of a regulation which provided that trawlers shouid be marked with a number on the bow of the boat and that the numbers shall be at least eighteen inches in height.


Harry Bernard Short: We have been in power only two years, and hon. gentlemen opposite were in power for nine years.


James Layton Ralston: If those accomplishments are any comfort to my hon. friend-


Harry Bernard Short: Wait until we are in nine
years.


James Layton Ralston: -of course he is entitled to it.


Onésime Gagnon: I thank the hon. member for Bonaventure for the kind words he has said about me. The time, of course, is too limited to engage in an exchange of compliments, although I appreciate the one he has paid me. I understood from his words that he wished me to continue reading the letter I sent last year to the Minister of Fisheries. The rest of that letter reads:
With reference to the protection of our waters, I wish to draw your attention in particular to the fact that there exists at present in the gulf and in the northern part of the gulf, a nuisance which causes incalculable damage to our fishers and which will become a menace in the future: porpoises. It has been calculated that their number' reaches approximately 100,000 and that they consume 1,000,000 tons of small fish every year. These statistics are astounding. It permits us to doubt the utility and usefulness of fishing regulations as long as the porpoises continue to thrive in our waters in such considerable numbers. They take away more merchantable fish in a week tnan could be taken away by any illegal fishing in many seasons.
In the past the poirpoise schools limited their activities to the entrance of the Saguenay or thereabouts. We are therefore convinced that this section was the home of a very intense maritime life for it was sufficient during many centuries to furnish them the quantity of food necessary for life. No biological research has as yet been conducted in this section, but simple observation permits us to state that it is the point on which converged during centuries many species of fish coming from the Atlantic and from the sources of the St, Lawrence. When this fact is more clearly demonstrated, we must assuredly be convinced that the destruction of porpoises interests the maritime provinces and the province of Ontario as well as Quebec, and that therefore the problem is a national one, and consequently a federal one.
From the fact that the porpoises for the last ten years stay less in the district of the Saguenay than for centuries previous, we must conclude that they no longer find sufficient nourishment, and that the river St. Lawrence is so impoverished by their depredations that they are forced to emigrate towards the gulf.
Their destructive work is continually increasing and prevents all profitable fishing operations. It is now common knowledge that many species of fish, which it is claimed go up the river to spawn, have considerably diminished in the last 25 or 50 years.
The government of Quebec undertook to solve this problem but did not succeed; it has, however, become too serious to be abandoned. We can but conclude that the federal parliament alone must see to the removal of a danger which threatens the whole of Canada. When it was a question of lessening the harmful effect of dogfish and seals, etc., affecting the fishing industry of certain provinces, the federal government deemed it proper to intervene; it cannot ignore the problem caused by the presence of porpoises in our waters. Since it concerns the future of the St. Lawrence, the problem is serious enough to warrant the attention of the federal government, on whose part action or cooperation is essential.
In concluding I submit that the federal government, even though the agreement of 1922 be not revised and remain as it is at present, must, in Quebec as well as elsewhere, join in finding a solution for all our fishing problems, and that we also have all possible reasons to claim the organization by it of a modern, competent fishing service, well furnished, and which the provincial government cannot render complete for different reasons.
There exist, I am perfectly convinced, many gaps in our fishing administration, a field of great enterprise where the influence of your department could be beneficently employed and which demands its intervention. To arrive at a practical result I can suggest nothing better, in the first place, than the establishment of a local fisheries bureau in order to establish a contact with our population. This bureau would be the starting point for many other useful enterprises which would develop in due course.
I attach a great importance to the question which I have tried to lay before you, and dare to hope that you will give this problem your prompt and serious attention. I do not doubt that all the members of the province of Quebec will give it their enthusiastic approval.
Hoping to have the occasion of discussing this matter with the expert of your department,
I beg you to accept, dear Mr. Rhodes, my kindest regards,
0. Gagnon.
This letter was sent in April, 1931, and I was pleased later on to see that my recommendations were included in part, although in different terms, in the memorandum submitted to the provincial government in March, 1932, by the fishermen of Bonaven-ture, Gaspe and Saguenay. I can only repeat now to the minister, who loves his province so well and who knows the condition of the fisheries there, the demand I made to his predecessor, and ask him to try his best to remedy the detrimental situation which was brought about by the transfer of maritime fisheries to the government of Quebec in 1922.
Supply-Fisheries

As the hon. member for Bonaventure said a moment ago, in the province of Quebec there is an abnormal situation. The federal government has transferred the whole of the maritime fisheries of the St. Lawrence river to the provincial government; nevertheless, it kept under its supervision and control that part of the maritime fisheries pertaining to the Magdalen islands, which, as you know, belong to the province of Quebec. We find, therefore, on the one hand, that the maritime fisheries of the province of Quebec in the St. Lawrence river have been transferred to the government of that province, while on the other hand, the maritime fisheries in the gulf of St. Lawrence have been transferred to Halifax, because the fisheries of the Magdalen islands in the gulf of St. Lawrence are under the control of Nova Scotia.
It appears, therefore, that this agreement, which was entered into, is not only illegal and ultra vires but is absolutely ridiculous, and it is detrimental to the interests of the fishermen. I appreciate the fact that the minister cannot immediately put an end to that agreement, because it is bilateral: both the federal and the provincial governments are committed to it, so that without first having received a request from the provincial government for its abrogation, the minister cannot put an end to it. I have in my hand documents showing that the provincial government does not at present wish to have the agreement abrogated, but if that is not possible just now, owing to the fact that the government of the province of Quebec does not wish it, nevertheless I think we ought to do something for the fisheries of that province. And one thing which in my opinion is absolutely necessary is the establishment of a fisheries office in Quebec, which would begin to supervise conditions in the province, make a thorough investigation and suggest to the government the proper steps to be taken to meet the situation that exists there.
A moment ago my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni showed some surprise at the figures I gave. I have here the figures showing the revenue of the fishermen of Canada for the year 1930, and I find that the per capita revenue in British Columbia was $1,194.


Alan Webster Neill: Who says that?


Onésime Gagnon: I am giving this from the statistics for 1930.


Alan Webster Neill: But who says it?


Onésime Gagnon: As my hon. friend knows,
the Year Book is published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the articles are not signed. But these figures have been compiled by the technicians and experts of that department. They were taken from the memorandum submitted to the provincial government by the fishermen of Bonaventure and Gaspe. I did not invent these figures myself; they were quoted in the memorandum submitted by the fishermen who asked the provincial government to do something to put an end to the illegal agreement which was entered into in 1922. As I say, the per capita revenue of fishermen in British Columbia for the year 1930 was SI,194, whereas in the province of Quebec it was only $206. According to the officials of the department, during the last ten years the annual average revenue of the fishermen of Quebec has diminished rather than grown. In 1920, the average earnings were $398, while by 1930, they had dropped to $206.
I do not wish to take up the time of the committee any longer except to say that I respond to the invitation given by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) who stated that I ought to ask the government to help the fishermen and farmers of Quebec. I do not intend to ask hon. members to read my speeches, but on April IS last I was courageous enough to ask the government of the day to do for the eastern farmer as much as it was doing for the western farmer.
Before taking my seat, I ask the minister to try to satisfy the fishermen of Quebec and establish a fishery bureau which I know will prove to be as useful as similar establishments which have been created in connection with other departments, especially the, Department of Agriculture. On April 15 last I stated that dual establishment, dual legislation and dual administration in connection with the same subjects were not in the interests of the people. It is absolutely against the public interests for the government of Quebec and the federal government to devote their energies concurrently to the same subjects, but we cannot change the situation brought about by confederation. This situation can be remedied only by calling together as soon as possible a provincial conference to study ways and means of preventing dual

Supply-Fisheries
administration. Until this conference takes place or until other steps are taken to remedy the situation, I think we ought to do for fisheries what we have done for agriculture and other industries.
While it is true the federal government has transferred the administration of fisheries to the province of Quebec, it should still take an interest in the fishermen. Notwithstanding the sympathy the provincial government may have for the fishermen, notwithstanding its desire to help fishermen in general, it is unable to solve the problem. The problem of the fisheries is not only provincial in character, it is national and even international. Every year fishermen come from Newfoundland to fish along the coast of Charlevoix-Saguenay and Gaspe. The provincial authorities are unable to put a stop to this practice; the provincial government has no authority to take any steps to remedy the situation. In 1922 the federal government had a boat equipped for this service, which boat was managed by experts. The gentleman at the head of that particular branch of the department in Quebec was Doctor Bernier, who has a wide knowledge of all questions affecting the fisheries. This gentleman has been in the department for almost ten years and has rendered great service to the fishermen.
I think I have spoken long enough, and I thank the hon. Minister of Fisheries for listening patiently to my remarks. Should he receive a letter from the provincial government, I ask the minister to rise above party prejudices and recognize that this is not only a provincial problem but rather one that is national in scope. I ask him to forget party differences and to do his best to help the provincial authorities in this regard.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) and to the attack he made upon the administration of fisheries by the government of the province of Quebec. Whatever may have been his object in making that attack he certainly was far afield in his comparisons to show the results of the administration. The hon. member pointed out that in 1930 the earning capacity of the average fisherman in British Columbia was SI,194 as compared with $206 for the average fisherman in Quebec, but he failed to throw the proper light upon this subject by giving the earning capacity of the average fisherman in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where the fisheries are under the control of the federal government. If he
had given those figures the committee would have seen that the same conditions prevail in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that he says prevail in Quebec.
The hon. member stated that every fall fishermen from Newfoundland come and fish in Quebec waters but he knows quite well that the vessels do not come for fish; they are engaged in the sealing business. The hon. member should have told the committee that under the decision of the privy council the province of Quebec has absolutely nothing to do with fishing outside the three mile limit; that is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. He should also have told the committee that so far as regulations for the administration of fisheries are concerned the provincial government has nothing at all to do with the laying down, the adopting and the putting into force of regulations for the conservation of fisheries. That matter is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and althought the provincial government has taken over the care of the fisheries, in the final analysis it has nothing to do with passing or adopting regulations for the conservation of fish.


Onésime Gagnon: That is exactly what I said.


Peter John Veniot: Far from it. Having referred to the inconsistent attitude of the hon. gentleman in connection with his comparisons, let me now come to another point.
I wish it to be distinctly understood that any remarks which I have made in connection with Malagash or any other salt manufactured in Canada were not made with the intention of knocking the industry.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: The hon. member knows nothing about it.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member says I know nothing about it, but he knows less. If the hon. gentleman had wanted to be fair in dealing with the salt question he would have told this committee that complaints have been so numerous in connection with the use of Malagash salt that the government has instituted an investigation to be carried on by the biological branch. That branch has not as yet obtained sufficient evidence to permit its submitting an official report. It would never have been called upon to make this investigation-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Will my hon. friend place himself on record as being opposed to the use of Malagash salt by the fishermen of Nova Scotia?
Supply-Fisheries


Peter John Veniot: I am not talking about the fisheries in Nova Scotia.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, the hon. member is talking about salt and he is opposed to Malagash salt.


Peter John Veniot: I say that at present the fishermen cannot use Malagash salt to advantage.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. member is trying to destroy that industry.


Peter John Veniot: Let the hon. gentleman hold his peace.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I think the hon. gentleman was in the house when I read a telegram from the fisheries experimental station at Halifax.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I was, and I am talking about the biological board.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That is under the biological board.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman read a telegram from that station. He should have procured his information from the Department of Fisheries. As he is in Ottawa, he needs only to call up by telephone to find out what the report in that department is. That is the official report and it is what should have been read in the house rather than these telegrams. Let me proceed: The hon. gentleman read a letter from the McCormack firm in St. John, but he told the committee that they were putting up smoked herring and gaspereau. I have no complaint to make against Malagash salt in the conservation of smoked herring and gaspereau.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. member is now taking back what he said.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman kindly keep his peace Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to order. I am taking nothing back. I do not have to do so.


Finlay MacDonald: I should like to call the attention of the committee to this rule:
Sometimes there are a number of items in a resolution. Each item may then, if the committee think proper, be taken up as a distinct question, and so discussed and amended. The debate in such a case must be strictly relevant to the item, and when it has been disposed of, no reference can be again made to it when the subsequent items are under consideration.
This item refers to salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries
I Mr. Macdougall.]
patrol and fisheries protection services. I think the debate has gone somewhat far afield and I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the item before the chair.


Peter John Veniot: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but when I am hitting back at arguments that have been advanced all afternoon, I do not think you should shut me off. I intend to continue meeting those arguments until such time as the chair orders me to sit down. I do not intend to take up much time if the hon. member for Inverness will just hold his peace for a while and let me proceed.
I was referring to the letter read from the McCormack firm in Saint John. They put up smoked herring and gaspereau. They admit that the brine derived from Malagash salt has a scum over it. That will not injure the smoked herring, nor will it be noticed after the herring is taken out of the brine and prepared for the market by smoking, nor will it injure nor detract from the value of the gaspereau treated in the same way. By that scum and by the colour it leaves on the salted cod, there is injury done not so much to the cod salted and prepared for drying and dried for the market as to the cod caught and put up in the fall of the year, what, we call half-prepared or half-cured cod for the Brazilian, Italian and Portugese markets. That is where the Malagash salt becomes injurious to the cod fisheries of northern New Brunswick.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Peter John Veniot: No, I will permit no question.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: How long is the
hon. member going to continue this?


Peter John Veniot: Sit down!


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I shall not. I do
not want to have an industry in Nova Scotia blackguarded by the hon. member or anyone else who does not know what he is talking about.


Peter John Veniot: I want that word "blackguarded" taken back.


Finlay MacDonald: I think that word should be withdrawn.


Peter John Veniot: I want it withdrawn now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Peter John Veniot: Withdraw.

Supply-Fisheries


Finlay MacDonald: I think the hon. member
should withdraw that expression "blackguarded."


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not wish to
see a member from New Brunswick decrying an industry that is capable of development.


Peter John Veniot: That is not a withdrawal.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not wish to
cause any trouble, but I want to see this industry developed in Nova Scotia and I am sure no member from one of the other maritime provinces would try to oppose its development.


Peter John Veniot: I want that word "blackguarded" withdrawn.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Certainly, I withdraw it, but the hon. member is not doing anything to assist the development of the industry in Nova Scotia.


Peter John Veniot: I am not decrying the
Malagash salt industry, but I am just as much concerned in defending the rights of the fishing industry in my province as the hon. member from Nova Scotia is in defending the industry in his province. If we are compelled to bring in Malagash salt and use it in the fishing industry in New Brunswick, the use of that salt will lessen the value of our cod on the market because of the discolouration that takes place in the brine. Everybody admits there is a scum and that scum will discolour, especially the cod caught late in the fall of the year. That cod should be almost perfectly white in order to command on the market the price that it should receive. The price is diminished by reason of the fact that that white cod is discoloured by the Malagash salt. That is the only objection I have to its use; I am not objecting to its use in the conservation of herring.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I think it
was admitted in one of the telegrams I read from a firm that they found this sediment or discolouration material, but they have abandoned that seam' and are working a new seam which is absolutely clear and without sediment.


Peter John Veniot: I have no proof of that to
warrant any person using it and that is the reason, if I mistake not, that the Department of Fisheries ordered an investigation of which they have not yet received the final report. I am positive that if the time comes when scientific research shows that that sediment no longer exists, our New Brunswick fishermen will use the Malagash salt. But
they will not use it in any quantity until they are sure that its use is not going to destroy the cash value of the product they put on the market. That is all I wish to say now in respect to that or anything else connected with the fisheries.
As regards the sales tax and excise tax we shall discuss them on their merits in their proper place, when they come before the house.


Alfred Duranleau: I wish to say only a word of explanation. I do not intend to make long comments on all the statements made by the different speakers, but I consider the hon. member for Dorchester deserves our congratulations for the able speech he made to the committee this afternoon. He is keenly interested in the fishing industry in this country. At the beginning of his remarks, he asked the Minister of Fisheries whether any communication had been received from the Minister of Fisheries of Quebec in regard to the cooperation that was suggested by a resolution adopted by this house about a month ago. I answered, not to my knowledge. I was speaking from memory and, of course, subject to correction. Since the question was put, although it is Saturday afternoon, I had somebody call at my office and make a search, and my secretary tells me that during the first days of May a letter was received from the Minister- of Fisheries in the province of Quebec, Mr. La Ferte, relating to the resolution which was adapted by this house and to which I referred a moment ago, and stating that there were difficulties in the way of the administration of fisheries in the province of Quebec, and asking for the cooperation of the federal authorities on the lines suggested by the resolution. I want to make that correction immediately in order to be fair to the Minister of Fisheries in the province of Quebec.


Mr. POWER:: If the hon. minister had
only known that two hours ago we might have got nearer to prorogation.


Alfred Duranleau: This matter has been left in abeyance pending the end of the session, which has been expected from day to day during the last few days. I can assure the committee that as soon as we are relieved of the heavy work of the session I shall immediately take the matter up with the Department of Fisheries at Quebec, and any assistance or cooperation that can be given by this government to the province will be given. I can understand that the duality of administration of fisheries in the
Supply

Fisheries

province of Quebec makes the situation perhaps somewhat difficult, but nevertheless we will do our utmost to help the provincial authorities with a view to ameliorating the situation in the interests of the fisheries of that province.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I certainly do not feel
lake making any apology for saying a few words about the fisheries of the central part of Canada after all that we have heard about the fisheries of the maritime provinces, of Quebec and of British Columbia. It may surprise some hon. members to know that there are deep sea fish in the waters of Hudson bay and James bay. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) accused me of not knowing anything about fish. I may not know as much about fish as he does, but nevertheless I believe that the report that was made in 1930 on the fisheries of Hudson bay is not a fair report. I protested against it last year to the then Minister of Marine, and he promised that a further inquiry would be made when a proper base for operations was established. There is now no longer any need for delay, for Fort Churchill can be used as a base for fishing operations during the whole summer. I believe that in what I am going to say on this matter I shall have the backing, as I had last year, of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). We who live in northern Ontario or northern Quebec or north-'ern Manitoba know that there are not only fresh water fish in the river estuaries but also salt water fish in the waters of the Hudson bay and James bay. Last year the Minister of Railways told me that he was willing and ready to cover with gold any deep sea fish that would be caught in the Hudson bay waters, and I believe that I am going to be a wealthy man, Mr. Chairman, because now we have positive proof that there exist in the Hudson bay and James bay deep sea fish. I quote from the Ottawa Morning Journal of September 12, 1931, a Canadian Press despatch by direct wire:
The Pas, Man., Sept. 11.-There is a great future for the fishing industry in Hudson bay, in the opinion of John Ingebrechtson, who with a crew of eight men sailed a 30-foot fishing smack over Canada's inland 6ea this summer.
Four samples of commercial fish taken by net from the waters of the bay have been forwarded here by the experienced fishman together with a letter telling of his experiences. The most prolific species of fish encountered, he wrote, is a pink salmon of fine quality. Hie men hauled in several hundred pounds of salmon in one fishing field far north of Churchill, and there was apparently no limit to the quantity there.
The nine men left The Pas on May 27, with their small craft, which was launched at

Churchill early in June. The crew spent three months on the bay testing various fields. For the most part their efforts were confined to waters north and northeast of Churchill, and they did not visit the southerly portion.
The first profitable field was found two hundred miles north of Churchill, where salmon ranged two and a half to three feet in length.
I commended the government for appropriating in 1930 a certain amount of money for making an inquiry into the fisheries in Hudson bay. I criticized the report that was made of the operations then conducted and the very small amount of time that was spent in fishing operations. I aim going to quote one paragraph of that report. It is entitled: "A preliminary report of the investigations of the Hudson bay and strait fisheries expedition of 1930 by H. B. Hachey, officer in charge." Speaking of the time spent in actual fishing operations the report says:
The record of fishing operations furnishes the particulars of the actual fishing done. Hand lines were used at several points for seven hours and fifteen minutes.
Seven hours and fifteen minutes to cover an area of seven hundred square miles of salt water! The report continues:
Drift-bets -were used for twelve hours. Long lines were used for two hours and fifty-five minutes, and trawling operations were carried on for fifty-seven hours and fifty minutes. As a result of the total work covering the whole of Hudson bay not a single commercial fish was taken.
I objected to that report last year, as did my hon. friend from Nelson because it would be absolutely impossible in that length of time to discover the actual situation in Hudson bay. I appreciated the promise of the Minister of Railways last year that other parties would be sent to find out what was the actual situation in Hudson bay with regard to fish. I have in my hand a clipping from the Kapuskasing Tribune of last year to the effect that aeroplanes were heading for James bay, and later on they landed at Moose Factory, where fisheries were going to be developed. The despatch goes on:
During the first week of April a second plane visited Moose, this time alighting on the Moose harbour side. It brought in a party of the Moose River Fishing Syndicate, who have established themselves at this point.
Last fall in speaking of this matter with some of the officials in Cochrane and North Bay the mining engineer of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway told me that there was a report in the hands of the federal government with reference to certain investigations that had taken place in years past with regard to the fisheries in the Hudson bay,' and after making inquiry I received a copy of this

Supply-Fisheries
report from the Department of Fisheries. It is entitled, "Reports on fisheries investigations in Hudson and James bays and tributary waters."
I am going to make a few citations so that the house will realize that there are both fresh water and salt water fish in Hudson bay. I wish to remove any wrong impression that there may be in this regard. It has always seemed strange to me that whenever new developments are proposed to be undertaken in that northern country there are people who view the proposals with skepticism. I remember the campaign that was conducted against bringing the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway through the territory through which it now runs, which was described as a country of stunted poplar and bottomless muskeg. The same skepticism is observable to-day with regard to the natural resources in Hudson bay and James bay.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: What is the date of that report?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: 1914. At page 24 the report, speaking of codfish, which is a salt water fish, says:
Cod are known to occur in Hudson bay. A few schooners from St. John's fish in Hudson straits and Ungava bay every year. There would apparently be, therefore, no reason why these fish should not exist in larger quantities than have yet been found.
As I stated a moment ago, the operations that were conducted in Hudson bay in 1930, covering only a few days, were too brief to allow the real situation to be discovered. They had to cover seven hundred square miles of water in a period of about two weeks. At page 34 of this report I find this:
The other species of the west coast are not of a great deal of economic importance; rock-cod occur in the bay and it is said that the true cod does also, but there is no record of a single specimen of either of them ever having been found on the west coast.
Besides the strictly fish wealth, there are other forms of marine life possessed of considerable value; one such is the white whale, another is the seal. The former occurs in great numbers and as he is quite valuable for his oil,-of which he yields 100 gallons each, it may be expected that an industry founded on his products will develop as soon as the market is brought near enough to the place of production. The seal is not the fur seal but its hide makes extraordinary waterproof bags, boots, gun-covers, and so on.
I could give many other quotations from this report proving clearly that there are salt water fish in those waters. Speaking of seals the report says:
At certain periods, notably in September, when the fish enter the rivers, seals follow them up. In the western portion of the bay
visited they all appeared to be of one species, which I take to be the "barbed seal," Erignatus barbatus. I shot three of them, but unfortunately secured only one which floated some days later and was partly eaten by bears.
This proves that there are fish in commercial quantities in Hudson bay. I believe the administration is sympathetic towards the development of this great natural resource. In the report of 1914 it was said that it was almost impossible to develop any fisheries in Hudson bay because of the lack of communication; but to-day with the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario terminus at Moosomee and the Hudson bay railway terminus at Churchill, a twenty-four hour service could be given to the markets of Montreal and Toronto for any fish caught in James bay and Hudson bay. I hope the government will find it possible to extend the exploratory work that they so well started in 1930. Last year the present Minister of Finance said that once a proper basis was established at Hudson bay this exploratory work would be extended. As I have already stated, with these two railroad terminals, it would be very easy to continue the survey work with a few flat-bottomed boats, and to test the commercial possibilities of the fisheries by the use of one or two trawlers stationed at those points. I know that the Minister of Railways, although a northern Ontario man, does not believe very much in the fisheries of Hudson bay.


Mr. MANION:: I understand my hon. friend quoted me a few minutes ago when I was not in the house. I should be glad if he would tell me what he said.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I suppose the Minister of Railways was speaking in a jocular vein, but towards the end of last session when we were going up in the elevator he told me he would pay their weight in gold for any salt water fish caught in Hudson bay.


Robert James Manion: I take exception to that statement. I never in my life, either in a private conversation or publicly, said anything of the kind. If my hon. friend desires to quote my views with respect to the fishing possibilities in Hudson bay, I wish he would rely on a speech or public statement of some kind, because I do not care to be quoted on the strength of some conversation, whether real or imaginary.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then I will take those words back, although I think they were uttered, I told the minister at the time that I hoped he would be wealthy enough some day to make good his promise. I am glad to realize that the Minister of Railways thinks there are salt water fish in Hudson bay.
Supply-Fisheries


Robert James Manion: Not only do I believe there are salt water fish in Hudson bay, but when at Churchill last summer I very much enjoyed eating some presented to me by the member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt).


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am very happy to have my views corroborated by the Minister of Railways, who says he has actually eaten some salt water fish taken from Hudson bay. This is absolutely in contradiction of the statement made in the report of 1930, that not a single fish of commercial value had been caught. That is why I object so strongly to that report, which is a slur on the fisheries of the whole of northern Canada. Surely anyone lopking at that great inland sea would never conclude that Providence had not blessed it with a single fish of commercial value. I believe the new minister has the development of our fisheries at heart. In northern Ontario we are inclined to think that the maritime provinces and British Columbia-at least that is the talk on the street-are afraid lest the fisheries in Hudson bay may be developed to their detriment by reason of the railroad service that is now available. I hope the minister is now in a position to promise that effective steps will be taken in the very near future to develop these fisheries.


Alfred Duranleau: As I did not expect the question of the Hudson bay fisheries would be discussed this afternoon, I am not prepared to answer my hon. friend in detail. I am told that we could not send any important fishing expedition to those waters until in 1930 a cold storage base was established at Churchill. Then we hired a trawler with the best captain and crew we could get, and instructed them to ascertain whether there were fish in commercial quantities in those waters. My hon. friend contends that they did not fish long enough to be able to make a conclusive'report. I am told that the trawler was sent there in the middle of July and remained until the end of August; that is, the trawler was there as early as possible in the season and remained as late as possible. Of course, the crew could not work very long hours, but I am told they did their best to ascertain to what extent there was fish sufficient to develop an industry. As long as I am in control of this department I promise my hon. friend that I will examine the possibilities of doing something more along the lines already attempted.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. members for Shelburne-Yarmouth, and Digby-Annapolis and the Minister of Finance made some reference in their speeches to the proposed sales tax

on coverings. This is a matter of very great importance not only to the fishermen, but also to the farmers, fruit growers and others who have to purchase barrels and similar containers. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth stated it would be impracticable for the fishermen who placed their catch in barrels to get a refund because it would be utterly impossible for any particular seller of fish who did not himself export them to determine in what proportions they were exported and sold for domestic consumption. I have brought this problem to the attention of the Minister of Finance by correspondence, as he knows. I have set out in detail the great difficulty which I think there will be in operating the refund provisions of the sales tax proposals with regard to barrels for apples and potatoes, and I do not want to say anything more about it now except this: I hope the Minister of Finance, when the ways and means resolutions are reached, will explain to the committee how these refund provisions can be operated. I hope he will drop the tax on coverings, because I do not see how it can be productive of anything other than injustice. I am not speaking now particularly of the burden; I am speaking of the impossibility of the refund going to the people who pay the tax, and I trust the minister will go into that matter fully so that the primary producers, whether they be those of farm or sea products, will know what steps to take to get back the sales tax they pay on the ceverings of that part of their product which is exported from the country, because that is the intention of the provisions.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I am glad to join with the hon. member for North Timiskaming, who made such an eloquent plea for a further investigation of the fisheries of Hudson bay. I spoke on this matter last year, and I think I furnished the department with sufficient information to satisfy anyone as to the existence of fish in large quantities in Hudson bay. I do not depend entirely on documentary evidence; I have lived in that country for eighteen years, and I think I know something of its resources. I had occasion again this year to write the minister asking him to carry on a further investigation.
Last year an investigation was carried on by a party from The Pas, who took out a small boat thirty-four feet long, with an inboard motor of about eight horsepower, and cruised up and down the bay. They caught about all the fish they could possibly bring in. Now they have gone about as far as they can go and now they need some help. I

Supply-Fisheries
asked the minister if the department could not see its way clear to send in a trawler to make a proper investigation by cruising down one side of the bay and up the other. His reply to me is rather painful. I do not know where the minister gets his information; I realize that he is new to the job and possibly the game is strange to him, but I must say that whoever supplies his information do not know very much about fishing in Hudson bay. In one paragraph of his letter the minister states:
My advice is that there never has been any question that fish exist in the portions of the bay about the estuaries of the rivers. The investigations made in 1930 bear this out. These fish are from the lakes and rivers that are tributary to the bay, as in these northern latitudes practically all the fresh water fish run down the rivers into the salt water during the summer months.
That is the paragraph to which I wish to take exception. In all fairness and in all kindness I wish to say to the minister that if he expects me to take a statement like that lying down he does not know the member for Nelson. The men who were carrying on this investigation last year, as I said, got a boat load of true salmon, not salmon trout. The Minister of Railways has told the committee that he'had a treat when he ate some of this fish, as well as some of the herring that have been caught there as well. As a matter of fact the herring the minister ate was taken from the water by myself and delivered to his car, so it was really fresh when he got it. Of course the salmon was salted, as the fishermen could not keep it. After doing some local work around Churchill, where, however, they could not expect to get many fish because of the dredging, they took this small boat and cruised about two hundred or two hundred and fifty miles up the bay. For the benefit of the committee I will read one or two extracts from the report. On the 18th of June they caught 210 pounds of salmon around the harbour, and after that they sailed up the bay almost as far as Chesterfield inlet. On that trip they caught 1,150 pounds of salmon, 3,430 pounds of salmon trout and 2,060 pounds of cisco, which is a type of herring. The report continues:
Having caught their load around Sentry island the Utto Sverdrup continued north to make further explorations. They went as far as Dawson inlet, which lies approximately fifty miles to the north of Eskimo point.
That would be about 200 miles north of Churchill. .
In the Dawson inlet region they again caught salmon. Likewise they caught a few cod as they did further south. They did not remain long in this region but prepared to return to Churchill with their load.
All along the coast the bay waters are full of capling, a species of the herring family. It is believed the white whale feeds almost entirely on these. The salmon and the cod feed on them also.
These capling were to be found wherever they sailed. In places where they anchored in shallow water and could see to the bottom, in some instances a depth of 20 feet, they sighted immense schools of capling.
With reference to this trawling expedition that went into the bay I appreciate the efforts of the government in that connection. I think they were sincere, but whoever instructed that trawler certainly did not know very much about Hudson bay. They were instructed to go to the centre of the bay and cruise up and down in water hundreds of fathoms deep. These are bank fish, as they are in Nova Scotia and everywhere else, and that trawler should have cruised up and down the banks on the east and west side. The minister has stated that this was the very best captain and the very best boat obtainable. I have nothing to say in that regard, but in my opinion it was more of a Cook's tour than a fishing expedition. They were very well stocked with something that brought them lots of cheer, and I am credibly informed that some of it was sold around Churchill at a very good figure. So after all this trawling expedition which has been mentioned so often was only a number of men having a good time at the expense of the government. I do not blame the government for that, however; I think they were sincere in their endeavour to locate fish.
The east side of the bay, which is in Quebec and in which hon. members of that province will probably be interested, has a shore line of approximately 1,200 miles. There is deep water on the east coast and it is said the fish are much more plentiful there than on the west coast, but when I am told by the minister that the fish go into the fresh water and that they are fresh water fish, all I can say is that whoever gave him that advice did not know what they were talking about. They are not fresh water fish; they do not go into the fresh water lakes in the winter, after spending the summer in the bay. Neither do the white whales, of which there are thousands, go up into fresh water; neither do the seals, of which there are also thousands. These are both the small hair seals weighing from 25 to 50 pounds and the great grey seals weighing up to 750 pounds. The same applies to all the other mammals. Often you will see as many as 200 walrus weighing up to a ton each, on the islands along the east coast. These mammals live exclusively on fish, and I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that if there were no fish in the bay,
Supply-Fisheries

these seals, walrus and white whales would not be there. At any tide at Churchill or Nelson you can see from a hundred to a hundred and fifty white whales coming in; I have seen as many as a thousand come in with a shoal of these oapling which they were chasing. So that it is utterly ridiculous to say that these are fresh water fish that simply run down the bay in the summer and go back into the fresh water lakes to spend the winter. I trust that the minister will make an endeavour to correct that foolish statement. I should very much regret to have such a statement made to anybody else besides myself, because it would certainly make him and his department appear very foolish.
I might read an extract from some of the evidence given by Doctor Edward E. Prince, former Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries. As government inspector of fisheries, he knew what he was talking about, I take it. At page 43 of the report of the Senate investigation in regard to Hudson bay and strait, Mr. Prince states:
I have for twenty-five years paid special attention to Hudson bay fishery resources. I have been to Nelson river, north of the Pas, and west, in what you might call the basin of Hudson bay. I went overland, not by Hudson strait.
In regard to fish, he says:
The true salmon does not appear to be frequent in Hudson bay. Its northern limit is, I think, Ungava bay. The Hudson bay salmon is called Hearn's salmon, after the British explorer Hearn, which runs from two to eighteen pounds. They are very abundant; they are a migratory fish and go in and out into the bay and up the rivers again. . . . Then there is a sea trout and flat fish. There is also the large white fish. White fish are typical fresh water fish, but in Hudson bay quantities come down and hang about the estuary. They are valuable food; they range up to six pounds. Then there is the lesser white fish, sometimes called herring, corresponding to the so-called lake herring, which are quite abundant. They are better than the sea herring, having less bone. Then there are gold-eye herring and true herring, and ling. Ling belongs to the cod family. It is a very ugly fish with a large head, something like a white fish.
This is from one who was an officer of the minister's department. I could go on reading documentary evidence for the next two hours, but all I ask the minister to do is to make a further investigation and find out for his own information and for the benefit of the government and of the country as a whole, just what exists in that bay, which is 750 miles long and 500 miles wide.
In regard to fish, the captain of one of the grain boats told me last fall that outside the strait he saw French and German vessels . 
fishing. He informed me the French vessels were always there but that, so far as he knew, that was the first time any German vessels had come there to fish. I do not think it is an unreasonable inference that these vessels were attracted to those fishing grounds because of the good catches they could make, for they would hardly come all the way from Germany and France merely for the sake of the scenery. They were there because the fishing was good. I am not familiar with the east side of the bay, but I have here an article that appeared in the Northern Miner, by Louis Martineau, who told of his experiences covering twenty-eight years in that country. I will read one or two extracts with reference to fish. He says:
The salmon fisheries on the east side of the bay could easily support two large canners, Mr. Martineau stated. He had caught 100 salmon ill an hour with hook and line, and at the rivers they could be readily scooped out of the water with paddles.
Lobsters and other crustaceans are found on the east coast for one thousand miles, and Mr. Martineau has also picked up oyster shells, which would indicate beds of these bivalves. There are other mussels of all kinds in abundance. The lakes are full of salmon, white fish, and even eels are fairly plentiful.
Seals are in Hudson bay by the millions, said Mr. Martineau, seals of at least half a dozen varieties. There were the great grey seals that weigh up_ to 500 pounds, other varieties that go from 50 to 125 pounds in weight, and the small seals that weigh from 15 to 30 pounds.
Walrus are numerous in some sections, and because of its extreme thickness the hides are sought for making the heaviest machine belting.
Porpoises abound in the bay and there are easily enough of them there to break the United States monopoly on the extremely fine oil that is extracted from these fish, and that is used for watches and extremely fine precision instruments.
I do not need to go further, but I hope the minister will make it his business to get first-hand data before he writes more letters like the one to which I have referred, as he might innocently do that district a great injustice if it was circulated.


Mr. MacLEAN:: There is a vote of $11,000 for oyster culture, and I may tell the minister that we have been proceeding with this work in the province of Prince Edward Island for the last few years. In 1928 an agreement was entered into whereby the federal government took over and started to develop the great oyster areas which we had had there for a number of years. In 1924 a similar agreement had been drawn up, but it was never signed by the department. The 1924 agreement was prepared by the Hon. J. D. Stewart and the members of his provincial cabinet, and the present minister (Mr. Duranleau) was good

Supply-Fisheries
enough to send me from his office copies both of that agreement and of the later agreement made in 1928. The two agreements are practically identical. I do not think there are any powers in the one which cannot be found in the other. The point with regard to which I should like to have some information from the minister is in connection with the policy of the department. Clause 9 reads exactly the same in both agreements. Let me quote it:
The dominion shall inform the province as to any policy intended to be adopted by the former for the encouragement and development of the oyster or other mollusc industry as soon as such policy is decided upon, as well as of any changes that may from time to time be made in such policy as such changes are decided upon.
Under that clause, when the federal Department of Fisheries decided upon a certain policy, whether in respect to leasing areas or anything else, it was intended that before putting such policy into effect they should consult with the provincial government for their approval. I understand that last season the department decided on the policy of leasing areas, and that before they embarked upon that policy, in conformity with section 9, which, as I say, is the same in both agreements, they consulted with the provincial government. After that consultation they proceeded to lease areas.
No doubt either the minister or his deputy is familiar with both agreements. Is it the minister's opinion that the two agreements are identical in the powers they contain, or does he think that there are in either agreement certain powers that are not conferred by the other? So far as I can find out, both agreements are the same. I have before me copies of both, and after examining them carefully I cannot find any difference between them so far as the powers they confer are concerned. I should like to know from the minister whether his department consulted with the provincial authorities last year, and whether as a result of that consultation they proceeded, in accordance with the terms of section 9 of the agreement, to lease areas as the policy of the department.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
that there was a consultation between the Department of Fisheries and the authorities on the island before these notices for leases were issued, and it was agreed that the policy would be as outlined in the notices published in 1931 in the Charlottetown Guardian, the Patriot and other papers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $136,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a few words on this vote. I ask the minister to consider instituting a policy of bonusing for the processing of dogfish. I realize that the granting of bonuses is a common thing nowadays, and I think in this case it is fully justified. Dogfish are worse than sharks as far as destructive powers are concerned. They not only eat fish but they destroy the nets. Sharks will destroy a net if they happen to get into one, but they do not frequent the waters where the nets are ordinarily used.
I should like to cite an instance of a reduction plant which made an effort to reduce the number of these fish. This plant was conducted by a cannery company in an effort to keep its men employed. No charge was made for overhead but it was found there was a loss of $2 per ton on 3,200 tons of fish processed. Patriotism is all right but when it comes to a loss of $2 per ton it cannot be kept up very long. This plant spent $27,000, and in addition it expended $7,000 for white labour. Some $15,000 was spent for fish, some of which were caught by Japanese. The continued operation of such a plant would not only keep men employed in these days of unemployment but would prove of great benefit to the fishing industry. The argument is often used that dogfish are all over the Pacific, and I suppose in the Atlantic, and that it would be about as useless to try to kill them off as it would be to pump out the ocean. That seems to be a plausible argument but I think real experience shows otherwise. The waters of the ocean are not inhabited by so many fish per square mile or square yard; the different fish frequent certain areas and if they are destroyed in that area their' absence is noticed for quite a long while. A reduction plant was started down on the San Juan islands south of British Columbia but they were unable to get sufficient fish from the neighbouring waters although they are contiguous to the waters of the gulf of Georgia to which I refer.
I can quote another instance in the case of whales. Whaling was indulged in very extensively a number of years ago and was found to be very profitable. Three stations were built on the west coast of Vancouver island and it was then decided to build one on the gulf of Georgia. It had been noticed that the whales were numerous between the island and the mainland, they were seen to

Supply-Fisheries

be blowing all over the place and it was thought that a great harvest could be got from these comparatively sheltered waters. However, they were able to catch only nineteen, I think it was, whales; that was the total population, so to speak, of whales in that area, and it was many years before the outside whales started to come in again, I think either ten or twelve years. That supports the point I am trying to make, that if you vigorously prosecute the taking of these dogfish in the gulf of Georgia they would not immediately rush in from some other portions of the Pacific coast. Sea lions are destroyed and although the whole Pacific ocean is open to them; their destruction has proved very beneficial to the local gill net-ters.
The particular reduction plant to which I refer was only paying the fisherman S3 per ton for the fish. The fisherman could not make a living at that rate, and even with that small price paid, the plant could not pay its way. The suggestion offered is that the men should be given a bonus of SI per ton and the reduction plant 50 cents per ton in order to enable it to operate. I should like to give some figures to show how beneficial the operation of this plant would prove. The 3,200 tons processed by this plant represents roughly 400,000 dogfish. According to the last report of the Department of Fisheries the number of salmon caught last year of record was 37,000,000. These dogfish have the playful habit of coming along and taking a bite out of the best portion of a salmon. Of course the salmon dies. Then when the dogfish feels like having another appetizer, it attacks another salmon. I think it is fair to say that each dogfish would kill at least four salmon per day. Taking this figure, the number of dogfish processed would have destroyed in one year sixteen times the total catch of salmon last year.	[DOT]
The department exists for the purpose of stimulating and encouraging the fishing industry, and I do not know of a better way they could carry out this purpose. This vote is for the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, and I think it would cover the bonus to which I refer. If not, there is another vote lower down on the page where $160,000 is to be authorized by statute for fishing bounty. This is the vote which always brings a blush of shame to the honest countenances of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) and the Chairman (Mr. MacDonald, Cape
fMr. Neill.l
Breton South). I notice that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis said very emphatically this afternoon that he was opposed to bounties, but under this item we find him subscribing to a bounty of $160,000, to which he is not entitled.


Harry Bernard Short: That is a bounty provided by statute and one which we have had for fifty years.


Alan Webster Neill: And paid for out of the federal treasury.


Harry Bernard Short: That did not cost this country a dollar. It was paid for by the government of the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: That is an old, old story, and I really think the hon. member has come to believe it. After long years of malfeasance one sometimes comes to believe in a thing. That sum is taken out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada every year. There is no reason why it should not be used for the purpose for which it was voted in the act, I think, of 1882, namely, for the development of fisheries. I know, however, this is a sore point with my hon. friend and I shall say nothing more about it at present. I. was only' pointing out that here would be a real, practical use for it. I do not think even my hon. friends will claim that the present use of that bounty is to the best interest even of the fishermen to whom it goes. It is handed out in small amounts and the Cockfield Brown report says that it should be used for some more general purpose ; that was the only practical suggestion in the report. In any case that would be a place where this money could be used in a very practical way and it certainly would be cheaper to spend the money in that manner and help fishermen to help themselves rather than that we should have to put them on relief. A fisherman is almost like a doctor. He knows his business; he has been brought up to it for, generations and he is not accustomed to other work; he would be about as much at home doing manual work on a road as a doctor or a lawyer would be. Why not help him to help himself? If you gave this assistance, you could measure it in dollars; when you go in for direct relief, you do not know where the cost is going to end. This policy would enable people to help themselves, and I know of no better way in which money could be used than to help workless people to help themselves. This reduction plant, very much to their credit be

Supply-Fisheries
it said, made a vigorous effort to meet the situation and to assist the fishermen over the gap between seasons. But I have a certificate audited by a firm of auditors showing that the loss was very substantial; in fact, as I said, it ran to about $2 a ton.
The principle of bonusing cannot be denied, because we have bonuses on wheat and coal, and already to-day we have had suggestions that the Atlantic fishermen should also receive a bonus. I am not opposing that. If we are going in for that kind of protection, it should not be confined to one class. I do not expect the minister to do this out of hand, but he or his successor, if they appoint a permanent Minister of Fisheries, should look into this question and see if it will not pay. Some years ago something of this kind was done on the Atlantic coast, but perhaps they did not have the proper equipment. There is now a growing market for the meal and I understand some use has been found for the oil made from dogfish livers. Would the minister kindly look during the recess into this phase of the situation and see whether he cannot help out this industry, which otherwise must absolutely perish? I forgot to say that the plant to which I have been alluding has written me that it has had to shut down; it could not carry on any longer. If it had been able to continue, this would have meant a great deal of. work for people who would otherwise be very hard up, and it would also have materially assisted in conserving the supply of salmon we want to catch for human use. It would do as much good as a whole army of officials guarding rivers and creeks, because it would have done away with an enormous number of these dogfish. I think any hon. member who knows the destructiveness of these fish will confirm what I say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of bounty for the destruction of hair seals in tidal waters, $40,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry to see that this
item has been cut down by ten per cent. That means that we are going to slacken our activities in doing away with one of these enemies to which I have already alluded. It is poor economy, after you have paid a heavy bounty lor many years for the destruction of panthers and wild animals of that description, to stop paying the bounty and let the enemies breed again. As regards these hair seals, when you shoot them they immediately sink, so that.
41761-204 J
although the bounty is $2 apiece, you may really kill three seals before you get the bounty for two, because it is so difficult to retrieve the animal.
I should like also to speak of the annual hunt for sea lions. The statement has been made that, on account of the expense, the abandonment of this hunt has been under consideration. There is, however, very little expense involved; the hunt is conducted by means of government patrol boats and almost entirely by members of the crews; they are on patrol in any case and they are doing an effective work. In this manner thousands, yes, tens of thousands of dollars are saved to the fishermen. It was definitely noted that the very year, almost the very month this patrol boat first began to destroy these sea lions off the Virgin islands, I think it is, there was a marked diminution in the number of fishermen's nets destroyed in the rivers and inlets. A net costs from $300 to $400, and to have it torn to pieces the first night it is put out, is a serious matter. It is said that we must be humane to these animals. That is all very well, but the people who say that do not think about the poor fisherman and his net which is destroyed and for which he has paid a very heavy price including duty. Nature, so to speak, keeps the balance by propagating these enemies, but when man comes in and takes an enormous toll on the salmon for human food, you no longer need the enemies, and unless you destroy the latter, you will obliterate the useful species. I can assure the minister the fishermen are grateful for the action of the government in thus assisting them year after year. I hope he will continue this and not pay any attention to those who call these sea lions innocent animals. You might as well talk about an innocent tiger.
There is just one other word I should like to say. I throw it out as a suggestion that will have to be dealt with by the minister or his department sooner or later. The time is rapidly coming when, in the interest of the British Columbia salmon industry, we shall have to renounce the treaty made with the United States, Russia, and, I think, Japan, to stop pelagic fur sealing. As the committee is aware, a treaty was made lasting for fifteen years and at the end of that time it was to continue automatically unless notice of six months or a year was given. It worked very well for a long time, but now the seals have
Supply-Fisheries

increased so much they are beginning to be a considerable menace to the fish. They pass up the coast in the months of May and June in enormous numbers. Gunboats are sent out by both ourselves and the United States to see that they are not poached upon during that time. They breed on the rookeries. A limited number are killed by the United States, but they have increased enormously They are just as destructive as or even more so than the hair seal, and they come along just as the salmon begin to be valuable, cleaning everything in front of them. The day will come when the government will have to consider seriously renouncing that treaty and allowing these fur seals to be taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment to the Leonard Fisheries, Limited, of trawler licence fees, the collection of which was declared to be ultra vires of dominion authority by the Exchequer Court of Canada, $5,856.36.
Thomas Reid: I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the case of the Great West Packing Company, Limited. In 1927 and 1928 the Dominion government Department of Fisheries licensed salmon canneries. The licence fee was S20 and there was a tax of four cents per case on canned sockeye salmon and three cents per case on all other varieties. In compliance with the demand of the Department of Fisheries in Vancouver for payment of the case tax before December 1 of each year this company paid in addition to the licence fee a tax on each case as follows: 1927 salmon pack, $474.94; 1928 salmon pack, 1568.01, or a total of $1,042.95. Some time in 1927 the right of the Dominion government to license canneries was questioned, and in 1929 the privy council decided that the authority to do so was vested in the provincial government. In 1929 the Dominion government did not collect the case tax. I am informed that some of the larger companies did not pay the case tax in 1927, and that only five or six companies paid the case tax in 1928, and that no action was taken to collect during those years.	[DOT]
In the item before us provision is made for refunding licence fees which were later declared to be ultra vires of dominion authority, and I claim that exactly the same course should be followed in the case that I am now bringing to the minister's attention, that of the Great West Packing Company, because the principle in both cases is exactly the same. In fact, I believe that the case of the Great West Packing Company for a refund of the licence fees paid is even stronger because in 1928 they wrote to the dominion

Department of Fisheries, after having paid the tax under protest, and here is the reply which they received from the department, which I claim is a direct promise from the department. The department in its letter says:
As the question of jurisdiction over such plants is before the courts the existing law is in effect. It provides for the necessity for taking out cannery licences. While it is not considered desirable at the moment to take court action to enforce fees, should a company refuse to pay them, should the reference to the courts be decided in favour of the federal contention, necessary action to collect such fees will be taken. On the other hand, should the decision be otherwise, the whole question will be dealt with and those who have paid their fees will have such refunded to them, unless action is taken to compel those who have not done so to pay them.
I would ask the minister to note those words: "Those who have paid their fees will have such refunded to them."


Alan Webster Neill: By whom is that letter signed?


Thomas Reid: The letter is to Mr. D. McPherson of the Great West Packing Company, Limited. Here is a direct promise made in 1928 to refund the licence fees that were paid under protest. The licence fee had been declared ultra vires of the dominion authority, and therefore the principle of refunding the fees is exactly the same as in the case before us where licence fees are being refunded to the Leonard Fisheries, Limited, although I maintain that the case of the Great West Packing Company is even stronger because of this letter from the Department of Fisheries. Before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to give me an assurance that the licence fees will be refunded in this case. I have given him the date of the letter and stated that it came from the Department of Fisheries. I claim that that was a direct promise on the part of the department to refund the licence fees.


Alfred Duranleau: As the time is so
short I am sorry that I cannot give a very lengthy answer to my hon. friend, but my officials tell me that the case of the canneries in the west and the case of the Leonard Fisheries Limited are not similar at all. The canneries of the west have paid a very reasonable licence fee, and if they had not been taxed by the federal government they would have been taxed by the provincial government. As a matter of fact, immediately after the decision declaring our imposition ultra vires the canneries were taxed by the provincial government. While I do not think the cases are similar I am quite willing to examine

Supply

Miscellaneous
the ease which my hon. friend has brought to my attention. If, as he states, a definite promise was made by the department-


Thomas Reid: A definite promise has been
made.


Alfred Duranleau: I will look into the
matter and if I find that the department is [DOT] committed we shall have to do what is right, but at the present time I do not think the case which my hon. friend has brought to my attention is similar to the case referred to in the item under discussion.


Thomas Reid: Have I the assurance of the
minister that if he finds that a promise was made to pay back the fees, this firm will receive the refund of its licence fees? They claim that they received the letter containing the promise from the Department of Fisheries, dated December 1, 1928, wherein it is specifically stated:
On the other hand, should the decision be otherwise, the whole question will be dealt with, and those who have paid their fees will have such refunded to them.
I think that is a very definite statement from the department, and that they cannot get away from it, because it must be remembered that this firm was paying these licence fees under protest. If the minister finds the promise to pay from the department will he have the licence fees refunded to the firm?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think it would be wise to make a definite promise such as is asked for by my hon. friend, but I will study the whole record, and if I find that in fairness the fees should be refunded, it will be done, but I cannot give a definite promise now.


Alan Webster Neill: And if refunded to one, the
licence fees will be refunded to all in the same class?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Publishing debates-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $25,000.
To purchase, for the use of senators and members of parliament, 360 copies of the Canadian Annual Review, edition of 1931-32, $2,340.
Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-further amount required, $7,574.25.
Jean-François Pouliot: I see that this vote provides for the purchase of 360 copies of the Canadian Annual Review. We do not need that at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount to provide for expenses in connection with the representation of Canada at the International Radio Conference at Madrid, Spain, in September, 1932, $15,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Will the government send delegates to this conference?
. Mr. BENNETT:	It ,is so intended. The
conference is concerned with the distribution of wave lengths.
Item Agreed to.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Immigration salaries and contingencies- further amount required, $48,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: Have any civil employees the advantage of going home at the expense of the state?


Mr. BENNETT:: Not so far as I know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I might have something to say with respect to it.


Robert James Manion: Send it in by letter!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, contingencies, $726,015.
Robert Gardiner: Are any estimates in the Interior department left other than this one?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Number 201 is held.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I understand No. 12 is to be held over until Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are two items still standing in that department.
Item stands.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally; for maintenance of services; no new rvorks to be undertaken, $25,000.
Thomas Reid: I desire to speak on this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is agreeable to my hon. friend, it is understood an item will be held under which any business connected with the Public Works department may be discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Banking and Commerce
[Stage Direction]


Combines Investigation Act, $25,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The same understanding?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any matter may be discussed under item 189.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Champlain graving dock, $83,000.
Esquimault graving docks, $76,800.
Lome graving dock, $43,000.
Selkirk-repair slip, $2,800.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Any further questions can be taken up under item 110.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.	,
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at six twenty p.m.
Monday, May 23, 1932