PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 78, from the Senate, for the relief of Vera Thelma Gooderham.-Mr. Ryckman.

Dairy Industry Acts
Bill No. 98, from the Senate, for the relief of Jacob Edward Thuna.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 99, from the Senate, for the relief of William John Fuller.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 100, from the Senate, for the relief of Alfred Augustus Jacques.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 101, from the Senate, for the relief of Paul Zizis.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 102, from the Senate, for the relief of Annie May Blunt.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 103, from the Senate, for the relief of Grace Harrington Bloom.-Mr, Hocken.
Bill No. 104, from the Senate, for the relief of Ian Somerled Macdonald.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 105, from the Senate, for the relief of Arthur Beldon Morrison.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 106, from the Senate, for the relief of George Edward Sharp.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 107, from the Senate, for the relief of Marjorie Morton.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 108, from the Senate, for the relief of William Ernest Hampson.-Mr. Arthurs.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reports
that the situation in Cape Breton is becoming more acute, is it. possible that the government will reconsider its position and interfere on behalf of the people there?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am afraid I cannot do
more than say to my hon. friend that the government's position remains just what it has been from the start.



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I
would like to ask the government a question at the request of the Toronto civic authorities, namely, is the government in a position to announce to the House when the legislation on behalf of the Home Bank depositors will be brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot tell
my hon. friend exactly. It will be brought down shortly.



PUBLIC SERVICE REARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the tihdrd time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Dairy Industry Act, chapiter 7 of the statutes of 1914, for the following purposes:-
(a)	to make further provision for definitions of Dominion Analyst, illegal dairy product, oleomargarine, package and renovated butter;
(b)	to prevent the use of oil as an adulterant in butter, and to prohibit the keeping of foreign fats that might be used for adulterating purposes on the premises of any person engaged in the manufacture or manipulation of butter;
(c)	to avoid the necessity of proving that foreign fats have been added to skimmed milk in cases of
infraction;
(d)	to provide heavier penalties for violation of the act;
(e)	to authorize an inspector in addition to obtaining access to premises, to take samples, seize and remove illegal dairy products;
(f)	to empower the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the seizure and confiscation of materials and packages used illegally, and to control the size and dimensions of cheese hoops and cheese and butter boxes; and
(g) to permit of the registered number of any package being accepted as prima facie evidence of the identity of the manufacturer, and that costs of analysis shall, upon conviction, be included in the costs, of prosecution.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think it will expedite matters if we take up the different subdivisions of the resolution one at a time. First, with regard to paragraph (a): Under the old act we have found it very difficult to get convictions without certain proper definitions. Take for instance, "Dominion analyst"; we have a number of analysts who receive salaries and some who, although duly authorized to act, do not receive salaries, and the ground has been taken that the definition " Dominion analyst " refers only to those who receive salaries. A proper interpretation is necessary. Then, " oleomargarine " has no definition at all. It is necessary to have a definition, because oleo oil is an adulterant and it is a constituent material in the manufacture of oleomargarine.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Is there not a law now forbidding the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does that law not define
what oleomargarine is?	[DOT]

Dairy Industry Acts


William Richard Motherwell: No; I have looked over it and I find no definition.


Arthur Meighen: It is a remarkable thing.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not in the interpretation clause. Therefore the matter is very indefinite. Then, the term "renovated butter" is another that needs clearer definition, so that we may be able more readily to get convictions in cases of prosecution. " Package " is also defined here. In fact, this paragraph of the resolution deals entirely with the matter of interpretation.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has had
renovated butter bills before this House every few months since he has been in that office. Has " renovated butter " never been defined before?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but the definition is not sufficiently clear. I think my right hon. friend mistakes years for months, because it is just two years since we had renovated butter legislation. This resolution has been on the order paper for nearly two months; perhaps that is what my right hon. friend means.


Arthur Meighen: Last year was hen year, was it not?


William Richard Motherwell: Well, hens are very important.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Can the minister give any information with regard to question 1 on the order paper, which relates to this subject? Is he aware that large quantities of New Zealand cheese are being used in the manufacture of Canadian loaf cheese?


The CHAIRMAN:: That is not relevant to this resolution.
Mr. . STEWART (Leeds):	I submit that
when we are dealing with the daily industry it is not inappropriate to ask the minister if he has any information to give on this subject.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not the subject of this resolution, and it is not relevant.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a public matter we are dealing with.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not intend to
argue it, but I rule that it is not relevant.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: May we
have an explanation of paragraph (c) of the resolution?


William Richard Motherwell: That is not contained in the bill which will follow the resolution if adopted; I do not know how the draftsman got it in. When we come to parafMr. Meighen.]
graph (c) I will ask that it be eliminated from the resolution.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this resolution be considered paragraph by paragraph? Shall paragraph (a) carry?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What does "illegal
dairy product" cover? I think it should certainly cover cheese which is being ground up and mixed with other ingredients.


William Richard Motherwell: In the bill, which
I have before me, the definition is this:
Illegal dairy product means any dairy product which does not conform to the definition and standard provided by this act and regulations made thereunder, or is contained in a package which contravenes the same.
There is some anxiety about that point, and the reason the question has not been answered is that it concerns several departments, and some of them have not got the answer ready yet. It does include Australian cheese.


Mr. GOULD:: I would like to ask the minister if that refers to the article known as kraft cheese.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, but the chairman has ruled that part of the discussion out.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c):


William Richard Motherwell: This should not be there. I move that it be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: This will mean the relettering of the succeeding paragraphs.
On paragraph (d):


Donald Sutherland: What are the penalties under the act at the present time?


William Richard Motherwell: They run from
about fifty to one hundred dollars. We are going to make them pretty stiff. I do not know whether the House will agree with that or not when we come to discuss the penalties in the agricultural committee, but we have found that offenders under this act have found it pays them better to pay the fine and keep on with their adulteration practices. This must stop, and so the fine is being made sufficient to interest the offenders and prevent them from continuing their violations of the law. Some of them run as high as $500, and for a second or third offence, I forget which, a term in gaol. Generally we find the present fines entirely inadequate to-

St. John and Quebec Railway
prevent a repetition of the offence, and if we are to maintain the quality particularly of our cheese, and improve the quality of our butter, we must have these offenders so exercised over the consequences of their violations that they will desist from their practices of adulteration.


Mr. SPENCE:: What, percentage of the
people engaged in this work are violating the law? It seems to me the penalties are very heavy now.


William Richard Motherwell: There are not very many, and rarely is it the creamery that offends. It is usually the middleman. Occasionally a creamery or cheese factory offends, but not very often.


Donald Sutherland: Has the department found that some of these offenders have been repeating their offences after having been fined?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald Sutherland: That is a common
practice?


William Richard Motherwell: I am afraid it is
too common. The present penalties are not sufficient to deter them.


David Spence: I would like to know what is the minister's definition of a middleman in this case.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, the man who is neither the producer nor the consumer.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
Paragraphs (e) (f) and (g) agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109 to amend the Dairy Industry Act, 1914.
Mr. SU1HERLAND:	Is it the minister's
intention to refer this bill to the committee on Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, as soon as the bill receives its second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times times and referred to the committee on Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: The minister intends to
have the bill come before the committee of the Whole?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, yes.
190i



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY CENTREVILLE-ANDOVER BRANCH

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to extend the time within which the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company is to complete the construction and equipment of its line of railway from a point at or near Centreville, in the county of Carleton, to a point at or near Andover, in the County of Victoria, to the thirty-first day of December, 1927, both with respect to the agreement entered into under the authority of section three of The Saint John and Quebec Railway Act, 1916, and also with respect to the subsidy agreement made under the authority of section six of the said Act: Provided that the said extension shall only be granted with respect to the first named agreement after the consent of His Majesty on behalf of the Province of New Brunswick has been obtained.
Mr. BAXTER:: I would like to ask-


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion is not debatable. We will go into committee at once, and the hon. gentleman can then put his question.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like to ask whether this is simply a formal extenson to take advantage of some happier financial times, or whether it is the intention of both governments that the work shall be proceeded with. Railway matters are being discussed between them so frequently that it would be indeed very desirable if any policy could be enunciated by which this road would be carried to its originally intended termini, and if arrangements could also be made with the Canadian Pacific by which their line now running, through the state of Maine could be diverted, so that all the traffic upon the western side of New Brunswick, as well as the traffic of the Canadian Pacific might be carried by joint operation of this line with its better construction and better grades. So much of this line as has been constructed has been built to conform to the National Transcontinental grade. I do not intend to take up much time in discussing the unfortunate history of the road, the completion of which was prevented by the advent of the war, nor the unfortunate lack of earning power, because the road is not complete, which results every four years in an addition of $1,000,000 to the bonded debt of the little province of New Brunswick. The average deficit is about $250,000 a year. The province is not able to sustain that deficit out of income, and therefore each year it capitalizes it, involving a further heavy obligation; and I am stating the

St. John and Quebec Railway
matter fairly when I say that every four years there is, in round numbers, an addition of $1,000,000 to our bonded debt. I believe that that burden could be lifted from the province if by the joint operation of the Dominion and the local governments this road were carried to completion. It would be a much more vital and intensely more useful part of the government system than the National Transcontinental which was cut "slash-ways" through the province of New Brunswick and is, taking it at the present time, almost idle-in fact, it is scarcely operating at all. This road will run through a splendid country, will serve a number of thriving communities, and I believe it would be a very good opportunity for the minister to demonstrate the principle of joint operation and thereby reduce the expenses of both the great railway systems.
I should like the minister when answering to kindly give me information as to whether there is anything real in the sugestions we have had in New Brunswick that the Canadian National system is about to take over the St. John Valley railway. A return was asked for in this House and it was filed some time ago, but with the exception of the correspondence that took place between the governments about the time of the construction of that railway, and a later memorandum which places the views of the province very dearly indeed-having been sent forward by Premier Foster shortly after his accession to office about eight years ago-there is on file. Statements have been made _ by public men in New Brunswick that this is a matter for oral negotiation. Now, we m New Brunswick would like to know just what has been said on the subject-how far the oral negotiations have proceeded, what is the outlook for a settlement, and what settlement mav be arrived at in this matter which is one of very great interest to the people ol the whole province.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend places an order before me that I am afraid I cannot attempt to fill. I might answer his first question by saying this is just a formal extension of the act confirming agreements made between the two governments.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Just a formal extension?


George Perry Graham: Just a formal extension
for two years. Since the act was passed the time for completion of the road and the earning of the subsidy has been extended^ I might explain here that a peculiarity, which only came to my notice a few days ago,

occurred two years since. At that time this House passed an extension of the act extending the time for the completion of the line, but it never got over to the Senate at all. We cannot blame the Senate for killing that bill; it never saw it. I only discovered the fact quite recently. The law officers of the crown say this bill will reinstate the line and give it two years extension; it is purely formal. There is no doubt in the world it was originally intended that this particular piece should be constructed; and it is a portion of the line included in the agreement made between the Dominion government and the government of the province of New Brunswick, I think along in 1916, by which the latter government undertook to construct a line and the Intercolonial, as its share, undertook to operate it. The St. John Valley railway is now operated by the Intercolonial, and while the province of New Brunswick has to pay a quarter of a million dollars interest on the cost of construction, it also costs the Dominion government a sum approximating a quarter of a million dollars every year for operation. It is a situation that is serious both from the railway standpoint and from the standpoint of the province of New Brunswick. As to the correspondence and the oral negotiations urging the taking over of the St. John Valley railway, I may say that the government of New Brunswick has urged very strongly that it is the duty of the Dominion government to take over this piece of line. Up to date, so far as I know and I think I would know, the negotiations have not come to a point where the federal government has committed itself to take over the line. It is thought that if the branch lines proposed by the Canadian National, and I believe to be constructed, will in a measure, quite a large measure, increase the traffic on the St. John Valley railway-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: On a small portion.


George Perry Graham: -it will add to that extent to the revenue of the St. John Valley railway-*


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If it is any good at all
it will help our deficit.


George Perry Graham: It will help the deficits
in both cases. I cannot say any more; I think that answers the question of my hon. friend. I have no policy to offer for the future except to say this-that the Canadian National cannot, well afford at the present moment to take on any more burdens.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I might ask the minister
this further question: Will he consider some

St. John and Quebec Railway
form of joint adventure, possibly between the province and the Dominion, with the object of extending this line to its originally planned northern terminus, and coupled with that a suggestion, at least to the Canadian Pacific, for joint use of the road, so that all the traffic coming from the port of St. John by the Canadian Pacific as well as by this railway would come entirely through Canadian territory.


George Perry Graham: I did not catch my hon.
friend's idea at first. That would be to eliminate that portion that runs through the state of Maine?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I shall be glad to take
the remarks of my hon. friend and lay them before the presidents of both railways.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Thank you.


Mr. CALDWELL:: There is another
feature of this matter that is possibly as important as those advanced, and the reasons advanced are valid and good. There is a strip of territory comprising possibly three hundred square miles north of Centreville that this road would serve that is now not served at all by any railway for at least four months in the year. It is a very serious situation, and possibly I can make plain to the minister and the House just what I mean. That section of New Brunswick lying west of the St. John river, between the St. John river and the American boundary and north of Centreville, is the section I refer to. During about four months of the year the farmers and producers cannot reach the Canadian Pacific without an extremely long haul. There is a bridge spanning the St. John river at Florenceville, and another at Andover. Between these two points the Canadian Pacific railway follows the eastern side of the St. John river. It is a mighty river and there are two months in the fall, when the ice is forming when farmers cannot cross with their teams. That is the time of the year when the farmers need to sell their produce in order to meet the bills coming due about the first of January. But that is the time, between the completion of their fall work and the beginning of the year when it is almost impossible for them to cross the river. The same condition obtains in the spring months when the ice begins to get poor-there is no crossing. It is a mighty river in the spring, and the freshets at that time, and the running logs, aggravate the situation. Possibly it is the middle of Majq sometimes the first of June, before it is possible for the ferry
boats to cross with teams with full loads. By that time the farmer has got into his spring work, and any potatoes he may have carried over will have deteriorated and not be fit for market. It is a serious situation for that section of the country, which I think is rightly called the garden of the province, so far at least as agriculture is concerned. It is all settled, the farmers having developed a fine agricultural area out of the forest against very adverse conditions. By reason of the fact that the road under discussion has not been completed a large number of the farmers have sold their holdings fairly cheap, being at a disadvantage in marketing their produce.
One of the reasons for the deficit on the St. John and Quebec railway is the fact that this extension of the road has not been built. This means that the traffic that should go over this road must go to the Canadian Pacific Railway at a time of year when it is most inconvenient for the farmers to market their stuff. Some years ago I was on a delegation which waited upon the government of the province of New Brunswick to urge the completion of the northern section of the road from Centreville to Grand Falls, and two arguments against the work were advanced at that time. One was the fact that the cost of construction was too high to warrant it; and the other was that we had no connection with the Maine Central, being more or less held up both for empty cars coming in and by the freight rate of the Canadian Pacific, who had control of that section of the road between Vanceboro and Fredericton and Vanceboro and St. John. It meant that if this connecting link were not built we were merely a collecting agency for freight for the Canadian Pacific. In fact, the Premier of New Brunswick, at that time Hon. W. E. Foster, told us that if we could induce the Dominion government to build the connecting link between the St. John and Quebec road and the Maine Central the province would have no hesitation in completing the northern section of the St. John and Quebec railway with the assistance of the Dominion subsidy. I was a very new member at Ottawa at that time, but I arranged an interview with the then Minister of Railways, Dr. Reid, at which the president of the St. John and Quebec Railway and the president of the Eastern Maine Railway Company, so-called, were also present. They came to an understanding with Dr. Reid that he would bring down a bill the next year to complete this connecting link. The next year, however, when the railway report was submitted to parliament it disclosed an immense railway deficit and Dr. Reid refused to bring

St. John and Quebec Railway
down this promised bill. He declared, and rightly so perhaps, that the deficit was too high to allow him to take up the matter and he did not feel like introducing the bill. The present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has brought down a bill for this purpose on two occasions and has piloted it through this House, I must say with very strong opposition from at least one of the members for St. John, who gave as a reason for opposing the proposition that it would hurt the port of St. John. I have never agreed with this contention, for I do not think that this connecting link would divert any traffic from St. John; I cannot see how it would, because there is no traffic to-day going through the port of St. John that would not still take that route if this link were built. The completion of this section would simply mean that traffic over the Intercolonial railway destined to New England points would go over the Canadian Government railway to Vaneeboro instead of over the Canadian Pacific.
I hope there will be no opposition to this bill. I have it on good authority from the powers that be in New Brunswick that they do propose to go ahead with their portion of the undertaking and they sincerely hope that the Dominion government will do its part. I think it is the only logical thing for the government to do. With the road in its present position, losing for the Dominion government a quarter of a million a year and for the provincial government a quarter of a million, it means that in eight years this combined loss would amount to four million dollars, which would be enough to complete the road and turn it into an asset, whereas at the present time it is merely a liability. It is my candid opinion that if the road were completed to Grand Falls to connect with the Transcontinental at that point, and the connecting link from Kingsclear to Vaneeboro, or possibly Harvey, and then over the Canadian Pacific Railway from that point, would not only pay operating costs and interest on cost of construction but would also eventually pay the capital cost. I am well convinced of that fact, and living in that immediate vicinity I have a very good idea of the whole situation. I trust, therefore, that the bill providing for this extension will pass.
Resolution reported read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 110 to authorize the extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway between Centreville, in the county of Carle-ton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, New Brunswick.
[Mr CaldwelLJ
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.



LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, chapter 18 of the statutes of 1923, by making provisions,
(a)	to facilitate business on the stock yards by providing that all moneys received on account of sales for live stock sold by a commission firm on behalf of the owner thereof shall be deposited in a shipper's live stock commission account instead of a shipper's trust account as at present;
(b)	to provide for the licensing of egg buyers, egg collectors and dealers, and exporters of live stock, meat, poultry, eggs and wool;
(c)	to amend the power to make regulations as to the manner in which eggs found to be unfit for human consumption shall be valued and disposed of.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
On paragraph (a):
William Richard Motherwell: Most of the farmer members will recall that prior to two years ago there was a good deal of complaint that, when stockyard buyers went out into the country purchasing animals and giving cheques for them, it was found that in some instances when the cheques went back to the bank, they were not honoured. Usually there was money when the man started out buying, but perhaps the bank found there was some other claim upon the party and it would appropriate the bank account for its own or the other party's use. Consequently an attempt was made two years ago to provide against this contingency by having all moneys used for purchasing cattle deposited to the credit of the buyer in what is called a trust account which could be devoted to that purpose only. This was intended to correct the difficulty complained of, but it was found that it could not be corrected in that way without violating the usual practices in the administration of trust accounts. The legal authorities contend that when an animal is sold to a buyer, the money that can be used for buying that animal cannot be used until the animal is resold by the buyer and the money placed in that trust account. That is impossible and the difficulty has not been remedied. Consequently, instead of the buyer having his money placed in a trust account out of which it seems to be difficult to get it for the purpose desired, the legal authorities advise that it is better to place the money in

Live Stock Products Act
a shipper's live stock commission account and then it will effect its purpose. That is the purpose of paragraph (a) of the resolution, and it gets over the difficulty of the trust account which we found was not very much better than the old method. There have been no great complaints under the trust account method, but if the procedure had ever been challenged, it would be found that we were violating the usual procedure under trust accounts. That is the reason why we are making this change.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does that embrace moneys received from co-operative shipments? Are they deposited in shippers' accounts and then the cheques made out to the individuals who have built up the co-operative shipments?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think
there has been any difficulty in connection with that. We have been trying out this trust account method but we have been violating another phase of the law to do so.


Oliver Robert Gould: I asked the question because, in the past, individuals to whom co-operative shipments have been sent have deposited the proceeds of the shipments to their private account, and sometimes, as a result, the individuals who built up the co-operative shipment have not received their money.


William Richard Motherwell: This will correct
that.


Mr. JELLIFF:: Will this be referred to the Agricultural committee also?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. All these bills will be.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I have had one of those cheques such as the minister describes deposited in one of my pigeonholes at home for six or eight years. Many that should have gone to me went to the bank. I hope sufficient protection will be provided by this amendment.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Has the minister considered the use of certified cheques? That would seem to me to be a very simple method of securing payment to the owner of the cattle. Such cheques could be paid only to the order of the person who holds the cheque and funds are retained for that purpose.


William Richard Motherwell: In that case every cheque would have to be certified and the man would have to be at the bank to get a certified cheque. That would correct the difficulty only for one particular cheque.


Mr. KELLNER:: I do not see where the proposal in this resolution is going to deal
with the buyer at all. This refers entirely to the commission man. If a man is going out buying cattle, he would be just as free under this resolution to give a man a worthless cheque as he is now.


William Richard Motherwell: Anybody can give
a worthless cheque if he likes to take the risk, but this is to prevent the practice, which was rather common in days past, of a bank taking over and charging up any overdue notes to a man's bank account as
4 p.m. is the usual practice. If you give a note to a bank and you do not settle it at maturity, it will be charged up to your account. That might absorb all the balance that was in the account and there would be nothing to honour the cheques that come in. This is to provide a separate account altogether from a man's private account.


Mr. SALES:: A commission account only?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That is the point. If
the man is buying stock, this does not affect him at all. If he is a commission man handling on commission, it would affect him.


William Richard Motherwell: I went all through
this two years ago and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) was good enough to assist me. We were all in a quandary and I consulted with my hon. friend. I give him credit for suggesting to me what we both thought was good advice, and we tried it out. The lawyers in the House did not seem to be able to offer any solution. My hon. friend was a banker and we worked this method out together, but we ran up against another difficulty and this is to get over it.


Mr. MARTELL:: If the minister had consulted the lawyer members in the first place, he would not have run up against this difficulty


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps not.
Lawyers are useful sometimes.


Mr. COOTE:: Since the minister has
mentioned my name-


William Richard Motherwell: I am not complaining; I think we both thought it was all right.


George Gibson Coote: I still think the act as it
stands now is all right. Possibly it is causing a little trouble for the commission man, putting him to a little extra bother, and that is why they are asking for a change. The act as it stands now, compelling the commission man to deposit the money in a trust account, is making the money of the owner of the cattle
Live Stock Products Act

safer than it will be when it is simply carried in a special live stock commission account. Under the act as it stands now, if a commission man used that money for any other purpose, he would be violating a trust. At the same time it .prevents the bank charging up any note which the man might owe the bank, to his trust account. The minister is quite correct in stating that this was done formerly, and it was the cause of the present act being passed two years ago. There were certain commission firms in Calgary and Winnipeg that had lost money through the buying and selling of cattle. They were in debt to the bank. AVhen a large shipment of cattle was received by the commission firm it deposited the proceeds of sale in the bank and issued a check to the owner of the cattle, but before the latter could get his cheque cashed the bank had charged up the firm's note. They had really taken the proceeds of the man's cattle to pay the commission firm's debt to the hank-a very unfair and, I think, dishonest practice. The present law absolutely prohibits that practice. So far as I can see, the amendment is being made to meet the wishes of the commission men who are put to some bother through the working of the present act. I wrote the Western Stock Growers' Association for their views on the change proposed by the minister, they did not offer any objection to it, so personally I am not going to object to the bill going to committee. I took this matter up in the first- place at the request of that association and did my best to get some law enacted that would protect the shippers of cattle. I believe that as the law stands we have that protection, and the commission men have got along with it for two years. Therefore I think when this resolution goes to the committee on Agriculture the commission men, or whoever are advocating the change, should be required to show why the present act should be changed, for I am sure it is protecting the shippers.


William Richard Motherwell: I can assure the
committee, Mr. Chairman, that all these phases will be threshed out and everybody will be given an opportunity before the agricultural committee to discuss the amendments so we may get everything just right. Sometimes in curing one difficulty we create another, and this we want to avoid. There is a little difficulty here, and by having the live stock commissioner and other authorities before the committee we will be able to find where the defect is. I appreciate the assistance my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has rendered so far, and if he will

get busy I fancy we can correct the defect in the committee.
Paragraph (a) agreed to.
On paragraph (b):


William Richard Motherwell: Since this was
drafted we have consulted the Justice department, and they inform us that the licensing of these people is purely within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore I would ask that this paragraph be eliminated.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: Before this paragraph is struck out, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister why it would not be possible for the federal government to undertake the licensing of exporters of live stock, meat, poultry, eggs and wool? I can understand that such a provision might ibe invalid with respect to buyers, but I should think the licensing of exporters would be within the federal jurisdiction.


William Richard Motherwell: This licensing is
usually recognized as a provincial prerogative unless the particular business is declared to be for the general benefit of Canada. I know it is for the general benefit of Canada that we should have only good eggs exported, but nevertheless I do not think we can bring this within our jurisdiction. I can assure my hon, friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) that I was very soriy to learn that we have not this authority, because many men in the egg and other export trades are almost ruining the business by making shipments of bad goods. By a system of licensing we could get after these men. Such a system was in force under the War Measures Act, but you could do many things during the war which you cannot do now.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, the minister is dropping this clause because the Justice department has ruled that it is a matter for provincial and municipal jurisdiction. I think if he will look over the various acts administered by his department he will find that they contain a lot of similar provisions that the Justice department would declare to be illegal and ultra vires of this parliament,


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made it fairly clear that it would be within the provincial jurisdiction to provide for the licensing of egg buyers, egg collectors and dealers; but I submit that the export of any of the commodities specified in paragraph (b), not from province to province, but from the Dominion to another country, is a national business. Therefore J

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
would suggest that he merely strike out the words "egg buyers, egg collectors and dealers," leaving the licensing to apply to the exporters of live stock, meat, poultry, eggs and wool. This will give the minister an opportunity to protect importing countries against some of our evil-minded exporters, and also to protect producers against the machinations of these people.


William Richard Motherwell: I accept my hon.
friend's suggestion, Mr. Chairman. That is my own view. I sent the amendment back to the Justice department, feeling that we had a right to deal with exporters. I have not at hand the opinion of the Justice department but it was to the effect that their view applied to the exporters as well. I should like to discuss it further.


George Newcombe Gordon: The paragraph can be
amended in the agricultural committee. This merely indicates the principle.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, leave it the
way it is.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.
On paragraph (c).


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This would look to me like a duplication of services, for we already have this work looked after in the province of New Brunswick by the provincial government.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a very fine line of demarcation, and sometimes you require very powerful X-rays to detect where Dominion jurisdiction stops and provincial begins. Bad eggs have a commercial value for tanning certain kinds of leather, and I think they bring a dollar a case for that purpose. But the tanning business does not absorb them all. and we want to make regulations so that the surplus may be destroyed in an incinerator or in some other way to be prescribed. We find that some unscrupulous persons, taking advantage of the regulations which permit five offgrade eggs to a case, will substitute this number of bad eggs and make a corresponding profit. We want to make as strict regulations as possible to prevent any deliberate attempt to put back into the trade eggs which are bad and designated as unfit for food. It it not an easy matter, but we want all the authority we can get.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am in thorough accord with the taking of this step; it is just a question of what authority should act in the matter. A conference is to be called this summer between the provinces and the
Dominion and I doubt whether they can in one conference deal with all the matters that should be taken up. There should be a definition of the lines of jurisdiction and of taxation between the Dominion and the provinces, and one of the things that might well be taken up is the question how far the Dominion goes in matters of this kind and how far the province goes.


William Richard Motherwell: When the act. was
consolidated two years ago we were aware that we were sailing pretty close to the wind in many places, and in order to avoid the possibility of going over the mark I communicated with all the provinces, suggesting that in the event of the act overriding their powers they pass concurring legislation and obviate the difficulty in that way. Where there is an overlapping of provincial and federal authority and it is thought desirable that the federal authority should have jurisdiction, the provinces so agreeing can delegate the authority to the Dominion. Three provinces, I think, did that with respect to all the phases of this act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Where the provinces
agree to co-operate, do they have inspectors of their own for this purpose?


William Richard Motherwell: No, it is federal
inspection.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We have a Department of Health, and our people in New Brunswick think it is costing us too much. That gives rise to the suggestion that officials of that department could do more work along this line and thus help offset their salaries. That, of course, should not involve any interference with work they should do or responsibility they should assume.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. Ill, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first and second times and referred to the committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon, in the chair.
Public Works chargeable to capital-Marine department-river St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet, $1,663,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the explanation of the very large increase?
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Perhaps I might as well
read the statement with regard to this vote:
This proposed appropriation is for the continuance of operations in connection with the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence ship channel between Montreal and Father Point, and for the enlargement and acceleration of these operations.
Provision was made in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1924-25 for $613,000 for the maintenance and operation of the fleet then in commission, and in the supplementary estimates an additional amount of $350,000 was voted for the reconditioning of additional vessels which had been laid up for some years, with the view to the enlargement of operations next season.
The amount required to maintain and operate the enlarged fleet next season is estimated at $1,010,000, which includes $200,000 for night operations. Provision is also made for the expenditure of $653,000 in the reconditioning of vessels laid up, additional to those for which provision was made in the supplementary estimates last year, and for the construction of several new vessels.
Previous to the war a large expenditure was made in maintaining, deepening and widening the St. Lawrence ship channel from Montreal to Father Point, but on account of the war a number of the vessels and dredges were laid off and anchored in Sorel harbour, and the greater part of the work was stopped. Since the war we have been taking the work up again little by little. It was first planned to deepen the St. Lawrence ship channel to 30 feet, but about 1910, the programme was changed and it was decided to make it a 35-foot channel. This work has not been started in order particularly to help Montreal or any other port in the province of Quebec, but with the sole object of developing this very important shipping route, known as the St. Lawrence route, and I think it is in the national interest that the work should be undertaken and carried on. Besides, we are receiving and have been receiving for a long time complaints from the shipping companies and the Pilots' Association in regard to the condition of the St. Lawrence, and even when we shall have placed in commission all the dredges which were in operation before the war, it will still take about ten years before the programme of deepening the St. Lawrence to 35 feet is completed. It is most important that we should carry on this dredging. Its importance has been recognized by all previous governments, and large amounts of money have been spent on it. Having taken that into consideration, and in view of the various representations which have been made to my department by the shipping companies and different other interests, I think this government is justified in spending a little larger amount this year than was spent last

year, particularly in view of the fact that with the best intentions and even with this enlarged expenditure the programme cannot be completed before ten years.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River:) Just how is this work being done? Is it being done, by sections, gradually spreading over the whole route?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work is divided into five sections: (1) from Montreal to Sorel, 45 miles; (2) from Sorel to Batiscan, 36 miles, not including lake St. Peter; (3) lake St. Peter, 20 miles; (4) Batiscan to Quebec, 59 miles; (5) Quebec to Goose Cape, 66 miles.


Edward Joseph Garland: What I
really want to get at is whether the work is being done over the whole route at the same moment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What
special need has arisen for this great depth? Are the boats coming up the St. Lawrence becoming larger all the time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the tendency is always to increase the capacity of the boats. But even for the ordinary shipping, we find it is absolutely necessary to have this dredging carried on, in order that it shall be known to all that the St. Lawrence ship channel is perfectly safe, and that nobody shall have reason to complain about it. We often hear complaints about the insurance rates on cargoes and ships, and I think it is in the interest of the whole of Canada that the St. Lawrence ship channel be put in such a condition that we shall be in a position to ask for a reduction of insurance rates. The greater the depth, the safer the ship travelling along this very important route.


Mr. LADNER:: Are there to be more
dredges put on, or are the present ones going to do additional work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are putting more dredges into commission. They are not new ones, as they were operated before the war, but were laid up during the period of war. We have had repairs made to a certain number of these dredges which we are now placing in commission, and we intend to maintain double shifts on duty, so that the work will be carried on night and day.


Mr. KNOX:: The minister says the larger boats are coming to Quebec, and therefore the necessity for this dredging. Might I ask if the dredging is not continued on up to Montreal?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Andrew Knox: Is the new system of piloting by means of a cable on the bottom of the channel being used on the St. Lawrence ship channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course,
I am not specially interested in either Montreal or Quebec. I would not wish any favouritism shown to the one as against the other, but I would like to have the minister explain why he believes it to be in the national interest that these larger boats should be able to come up to Montreal. Why is this additional amount of work necessary? Would it not do if the channel was deepened from Father Point to Quebec, and the boats loaded and unloaded at that port? We find Quebec a good port for our live stock.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am quite free to admit
that the port of Quebec is a good one, and I say here it needs to be given all the assistance we can give it, but we must also remember the investment that has been made in the port of Montreal, the organizations that are established there, and its great importance as a shipping point. It is necessary to keep Montreal in line with the developments that are going on elsewhere. I might point out here that the dredging is not simply carried on from Quebec to Montreal, but also from Quebec to Goose Cape. Up to two or three years ago the vessels have been using what we call the south channel, passing on the south side of Grosse Isle, but for several years past, the department has been engaged in deepening the channel on the north side of Grosse Isle, and this channel has been found more advantageous by a great number of ships. The shipping companies are anxious now to have this channel completed, and quite a sum of the amount asked for by this item of 'the estimates is to be expended in deepening what we call the north channel. Although the dredging we are carrying on will no doubt facilitate entry to the port of Quebec, we have also to maintain the whole channel which has been deepened at a very large expenditure in the past, because even in developing the port of Quebec to its full capacity and giving it all the advantages we could, there are still a certain number of vessels that would likely come up to Montreal, on account of its importance as a shipping centre and on account of the commercial establishments that are to be found there.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If this $700,000 was not
spent, will the minister take the responsibility
of saying that shipping would not get along just as well this year as it did last year? My point is that the discussion during the last few months in parliament and the attitude of the public is in favour of the most rigid economy, and to expend $700,000 on dredging, with our finances as they are, is something which I think will cause a great question mark to arise in the mind of the public throughout Canada unless the minister can give adequate reasons justifying this expenditure. I again ask him, will he say on his responsibility that shipping could not continue for another year without a part of this $700,000 being expended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am quite free to admit
that the ships would likely continue to come up to Montreal with the channel as it is at the present time, but we have to take into consideration the numerous complaints that have been made to the department, about the channel not being in the condition it should be in. If the channel is not deep enough, it is just that much more dangerous, and it gives a reason to the insurance companies to still maintain their present high rates in force. The St. Lawrence route is in reality under a handicap in comparison with other routes to American ports, and we are receiving complaints that it is not as safe as these other routes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the source of
these complaints and whether they are serious in their nature? Are they merely the complaints of people who are always wanting something done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These are not complaints
from people who merely wish to see money expended. The representatives of the shipping federation at Montreal often come to my office and complain about the situation. The trading organizations in that city have been doing the same thing; and the pilots, who steer the ships from Quebec to Montreal complain very often about existing conditions. Very frequently last year, in the closing days of the season of navigation, vessels left the port of Montreal with only two or three feet of water under their hulls. If this is not an adequate reason for placing the channel in a safe condition, I am at a loss to know what would be a good reason.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is that the only available
channel, or is it possible to take some other route?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the only available channel; there is no other route.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. TOLMIE:: What is the ordinary depth
of the channel?	,


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The average. I think, is
twenty-nine feet and a fraction.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What are you making the
depth of the channel now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Thirty-five feet. A certain part of the channel has a depth of thirty feet at present, but our programme is to deepen it to thirty-five feet.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Is this work being done by government outfits, or is it being carried out by outside parties under contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is being done by government outfits. All these dredges are the property of the government.


Oliver Robert Gould: Can the minister tell us
what amount of filling-in takes place through the deposit of silt or other material in the channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there is only one place where filling-in to any extent has occurred, and that is not very far from Three Rivers.


Mr. BROWN:: What period of time will be occupied in deepening the channel to a depth of thirty-five feet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With the appropriation we are asking now, and the carrying on of the work in the manner we contemplate, it will take ten years before we reach completion.


Edward Joseph Garland: With the full amount of 81,600.000 each year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister anticipate any increase in the vote? In other words, will the minister give the committee his present estimate of what the total cost of the work will be?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, if it is taken for granted that it will take ten years to complete the work it is only necessary to multiply the present amount by ten.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the minister give the committee the cost of the work for the years 1921, 1922 and 1923? While he is looking up the information may I say that I hesitate to think of what is going to happen to the finances of the country by the time we reach Toronto.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Perhaps we will continue to Hudson bay then.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation and expenditures have been as follows:
Year	Appropriation Expenditure
1920-	21	
$508,000	$507,2111921-	22	
613,000	567,3701922-	23	
693,000	658.9331923-	24	
629,540	626,372


Edward Joseph Garland: Frankly T do not think the country is in a position to face an expenditure of this kind. I have no objection to a moderate amount of work being done in deepening the channel a few feet in order to make it safer, but to go down to a depth of thirty-five feet all along the line would seem to me to require further justification than the minister has been able to give us. I should like him to tell us just what the ratio of increase in the draught of boats has been in the last four years, and what the anticipated increase in draught will be in the next ten years, that will justify deepening the channel to thirty-five feet. How much larger does the minister expect vessels using this channel to become?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Surely my hon. friend does not think I am in a position to say how
much larger ocean vessels may become-


Edward Joseph Garland: But we are spending all this money.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: -in ten years or even in
one year; we do not know -that. But even with the present capacity of ocean vessels we are receiving complaints that the channel is not sufficiently deep and there is a liability of accidents, of a large vessel being stranded with the result of completely blocking the channel. In what position would the government or the department be placed if, as a result of the channel not being sufficiently wide or sufficiently deep-one of these large vessels leaving Montreal with only -two or three feet of water under its hull went considerably out of its course in a. channel only five hundred feet wide? In what position would either the government or the department. find itself if such an accident happened in consequence of the complaints and representations of shipping companies and other concerns being ignored? We want to avoid such a calamity. We want -to make sure that navigation on the St. Lawrence route is made safe, and that neither that route nor our country will be discriminated against because of failure to make navigation as safe as we can make it.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is to be congratulated on the view he takes with which I agree entirely. But that is not the point. The point is, just what

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
depth and breadth does he consider this channel should have, and the reason therefor?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Several years ago, I think it was in 1910, it was decided that the depth of the channel should be thirty-five feet. Careful inquiries have been made, the question has been thoroughly discussed with the various interests concerned, and it has been deemed necessary to proceed with the work so that there might be a uniform depth, in the channel, of thirty-five feet, instead of thirty feet. The expenditure, in our opinion, is justified by the importance of the work and the advantages that will accrue not only to the shipping interests, but to the country at large from the deepening of the channel.


Oliver Robert Gould: The expenditure proposed
to be made on this work in the next ten years will amount to $16,630,000. Will this work when completed form part of the international scheme for the improvement of the waterways?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will certainly be an
essential part of it.


Oliver Robert Gould: The contemplated width and depth of the channel will be in conformity with the plans contemplated for the improvement of the international waterway?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


Oliver Robert Gould: This work will be considered as part of the Canadian programme?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It can be considered as a
Canadian contribution.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is the objective of
the department at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position
to say that we are doing this work at the present time as part of our share in the undertaking, but it will be in harmony with the scheme which is contemplated.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I should like to
ask the minister a question for the purpose of getting some information. In the recent past there has been a good deal of controversy between Canada and the United States and between different sections in the United States in regard to the Chicago drainage canal and the lowering of the lake level. According to what I have read, some have gone so far as to state that lake levels have been considerably lowered in the last few years because of the action of the Chicago authorities in draining off the water in lake Michigan. Does this affect the water level of the St. Lawrence? Taking a period of some three of four years back, has the minister any
information to give the committee regarding the level of the St. Lawrence?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There has no doubt been
a reduction in the level of the St. Lawrence because of the condition referred to, but it is difficult to determine exactly the extent to which this has taken place. We are, however, under the impression that the level has been affected.


Edward Joseph Garland: To what
extent, approximately?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a matter of inches.


Archibald M. Carmichael: It seems to me that if it does affect the level of the St. Lawrence to any extent whatever, this should be used as an additional argument by the Canadian authorities against any diversion by the Chicago drainage canal. So far as I have read, I have not seen such an argument advanced up to date, and I think it would be effective.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Does the minister think that there is any advantage in spending public money to any greater extent than is productive of good business in the development of a trade route? The figures I have before me show that something like $17,000,000 has been spent in the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel up to the present time; and with the $16,000,000 odd which it is intended to spend in the next ten years there will have been put into this channel over $30,000,000, apart from lights, buoys and all other necessaries. I am wondering whether it pays to develop any trade route if it is too costly. Might it not be better for the ships to go as far as Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We all agree that the port of Quebec should be developed, and the necessary dredging to facilitate the entry of ships into that port should be done. At the same time we must take care of the St. Lawrence channel from Quebec to Montreal, because there will always be a certain number of vessels going to Montreal, in view of the large commercial and industrial establishments that carry on business there. And the hon. member knows that water transportation is always cheaper than railway hauling, so that the further inland we can go by water, the better it will be for our trade. I am sure that the money expended on the St. Lawrence route has been spent to great advantage, because in the proper sense of the term the St. Lawrence ship channel is a national utility. I do not think, therefore, that it would be wise to stop the work there at the present time.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Leland Payson Bancroft: No one will object to
maintaining the present channel from Quebec to Montreal, but the question is, shall we save enough in the water transportation over the rail haul to compensate for the cost of deepening and maintaining that waterway?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We think it will be a great saving; it is the natural course.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This discussion is interesting in view of the proposed arrangement between the Dominion and the government of the United States for the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway to the head of the Great Lakes; and as this question has come up regarding the immense cost of keeping the channel open as far as Montreal, I think the government might well pause before spending any money even for investigating the feasibility of carrying out the scheme for deepening the waterway to the head of the lakes. It is and always has been my opinion that the time has not yet come when that should even be considered. If our present transportation system will not handle the traffic from western and central Canada to the seaboard, then the time may come when this undertaking may be necessary. But I think it is so far ahead of present requirements that not a dollar should be spent even in investigating the project at the present time. I quite agree that it is necessary to keep the ship channel at the proper depth as far as Montreal for the type of vessels that go to that port, but I think, although I am subject to correction in this regard, that the port of Quebec is nearer to Winnipeg by rail than is the port of Montreal. The Transcontinental runs by such a direct route that, according to my information, the mileage is less between Winnipeg and Quebec than between Winnipeg and Montreal. The government might, therefore, well consider the advisability of using the National Transcontinental for the purpose for which we were told it was built. If that were done, moreover, the haul would be shorter from Winnipeg to St. John via Quebec than from Winnipeg to Portland via Montreal. This government proposes to develop the Canadian ports east and west, and this is commendable. And this I think is one of the methods towards that end. The Transcontinental has never been used to capacity, although it has a better grade than any other road in Canada and is capable of hauling larger trains than any of the other roads in the Dominion. The route, I repeat, is shorter to Quebec and if it were adopted it would obviate the necessity of deepening the channel between the harbour of 
Quebec and the harbour of Montreal to any greater extent than at the present time. This is my firm opinon on this matter, and I thought this an opportune time to express it,
Mr. McCONI'CA:	The complaint, as I
understand it, is that they are only bringing in cargoes to about forty per cent capacity and taking out eighty per cent, and I do not see that there is any immediate necessity for deepening this river. And in any case, it strikes me that it might be better to make boats fit the river than to make the river fit the boats.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The St. Lawrence route
is not the main part of their trip. They have to navigate deeper waters than those of the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence constitutes only a small portion of their trip and we cannot control the capacity of a boat to be in accordance with the channel of the St Lawrence. We have to accept the boats which are now navigating the oceans.


Andrew Knox: After this ten-year programme is carried out and all this dredging is done, will it be necessary to continue dredging to maintain the channel to a depth of thirty-five feet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No further dredging will
be necessary.


Oliver Robert Gould: How many miles of dredging are involved now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the thirty-five foot
programme, there are eighty-one miles requiring dredging.


Arthur Meighen: Has the dredging so far
been conducted on the basis of a thirty-five foot channel? That is to say, has it not been conducted on the basis of a thirty-foot channel prior to date?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: There has been no dredging below the thirty feet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. On the first division
from Montreal to Sorel, twenty miles have been dredged to thirty-five feet.


Arthur Meighen: When was that done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This work was started in
1910 and it has been continued since then.


Arthur Meighen: How many miles are
dredged to that depth now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Forty-five miles.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was very much in
terested in the point raised by the hon. mem

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
ber for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). It has a very direct bearing on this question of dredging the St. Lawrence channel. What steps have the government taken to check the diversion of water by the Chicago drainage canal, and do they hope to effect any check on that by negotiations that 5 p,m. are now under way, or, if not, do they propose to take any more drastic measures? It is a very serious matter to this country if a foreign power is to be allowed to divert our water and if we must continue to dredge this channel deeper and deeper as time goes on, because I think it is a well known fact that the deeper you go the harder the dredging is. You get down to hard pan which is more difficult to dredge than the ordinary bottom of the river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Steps have been taken, not by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but by the Department of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior has been dealing with this question. The only thing that we did in the Department of Marine and Fisheries was to lend to the Department of the Interior the late Mr. Stewart, who died recently. He was head of the Hydrographic Survey in the Department of Marine and Fisheries and he worked with the Department of the Interior in connection with their dealings with the United States. The Marine department has nothing to do in regard to that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it a fact, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Kindersley, that this lessening of the flow has not been put up as part of the case against the diversion of water?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I should think it has been made a part of the protest because the late Mr. Stewart was quite conversant with all these things.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister should make a note of that and if it has not been stressed, it should be stressed as the main argument.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will certainly make a note of it, but I am quite convinced it has been done.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Is all the work in connection with the construction and maintenance of the St. Lawrence ship channel carried on by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or is there any overlapping by the Department of Public Works?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This work is carried on
by the Department of Marine and Fisheries only.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The Department of
Public Works does some dredging on the St. Lawrence, it may be in harbours?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not in relation to the channel.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is their part of
the dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Deepening the water in
front of wharves. They never work in the channel. Their work is always outside of the main channel.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is the dredging of
harbours?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do the minister and
the government not think this dredging, especially in the one river, should all be done under one department? I can well understand if you were going to Hudson bay, you would have to send some other department you had no use for, so that if they got frozen in during the winter you would not miss them; but as regards dredging rivers like the St. Lawrence, I would strongly urge having this all under one department. This has been urged repeatedly, but no attention seems to be paid to it. Every minister admits that this should be done, but evidently he forgets all about it or there is no co-ordination. I realize possibly as well as anybody the difficulty of co-ordinating under one head work that has become split up into several sections; but the government should very seriously consider at this time co-ordinating this work and cutting out duplication of expenditure. I do not want to steal the theme of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) as regards cutting out duplication of service, but this is one place where it might very well be put into practice.


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the estimated cost
per mile from the international point of view of constructing the channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work is estimated, no on a mileage basis, but on a cubic yarc basis.


Mr. BOYS:: I understand this is part of a
programme commenced in 1910. I observe that the estimate for last year was $613,000 and for the previous year, $613,000. Was the work in those years part of the programme started in 1910? Where was the dredging done and to what extent during those years? What was the average cost per mile?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During last year dredging
was done to the extent of 1,373,420 cubic

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
yards at an average cost of 66-2 cents per cubic yard.


William Alves Boys: If the minister could put that in miles one would understand it better. Was it thirty feet before, or twenty-eight, or what?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The average depth is
twenty-nine feet and a fraction.


William Alves Boys: Was that the depth when the programme was instituted in 1910, and the programme involved dredging the channel to a depth of thirty-five feet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell us how many miles have been dredged in the last three years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1924, on the thirty-five foot project, we dredged 128 miles at varying depths.


Arthur Meighen: How much the year before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have not the figure for the year before, but I could give the number of yards, if that would be satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: That would not help.


William Alves Boys: I do not understand the minister's reference to the " average depth." If the channel was twenty-nine feet, and it has been deepened to thirty-five feet, I presume that simply means it has been made six feet deeper?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The depth of the channel is not uniform. In certain points it is thirty feet and a little over, and at other points twenty-nine feet, so we have to figure the channel by the minimum depth, and we say its depth, generally speaking, is twenty-nine and a fraction feet.


William Alves Boys: I gathered from the minister
that the programme was to increase the minimum depth to thirty-five feet. Perhaps it would be thirty-six feet in places?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At the points where it is now only twenty-nine feet, the depth would be increased by six feet, but at other points the present depth varies from thirty to thirty-two and thirty-three feet. In other words, the depth is not absolutely uniform, and we have to judge it by the minimum, which is twenty-nine and a fraction feet at certain points.


William Alves Boys: What was the programme of 1910?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was thirty-five feet for
the entire channel.
[Mr. Cardio.1


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by "programme"? Did we contract with anyone to dio the dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the government decided to do it.


Arthur Meighen: I see the figure given
for last year is $963,000. The main estimate was for $613,000. Was there a supplementary estimate ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, of $350,000.


Arthur Meighen: Do we supply the dredges to the contractors?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The dredging is all done
under the control of the Marine department. We have a number of dredges which were not used during the war. These have been reconditioned out of the appropriation of $350,000, in the supplementary estimates of last year, and this year we propose to place them in commission with the other dredges which were in operation last year. We also propose to have the work carried on during the night-that is, through the twenty-four hours, as it was done before the war. Even so, according to the information from the officials of the department, it will take ten years to bring to a final execution the programme which was contemplated in 1910, when it was decided to deepen the channel to thirty-five feet.


William Alves Boys: That is what I wanted to find out. The programme contemplated an increase to that depth from what point to what point?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All along the channel.


Arthur Meighen: What is in contemplation in respect of the large boat running on the Welland canal is that it will bring our grain down the St. Lawrence to about Prescott, and at that point, for many years to come, even if this work is all done, there will still have to be transhipment into another type of boat. Consequently this work is not a part of the Welland canal scheme at all, it is a new scheme in itself. I am not saying that it is not a good scheme, if we could afford it, but it will not enable us to get any advantage of the Welland canal expenditure. All the Welland canal expenditure will do will be to carry the Great Lakes boats through the canal into lake Ontario and down the St. Lawrence until they reach these canals in the neighbourhood of Prescott. That is the fact, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Now the question comes, has the time arrived for us to enter upon a

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
great new scheme, perhaps conceived in 1910, but never yet seriously launched upon, and face a new expenditure, which the minister estimates at $16,000,000 odd, but which, according to the figures he has given now and according to the experience we all have, will total nearer twice that sum before we are through? The government this year introduces an estimate just three times what, until last year, we have been spending, and nearly twice what we spent last year, and if it goes on with its programme this expenditure is going to increase year after year. I wonder what is going to become of the aspirations of many other hon. members if this is proceeded with. In this connection-I mention this because I am not sure that it has been taken account of at its true value-of all this expenditure from the city of Montreal down the river, according to the treaties we have with the United States, they are entitled to equal benefits with ourselves. Naturally we make the expenditure; the river is under our jurisdiction, but they are entitled to the advantage of it equally with ourselves. The weight is upon us and upon us alone. But to the extent that we encourage the northern route referred to by my hon. friend to my left, we alone get the benefit. That route is now constructed. We have gone to that extent, and by the utilization of it, or increased utilization of it, we can use the river we have now at sufficient depth up to the city of Quebec to get an exit for our traffic. The minister says there are boats coming in that want deeper waters and that the government will be in a very bad corner if one of them gets on the bottom or hits hard pan. Are we under obligation to meet the demands of all these steamship companies accordingly as they want to use larger boats? Have we to dredge the St. Lawrence to suit the boats they want to put in service, and if we do not, are we to be in a comer, subject to lawsuit? I do not know what the lawsuit would be. We are looking after ourselves; we are not looking after the steamship companies. Now, suppose we continue as we are, giving them the 30-foot depth as they have it to-day, from Montreal down; the larger boats can go to Quebec and we can provide them with traffic there- would that not be a lot saner than to attempt to make a 35-foot waterway at this time from Montreal to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, in view of the condition the country is in? This is a colossal venture. We are plunging into it at a time when the government says we cannot do this and we cannot do that; we cannot reduce taxes; we cannot 191
do anything because of the state of our finances, due to the reparation, trouble in Germany. Has the government thought this thing out in perspective at all? The minister says the insurance rates are higher. It is not. more than a month since his colleague told us there was no reason at all for the insurance rates being higher-intimated that it was just a part of the combine's effort to discriminate against Canadian port3. They must have become converted since the debate on the Petersen contract. If the insurance rates are higher, why does the government not take the insurance matter into its own hands? It is doing it on the Canadian National Railways.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a big problem.


Arthur Meighen: It is not half as big a
problem as deepening the St. Lawrence five feet from Montreal to Quebec.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Greater.


Arthur Meighen: A greater problem to insure the boats?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I am afraid the
minister's perspective and mine are very different in that respect. There is a certain rate now to Montreal. There is a certain rate to New York-a shorter distance, but the proportion can be worked out. All the government needs to do is to equalize, and if there is loss then the government can bear it. Does the minister suggest that would be greater? We are not under any obligation to carry any kind of boat right up to Montreal. I know we would like to; no one would like to more than I and the time will come, I have no doubt, when we will carry them up, at least so far as they require a channel of 35 feet. But in the meantime rather than launch upon huge new expenditures at this time, let us give insurance to boats that can reasonably go through, and give it at low rates. If others will not do it, let us do it; if the others are ready to do it well, let them. If they are discriminating against us and will not give the insurance let us take the business. In that way we would avoid, at least we would postpone until we were in a more secure financial position, the colossal expenditure we are now launching upon, seemingly without very much circumspection, without very much regard to the pockets of the taxpayers. We are to start out with $700,000 more this year, and a million more than the original estimate of last year, and this is to be increased annually for ten years-the minister will find it will



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
be for a good many more years than ten. And it is all on a new venture, no part and parcel of that programme upon which we are launched now; not something that is essential to get the benefit of any expenditures already made. I suggest these considerations to the minister. I do not remember any explanation of this programme being adduced when last year's supplementary estimate, so seriously increasing the original estimate, was brought before the House.


Oliver Robert Gould: I trust that the representations of this committee will be quite as weighty with the minister as the representations he has already cited on behalf of the deepening of the channel. He stated that 98 miles were being considered in the project. The member for Selkirk stated that $17,000,000 had been expended. The minister then said that another ten years would follow with approximately the same amount of the vote for this year, which would mean about $342,000 a mile. That is rather an extravagant programme to enter upon, in view of the present financial state of the country. I would suggest that the activities be confined to the dredging of a few ridges or such small areas as may be in need of attention in the channel, without any attempt to provide a 35nfoot channel for the whole 98 miles. I cannot see where the relation between this project and the proposed international waterways project exists. It seems to me that our expenditure in that connection will not be decreased in any particular by this expenditure if in the future we embrace the proposal to engage with the United States in this deep waterways project. There are other places in Canada that require expenditures which have long been denied them. I can cite several places where public expenditures might be made, and even then do no more than justice to the people. I know of places which have not received any attention for the past ten, twelve or fifteen years, though it is much needed. It would appear that sometimes the government's pocket is full and at others, empty. I suggest to the minister that he consider in this connection a proportionate division of the revenues of the country.


Mr. WARD:: Is this proposed work to be
done entirely between Montreal and Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, there is a very important portion of it to be carried on below Quebec, which will facilitate the entry of large vessels. There are a little over nine miles to be dredged below Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: It would be only a rock
here and there, would it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the shallowest
point below Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the lower channel, 25
feet. In the ordinary channel we have a depth of 30 feet.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If there is a channel
of 30 feet on one side, does the government propose to abandon it and make another channel on the other side of the island? What advantage is to be gained?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The south channel is the most difficult to navigate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the particular difficulty if the water is deep enough?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there is a swift current in the south traverse.


William Alves Boys: What is the depth of the channel the Canadian Pacific liners take?


Mr. PARENT:: They follow the same route as any other line.


William Alves Boys: I am confused by this suggestion of two channels. It is the first I ever heard of it.


Georges Parent: There have always been
two channels in the St. Lawrence, but it has been found for quite a few years that the better one is that on the north shore. There is any amount of water there, and it is a straight channel, while the south channel is a little crooked, and has always a swift current running. An excellent organization like the previous government, and the one before, thought it quite proper to prepare the north channel so it could be used by all lines,- by the Canadian Pacific and any other lines.


William Alves Boys: What is the necessity for two channels?


Georges Parent: You cannot prevent that. The water is there, and you have to take one or the other. If we prepare a better channel, it is left for the companies to use it or not as they see fit. [DOT]


William Alves Boys: Is it the intention that the one being used now is to be abandoned, and the north channel deepened and used instead of the other?


Georges Parent: I understand that has been the policy of the governments for the last ten
years.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Alves Boys: I am not criticizing at all; I am just asking for information, because I think this is a matter of sufficient importance to have a clean-cut full statement from the minister so that we may understand what is being contemplated and the necessity for it.
I am not sure, but I would have thought that the Canadian Pacific boats would draw more than thirty feet.


Georges Parent: I may tell my hon. friend that a good many pilots have taken upon themselves to use the north channel, even without much preparation, for a good many years, and always with great success, to such an extent, in fact, that they have convinced the government it was the better channel to use.


Mr. FORKE:: Why was the south channel
opened up if the north channel was better?


Georges Parent: There is always time to
learn.


Robert Forke: That is a very poor answer. I view with a good deal of alarm the spending of so much money at the present time. Of course, I admit there is a good deal more to be said for deepening the channel below Quebec out to the gulf, than for deepening it from Quebec to Montreal. But I think the channel between Montreal and Quebec could very well be left alone for a time and the Transcontinental railway be used to Quebec to which the larger ships, of course, could come. Hon. members may smile, but sometimes when we want to pass a vote for a few thousand dollars, we are told that money is so scarce it cannot' be done, and then a vote for a million and a half will go through like lightning.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member for Bi'andon has misinterpreted the smile. I think my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Parent) is smiling in approval.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the government
might well modify its programme in this respect. You cannot use any channel until it is all the same depth, and I do not see any reason in spending money deepening the channel between Montreal and Quebec if there is a part of the channel below Quebec that is no.t of sufficient depth to accommodate the ships. None of us here are sailors, but at all events we can understand that a channel with a depth of 35 feet in one part is of no use if you have only a depth of 25 or 30 feet in the other part.


Georges Parent: That is only for a small
distance.	.
191k


John Livingstone Brown: I would see an eminent
reason for deepening the channel below Quebec so that the largest ocean steamers could come up that far, and if that was the immediate programme of the government, for my part I could very heartily endorse it, but until that work is completed below Quebec, it would seem to me folly to spend money deepening the channel above Quebec.


Mr. DECHENE:: Perhaps I might explain
the situation below Quebec, as it just happens to be near the town of Montmagny. The tide at St. Thomas bank averages from seven to eighteen feet, and when the tide is down the Canadian Pacific Empresses stop at the lower end of the St. Thomas bank and wait there till the tide has risen four or five feet before they can go across. They do not dare to. take the channel as it is to-day and go on to Quebec unless the tide is up. Part of this channel runs crosswise to the main current in the river, and there is not enough water when the tide is low to allow these big boats to use the channel. When the tide is up, they have eighteen feet more than they need, and they can proceed easily, but when the tide is low they simply have to wait.
Further down we have what we call the lower traverse, which starts from the south shore and goes pretty nearly to the north. It extends for ten miles and runs right across the current. At times when the channel has not been maintained very wide the boats will strike the side of the channel or a loose rock, and then a wreck happens. That has happened many times in the last few years. The north channel is a straight one, and it will avoid using the lower traverse. The traverse will then take place at the foot of Orleans island, where there is practically no current at all. Of course, the northern channel cannot be used by the big boats until it has depth enough for them to pass, and therefore you have to keep the southern channel open until the northern one is in a condition to be used. I remember well that in the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 and up to the war the dredge of the Department of Marine worked all the summer around Orleans island dredging the northern channel. It has been quite a long business, and unless you keep carrying on we shall always have lots of trouble with that part of the channel at St. Thomas bank in connection with the transatlantic service. I think that is the reason why the department is doing this work, and I endorse the government's action in carrying it on.


John Livingstone Brown: It is not a question between using the north and south channel below
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

Quebec. I would not presume to express an opinion in regard to that matter at all. I would be quite prepared to take the judgment of others who are in a position to express an opinion on that, but I cannot see anything to be gained by spending money deepening the channel to thirty-five feet between Quebec and Montreal when the channel below Quebec is not at present in a condition to accommodate the larger ships that come up. Is that the fact?


Mr. DBCHENE:: When the tide is up
there is sometimes forty and forty-five feet below Quebec, but there is not thirty feet when the tide is low. The ships can always come up when the tide is up.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not know what the
conditions are, but so long as the channel below Quebec is not in a position to accommodate the larger ships that want to come to Quebec, it seems to me there is nothing to be gained by spending money making a 35-foot channel at any point between Montreal and Quebec.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: It simply means at
present a delay of two or three hours for the tide to rise and give enough water for the big ships to come up from St. Thomas bank. It takes three or four hours for the tide to rise high enough for the ships to pass.


John Livingstone Brown: Then under the present
conditions, making allowance for the tide, the larger ships that want to come to Quebec can come?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Yes, they come up ail
the time.


John Livingstone Brown: Then what proportion of
the money is required to do the work that has to be done below Quebec?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I cannot say at all.
When the tide is low the Canadian Pacific steamships have to drop anchor at the foot of St. Thomas bank and wait for the tide to rise. Sometimes they succeed in reaching the bank itself when the tide is low, but that only happens four or five times during the summer.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I suggest to the minister that the work, for this year at least, be all done below Quebec.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Suppose we should do that, will anyone in this House say that it is not necessary to continue deepening the channel between Quebec and Montreal in order to ensure safe navigation to all large vessels? Will anyone say that, while we are developing 
the port of Quebec and the navigation facilities below it, the port of Montreal should remain inactive? Will anyone pretend that the numerous vessels which Usually make Montreal their port of destination, should desist from doing so?


Mr. HOEY:: We will have more money available later on than we have now.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But we cannot defer until then the deepening of the channel between Quebec and Montreal. We may have a serious accident in the meantime. This is not by any means a new project. The right hon. leader of the opposition seems to argue that we are entering upon a new programme. I can assure my right hon. friend that it is not so.


Robert Forke: But the expenditure is increasing.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the years 1910, 1911,
1912, 1913, 1914 money was spent by the government then in power on this very project

the deepening of the channel between Quebec and Montreal

and large expenditures were made upon the undertaking. These expenditures were not made merely for the sake of spending money. They were the result of recommendations made by the parties most interested-the shippers, the manufacturers, and the navigation interests of Montreal. I think we are absolutely justified in deepening, widening and straightening this channel, in order to facilitate the navigation of what I may call a national waterway. The work belpw Quebec has to be done, and facilities must be provided to develop the port of Quebec itself so as to accommodate the large vessels that call there; but we cannot stop there, we must improve the. navigation conditions between Quebec and Montreal. We must take care of the traffic which already exists between the two ports, we must make navigation safe for the large vessels now using the channel, and the probability is that in the future their number will increase rather than diminish. The port of Montreal must be developed to take care of the rapidly increasing business which it is attracting, and the ship channel between Quebec and Montreal must be rendered absolutely safe for the ships which navigate it in increasing numbers.


Robert Forke: What is the urgency of the situation that we require to spend $700,000 more this year than we did last?


Arthur Meighen: There is an election coming.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No question of an election enters into this vote. The money is expended by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the work is being carried out by government vessels under supervision of the department. This project was considered a necessity in 1910, and the conditions have not changed since then. If it was necessary in 1910 to deepen the channel to thirty-five feet, it is far more necessary to-day. I repeat, this is not new work; it is a continuation of work started and carried on by previous administrations.
Mr. MEI'GHEN:	How much were the
votes in those years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1914-15 the expenditure on this work was 8999,762.15. In 1915-16 there was an expenditure of 8981,761.64.


Arthur Meighen: Where was that money
spent ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was spent in carrying on the programme of deepening the channel to thirty-five feet.


Arthur Meighen: There was nothing spent
then on deepening to thirty-five feet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I should like the minister to show where the channel was being deepened then to the depth it is to-day?
Mr. CARDIN' Well, take the case of division No. 1-Montreal to Sorel. The length yet to be dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet is only seven miles; the rest of the work has been done.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said only
seven miles had been dredged as yet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, I said the length yet
to be dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet is seven miles.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been
dredged? The minister put it the other way before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Twenty miles.


William Alves Boys: Twenty miles out of ninetyeight miles is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, twenty miles. There
were twenty-seven miles in all to be dredged.


William Alves Boys: What was the total distance
originally contemplated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total distance of the
division from Montreal to Sorel is forty-five miles.


William Alves Boys: I do not mean this particular
division, I mean the total distance for the whole programme?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total distance requiring dredging under this programme is ninety-one miles, and forty-five miles have been dredged already to a depth of thirty-five feet. The distance remaining is therefore forty-six miles.


William Alves Boys: I have not yet got into my
head the difference between the north channel and the south channel. Do the liners take the north channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


William Alves Boys: They take the south channel?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I cannot see why there should be two channels at Grosse He, that is the point that is puzzling me. Surely we ought to abandon one entirely and improve the other. Such a policy as that would certainly be better. Cannot we have an exact statement from the minister showing just what is contemplated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These two channels are
parts of the whole channel of the St. Lawrence; they are alongside Gross lie below Quebec. The channel we have at the present time is south of Grosse He; the one we propose to use and to deepen is to the north. At the present time vessels follow the south channel; but as the hon. member for Montmagny has explained, the navigation is not as safe there as it is in the north channel on account of the swift current, and even at times on account of the lesser depth and the sinuosities of the channel. Navigators on the big ships already take the northern route, although the channel is not yet completed to the desired depth and there is an element of risk. But the majority of vessels are using the south channel.


William Alves Boys: Now I understand the situation. Then it is the intention of the department to abandon the south channel when the new work is completed, is that the idea?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That will happen, certainly, because the north channel is a better channel than the other-it is a straight channel.


John Livingstone Brown: Let us get the figures right as to the stretch of river between Montreal and Quebec. What mileage has been already deepened to a depth of thirty-five feet so as to accommodate vessels of larger draught?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total length of the
thirty-five foot channel already dredged between Montreal and Quebec ia forty-three miles.


John Livingstone Brown: Does that take into account the part that does not need dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Livingstone Brown: It all had to Ibe dredged?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What I have given is what was dredged.


John Livingstone Brown: And what is the total distance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total distance is 160
miles.


John Livingstone Brown: That means that 117 miles
of work remains to be done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; a certain part of the
channel has already 'been dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet.


John Livingstone Brown: That is what I am trying
to get at.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A' distance of thirty-five
miles is yet to foe dredged.


John Livingstone Brown: How long will it take?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends on the amount of earth we have to take out, but we hope to complete the whole programme in ten years.


Mr. LEWIS:: Will this dredging then come to an end?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: We have this situation,
then: One hundred and sixty miles of the river between Montreal and Quebec has been dredged; there is a stretch of eighty-two miles which owing to its natural formation does not need dredging; a distance of forty-three miles has been dredged; and there remains to be dredged a stretch of thirty-five miles to make this thirty-five foot waterway.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Those figures are correct.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Have any soundings been taken to ascertain whether rock or hard pan will be encountered in any portion of the river not yet dredged?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Complete soundings have
been made and we know exactly what the character of the river bed is.


Thomas George McBride: Is there any rock or hard pan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is rock at certain
points.


Thomas George McBride: What distance of rock
or hard pan would there be to dredge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is practically solid
rock for a distance of about four or five miles.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The foon. member (Mr. Forke) asked one question which seemed to me singularly pertinent, and that was as to the reason for the very large increase this year. I think we all ought to be, if we are not, agreed that Montreal is a very important port and that everything that can reasonably be done to maintain it in its position to look after Canada's business should certainly be done. But there does really seem to be some demand on the minister to let us know why we are practically doubling the vote this year, and I have not heard any satisfactory answer so far. I should have thought that the government would now consider it advisable to spend less money in Montreal seeing that they have proposed, as the type of vessel to engage in a service on which they intend to spend some $13,000,000, ships that will not take anything like a draft of thirty-five feet, nor even of thirty-two feet which is now provided. I should have thought that if the government were serious in the matter of the Petersen contract, instead of wanting to spend more money in Montreal they would be cutting down expenses. It does seem to 'be entirely illogical for the government on the one hand to advance a policy which calls for practically a doubling of this vote this year, looking to the accommodation of big vessels and the development of big business, and at the same time select and subsidize as proper carriers for the St. Lawrence route a type of ship which would render absolutely unnecessary any further improvement in that port. I wonder whether the department has really considered the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low).


Mr. LOW:: What about passenger boats?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are also
freight carriers; there is no question about that. But the minister might carry his own question logically a little further; he might recognize the fact that the sea is free and that if we have government subventions on the one side and a free sea on the other, it is just questionable what the result will be on the commerce of Montreal. His question, of course, is capable of very easy determination. If the subvention of $13,000,000 is to be given as a plum to Sir William Petersen, then there is no reason why the other boats should not continue in the traffic. If, on the other hand, it is to be used as a means of forcing down earnings to a lower ratio than those made from New York, then the ordinary

Private Bills
answer as to the freedom of the seas would apply. In that case the minister is not at all careful of the business and prosperity of the port of Montreal. I of course do not know what he really intends doing, whether he intends that this should be a bonus of $13,000,000, or whether it should be something which would be made to cut rates so as to produce a lower rate from Canadian ports than from New York (ports, whereby he is going to produce such a state of affairs as will render it more advantageous for boats that can go anywhere to run from New York instead of from Canada.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The hon.
member is a member of the committee considering this question. Is he giving judgment now before hearing all the evidence on the subject?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking
questions. I am not giving judgment. If my hon. friend had listened to what I said, he would not have interjected that question. I am in search of information, and when this question was put to me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), I supposed that he wanted an answer. I am answering it to the best of my ability. I come back to my original question:	Have the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Marine and Fisheries consulted together in connection with these apparently different governmental policies? Is this question of a subsidy entirely a matter within the glass-box, self-contained Department of Trade and Commerce, or is it something that the Department of Marine and Fisheries have passed upon or are considering in connection with their expenditures? Obviously, they have never given it any consideration as something justifying an increase in this vote. We have a very large increase here. It may be that the increase is right, but I submit in all sincerity that, at the present time before such increases are allowed, the House should at least get full and definite information as to the necessity of the increase.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BELLS SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Laura Grace Davis.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Alice Brouse. -Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 79 for the relief of Robert Lawrence Anderson.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. SO for the relief of Pearl Hibbard. -Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 81 for the relief of William John Taylor.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 82 for the relief of Albert Edward Cottrell.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 83 for the relief of Florence May Mott.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 84 for the relief of Ellen Mary Harvey.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 85 for the relief of Stella Florence Brickenden.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 86 for the relief of Frank Alexander Michel (otherwise known as Frank Alexander Mitchell).-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 87 for the relief of Thelma Adeline Rose Hands.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 88 for the relief of Jean Veronica Margaret Wright.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 89 for the relief of Ruth Darcy Blinn MoCrimimon.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 90 for the relief of Thomas George MicElligott.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 91 for the relief of Alvin Wesley Richards.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 92 for the relief of Cecil Tanner. -Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 93 for the relief of Ruth Ellen McGowan.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 94 for the relief of Edith Kearsley Smith.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 95 for the relief of James Raymond Armstrong.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 96 for the relief of Josephine Royant.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Burkart.-Mr. Ryckman.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, in view ot
the observations which have been made by my hon. friends opposite in regard to item 219-River St. Lawrence ship channel-and in view of the absence of a number of the members from the district of Montreal, who are most interested in this item, I suggest that the item stand.
Item stands.
To provide for the maintenance and operation of Sorel shipyard, $154,000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is that the same as last
year?
300S

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighthouse and coast service-agencies, rents and contingencies, 5226,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Will the minister explain the decrease?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The decrease of $2,000 is
due to a readjustment consequent on the retirement of a number of old employees under the Public Service Retirement Act.


William Thomas Lucas: How much was spent last
year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to January 31, 1925,
$170,000. I have not the figures to the end of the fiscal year. This vote relates to the operation and maintenance of marine agencies, including salaries and travelling expenses of agents, accountants, district engineer and subordinate personnel. These agencies are in charge of all the lighthouses and buoys controlled by the department along the St. Lawrence river, the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast and the 'Great Lakes. The amount is practically all salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $650,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the average salary paid to a lightkeeper?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are lightkeepers receiving $2,880, while .the lowest salary is $60, depending upon the importance of the light. Where the larger salaries are paid the light-keeper has to supply the assistants that he needs and pay them out of his salary.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What kind of light is that $60 light?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is simply a wharf light,
attended by' the wharfinger.


William John Ward: The minister told us a
moment ago that item 221 was for salaries, but this item seems to be for the same purpose.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In this item we are
providing for the salaries of lightkeepers only; the previous item covered the salaries of employees at our different agencies throughout the country. These agencies are taking care of placing and maintaining the necessary aids to navigation, and of the steamers engaged in that work. We have agencies in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Montreal, Parry Sound, Victoria and Prince Rupert. At all these places we have a staff looking after the supplies that are

necessary for the lighthouses, the purchase of buoys, and generally looking after the steamers which are employed in the placing of the buoys and aids to navigation. Item No. 222 covers the salaries of the men who are looking directly after the lights, the lighthouses, and the small lights which are placed on wharves at different places.
Mr* WARD:	What percentage: of this
amount is used between the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are all counted, 1,133 lightkeepers. I could not say at the moment how many there are between Montreal and Quebec.


William John Ward: Perhaps we could go on with another item and the minister1 could give me that information later. I would like very much to get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $825,000.
Mr. THURSTON:: How much was spent
last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have only the figures
up to the 31st of January, 1925, when $690,000 had been spent. This amount is practically the same every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of lights and aids to navigation, including regulation of traffic at such places as may be found necessary, revote, $75,000, $525,000.
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Does not the Department of Public Works do similar work to that carried on under this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In 1922-1923 this vote was $400,000; it became $500,000 in 1923-1924, and in 1924-1926 it was up to $525,000, and remains at the same figure this year. Are there any new lights being constructed, and what new lights have been constructed during the past year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Every year a certain number of new lighthouses are built. The construction of new lighthouses is made upon the recommendation of the lighthouse board. All requests for the construction of new lighthouses are first submitted to this board, whose approval is necessary before construction is gone on with.


John Jabez Thurston: Who are the members
of the lighthouse board?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The deputy minister, the
commissioner of lights, the chief engineer, and

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
the representatives of the shipping federation and the marine association.
Mr. BRETHF/N:	What is the $75,000
revote for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year we asked for a
vote of $75,000 towards the purchase of a vessel which was to be used as a lightship. No vessel was purchased last year, and we are asking for the amount to be revoted this year.


Mr. BRETHEN:: What is this lightship
used for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is used at certain places where it is more convenient and less expensive to use a lightship than to build a lighthouse.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who is the commissioner
of lights?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. J. G. MacPhail.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How is he appointed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: His appointment comes
under the Civil Service Commission. He has been in the service a very long time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What are his particular
duties?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He has supervision over
the whole lighthouse and buoy services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $100,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This vote has been about
stable in amount. I may be wrong, but if it is the one I think it is-I assume it is the under-water signal service, is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I was not sure from the
title. I am not criticizing the vote in any way, but I think a few moments spent in explaining just what it is would not be amiss, because coming as I do from the maritime part of the country it is sometimes well, I think, that other portions of the country should appreciate the need that exists for such services as this.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
provide for the maintenance and operation of a marine signal service. These signal stations have been established for the purpose of reporting movements of ships, weather and ice conditions, and dangers to navigation generally. The system extends from St. John, N.B., Halifax, N.S., Cape Race, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, up the gulf and river St. Lawrence and on the Great Lakes up to Sault Ste. Marie.
At these different stations the department keeps a man whose duty it is to make reports to those desirous of getting information as to the precise locality where a ship may be at a particular time and as to navigation conditions in that particular area. For example, if a ship is in the gulf, or near Quebec, there may be persons wishing to know at what hour the vessel will reach port. Information of this sort is given to persons interested in the movements of shipping.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is there any such
service on the western coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have a similar system
on the Pacific coast but it is carried on by the Harbour Commission of Vancouver. A grant is made to the commission for the work it is performing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $250,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister state
how the administration of pilotage is carried on on the Pacific coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the Pacific coast there
is free pilotage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $10,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What wharves are these?


Mr CARDIN:: Under the actual prevailing system, after a wharf has been constructed by the Department of Public Works, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which appoints the wharfinger and also receives the fees paid to that official. This item is to carry out the repairs which may become necessary during the course of the year. Important repairs of wharves are made by the Department of Public Works; but the present item is to meet the cost of small repairs, the necessity for which may arise during the year, and to keep the wharves and surroundings in proper order.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.
John Jabez Thurston: , How much of this vote was spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The entire amount was spent and the work was done under contract.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: In what particular
locality was the ice breaking done?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Port Arthur and Fort William.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. SIMPSON:: Who had the contract for the work done last year?
Mr, CARDIN: The Great Lakes Transportation Company.


Alfred Speakman: Is the same amount
paid out each year regardless of the quantity of ice which forms or the length of the ice breaking season?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: Is it based on the average of the work done during a number of years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: How much earlier is navigation able to start as a result of this ice breaking?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With the aid of this system navigation is kept open up to the 19th December. But for this work, navigation would have to close in the first days of that month, the season being thereby prolonged for fifteen or twenty days.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: You could not open
navigation any earlier in the spring?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, ice breaking is done in the spring, and as a result the season of navigation is opened at least a week earlier.


Alfred Speakman: So that the season of navigation is extended by approximately a month as a result of the use of ice breakers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About that.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can you extend the season of navigation in the fall by the use of the ice. breakers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the main purpose of the ice breaking, and as a result of this work the season of navigation is lengthened by fifteen or twenty days in the fall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay pensions to pilots-Joseph Lapointe, Barthelemi Lachance, Alphonse Assedin, Elzear Desrosiers, Hubert Raymond, Edmond LaRochelle, L. E. Morin, A. T. Simard, Joseph Plante, Victor Vezina, Raymond Baquet, Alfred LaRochelle, Theophile Corri-veau, Alphonse Pouliot, Treffle Delisle, Alfred Gau-dreau, F. X. Demaules, Adjutor Baildergeon, Joseph Pouliot, Arthur BaiLlergeon, John A. Irvine, Camille Bernier, Joseph Eugene Lachance, Elzear Normand, Phileas Lachance, Narcisse Lavoie, L. H. Lapierre, J. T. St. Laurent, J. V. Gourdeau, Samuel Rioux, Joseph LaRochelle, Francois Gaudreau, Arthur Koenig, J. Alphonse Lachance, Raoul Lachance, Joseph O. Lachance, Arcadius Jouvin, $11,100.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are all the pilots of Canada now on the same basis in the matter of retiring allowances? I think we have a different 
system of pilotage in the district of St. John. There is a board there, and yet I understand the department has something to say in the administration of the pilotage. I am under the impression that a different system prevails there from the one obtaining in other parts of Canada. I should like to know !f I am right or not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Quebec pilotage district is the only one where the pensions are paid by the government.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How are they paid in St.
John?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Out of the local revenue.
No pensions are paid by the government, to pilots in that locality.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In some respects there
must be a difference in administration at St. John. Does the minister know what it is?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very hard to explain
just wherein the difference lies. Possibly the conditions there may be worthy of the consideration of the department.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think perhaps in part
there may be some reason for the special conditions at St. John. So far as the soil is concerned the harbour at St. John is privately owned, it is owned by the corporation. It is not like the other harbours of Canada which, under the British North America Act, passed under control of the federal authorities. I think that for a time there was some idea that fact gave the pilotage of St. John a sort of immunity from all administration which of course had no basis. It seems to me that the efforts that have been made to unify the pilotage service in Canada ought to apply to the pilotage at St. John, I would rather suggest that in place of the existing system a general Dominion fund for the protection of pilots would be better. I have no objection to what is being done at the port of Quebec; but it would seem to me that it would be better to extend the same system to the rest of Canada and have the government take control of the entire service. At one time, perhaps, that idea would have been reprobated because some of the smaller ports were rather jealous of what they thought wias federal interference. But I think it would be well to carry out this suggestion for the benefit of the pilots who are not numerous in any port, and are not well paid; in fact they need all the advantages they can derive to repay them for the training they must undergo and for the very arduous services they perform. I

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
suggest that the minister consider carefully the possibility of treating all alike and having them dependent for their pensions on a single Dominion fund.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The minister might compare for the benefit of the committee the system of pilotage practised on the Pacific coast with that on the St. Lawrence river, and explain why pensions are paid in the St. Lawrence service and not elsewhere.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no pilotage organization in the west; the owners of the vessels may engage the services of anyone they like. On the St. Lawrence, however, and in the Maritime provinces it is compulsory on the captain of a ship to have the services of a pilot. 'On the Pacific coast, the system is an open one; anybody may qualify as a pilot. The two systems therefore are not comparable.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are the pilots on the Pacific coast paid by fees at the rate of so much per ton, or in what way are they compensated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They make their own
private arrangements with the owners.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How are they satisfied with this system as compared with the old one on the Pacific? Are any complaints received by the department under present arrangements?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have received no complaints.


John Livingstone Brown: Is it a case of trades unionism on the St. Lawrence?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


John Livingstone Brown: There is evidently an association of pilots.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: And the position they take
is sanctioned by law?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: It is provided, I take it,
that only those who belong to the association shall be engaged as pilots.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; they must go through a special training before theytcan be admitted to the association.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Which system is cheaper
to the shipping people?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know; the department has no means of ascertaining what fees the owners pay to the men in the case of private arrangements. And the arrangements may vary according to circumstances.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does the qualified pilot
on the Pacific have to pass a governmental examination, or is he simply required to comply with certain qualifications laid down by some association?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These men are given a
certain amount of training and are examined by officials of the department here before being admitted as pilots. That is the system adopted in the east. So far as the west is concerned, the department has nothing to do with any arrangements that are made.


Arthur John Lewis: Why is the government responsible for the pensions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is difficult to state precisely the difference between the two systems'. The department has simply continued the practice that has prevailed all along. The suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) deserves consideration and I am quite ready to look into the matter.


Arthur John Lewis: What is the amount of the
pension?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Three hundred dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Allowance to harbour master at Amherstburg, for supervision of lights and buoys on the St. Clair river, the Detroit river and lake Erie, and other services in connection with the lighthouse service for the season of navigation, 1925, $600.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Have we had this item
before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, for quite a number of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada, $10,000.
Alfred Speakman: What is the purpose
of the patrol, and, in a general way, what localities are covered?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for a
compilation of reports from the Canadian Arctic expedition. Approximately ninety per cent of all reports prepared have been published and it is hoped to complete the whole work, including the binding of the volumes for distribution to libraries and universities, before the end of the fiscal year.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Leland Payson Bancroft: Is the same course
followed every year in the Arctic patrol, or is a new course mapped out for different waters from year to year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This work is practically
completed, and the appropriation provides only for the compilation of publications in regard to the Canadian Arctic expedition.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I suggest that the minister might adopt a new course this year and have a cruise made of Hudson strait in the summer in order to acquire a little more information regarding the feasibility of that undertaking.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of the vote
was spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was spent $9,695.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice that in some
cases a re-vote is indicated. As all the money was not spent last year under this item, should there not be some mention of a re-vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is nothing here in
the form of a re-vote; the amount not spent was paid back into the treasury.


Alfred Speakman: The minister stated
that this work of compiling data was almost complete. Does that indicate that this service will shortly be discontinued?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: So far as the department
is concerned, yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I did not quite get what
the minister said. Is this in connection with fisheries, or is it for survey of currents, or for what purpose?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The object of the expedition was to get information regarding the general conditions there. The reports are related to a certain extent to fisheries.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: When the minister says
"there," what does he mean?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Arctic.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But the work is done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I notice that in 1922-23
we were paying $15,000 for this work; in 1923-24 $15,000; in 1924-25 $10,000; and this year again we are asked for $10,000. I have no statistics further back than 1922-23. The minister says that the work is all done and that this is merely to provide for the preparation of reports. When all the amounts are so nearly equal as those I have read,
I wonder whether they all relate to the pre-
paration of reports, or what differentiates one item from the other. What relates to work and what to reports? I hope we are not surveying the Arctic ocean. We would like to use $10,000 a little nearer home.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is the last year that
such an amount is going to be asked for. This vote is asked to compile and complete the reports on the Canadian Arctic expedition.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What practical good are
we going to get out of this that will help a soul in Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that scientific people throughout Canada attach very great importance to this publication.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I sympathize with the minister, because I suppose I am springing on him something, perhaps, that he knows as little about as I do. The scientific people may appreciate it very much, but is there any practical value to science? Is anybody going to take a boat into these regions? Are we locating icebergs? Are we gaining territory of any value?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department is not
contemplating any expedition this year, but is only desirous of closing the matter and completing the publications that are almost ready at the present time.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot find the relevant
item in the Auditor General's report. I have no doubt it is there, but I do not know under what heading to look for it. I fancy if I could find it, my old friend the Printing Bureau would figure very largely and that somebody was being paid for drawing maps. Very likely I would find that the result of this is all stored away in the archives and that nobody ever bothers about it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are in all ninety of
these reports.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How much did it cost for printing them last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Approximately $3,000 was spent last year for printing.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What did the other $6,000 or $7,000 go for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is the salary of
Hon. J. C. Patterson, formerly Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, $2,400, and Mr. Johansen.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Who is Hon. J. C. Patterson?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He was formerly Minister
of Militia.


George Perry Graham: As I am one of the oldtimers, I might explain.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I fancy it does not need any explanation.


George Perry Graham: Hon. J. C. Patterson wa3 formerly Minister of Militia, not in a Liberal government, but in another government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological service, including magnetic observatory grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal observatories, and allowance of $400 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $260,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is the same as last year. It is to provide for the maintenance of the meteorological service of Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is any other department carrying on meteorological work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know of any other department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $119,210.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is to provide for the inspection of steamboats in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. Under the provisions of this act the Governor in Council may make regulations for the testing of boilers and construction 9 p.m. and working thereof, for the inspection of hulls and equipment of steamboats, also for the inspection of machinery and equipment of steamboats, and for the examination and certification of steamboat engineers. Provision is also made for the appointment of competent inspectors for these purposes.


William John Ward: Do the steamship owners not pay for this inspection themselves?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They do.


William John Ward: Is this large vote refunded to the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department collects
fees for the inspection of steamboats and boilers from the owners of the ships.


William John Ward: Is that plus the item that we are considering here?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department pays the salaries of the men who are carrying on the work, making these inspections of boilers, hulls and equipment, and collects the fees. These inspectors are departmental employees.


Arthur John Lewis: To whom are the fees paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To the Receiver General.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
total amount of fees collected equal the sum mentioned in this item? If not, what is the difference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department has a small balance to its credit at the end of the year.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was the total amount collected?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The figures show only the period from the 1st April to the 1st October, during which period the department received $81,741.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the idea of not having them made up on the same basis as the estimates? The minister states that $81,000 is the amount collected in fees prior to the 1st October.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to October 1.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much will be collected between October 1 and March 31?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed it will be
between $40,000 and $50,000.


Thomas George McBride: I think the hon. member
can rest assured that the government charged the steamboat owners every dollar they could get out of them.


Edward Joseph Garland: I presume
it is a steamboat owner speaking.
Mr. TO'LMIE:	Mr. Chairman, with regard
to the steamship inspectorship at Victoria, British Columbia, this position was filled very ably by a Mr. Cullum for a number of years. He died a short time ago. I understand that just before his death he had in preparation an application for a retiring allowance or pension such as is usually given to government officials, but owing to the fact that he never completed it his widow has been unable to secure the benefits that she would otherwise have been entitled to. This is a very responsible position indeed, and in the course of his work he inspected steamships that were carrying thousands of passengers in and out of British Columbia ports every year. Under the circumstances, I think it is most unfortunate that his very deserving widow and family should suffer as the result of his slight negligence, and I 'would commend to the attention of the minister the advisability

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
of ta-king a (charitable view of the matter in order to see if it is not possible to arrange for the widow to receive what her husband would have received had he completed the pension application before his death.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This question has been
discussed between the officers of my department and the Department of Finance. No decision has yet been arrived at, but I can assure my hon. friend that I am very sympathetic to the representations he has made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Marine and Fisheries-salaries $484,720, contingencies, $95,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
provide for the salaries of the staff of the department at headquarters, numbering all told 245, being eleven less than last year and thirty-four less than the year before. This item is $12,280' less than last year and $41,120 less than the year before, in spite of the fact that the statutory increases last year amounted to $20,000 and this year to $8,100. These reductions have been accomplished by the abolition of positions as they became vacant or by reversion to minimum salaries.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
the duties of the director of radio sendee? I notice he has quite a substantial salary. I presume the position is a very responsible one and the duties onerous. Would the minister outline them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The position of the director of radio service is a very important one indeed because he has to shoulder all the responsibilities of the radio branch of the department. As my hon. friend will understand, fresh developments are taking place every day in radio, and, as I stated yesterday, the department is establishing new stations from time to time to look after navigation and commercial matters. The director is an expert.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are
his duties?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is the expert adviser
of the department; nothing is done in this branch without having been first submitted tc him, and he is in charge of the whole service. Men of his experience are not very numerous in this country.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice there is one
Dominion wreck commissioner. What are his duties?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He conducts inquiries into
shipping accidents and makes reports thereon to the department.
CMr. Tolmie.]


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice he is paid a
pretty good salary. How many times last year was he called on to conduct inquiries into wrecks?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is busy practically all
the time. The duties of this branch of the service were described yesterday when the House passed an item in regard to the Dominion wreck commissioner.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many wrecks took
place on the coast of Canada last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the course of last summer the commissioner held thirty-two inquiries.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not know who hold the positions I am going to refer to, and I make no reflection whatever on the gentlemen who do. But I notice we have one chief naval architect, $5,400; one assistant naval architect, $3,420; two assistant architects, $2,580 each, a total of about $14,000. I was not aware we were building anything like a ship each year, or that we had been doing so for the last two or three years. Lighthouses would hardly seem to come within the scope of the duties of a naval architect. If they were set well out in the water I suppose there would be a general plan and it would not be difficult to have them built by ordinary masons or carpenters. Possibly this. is a survival of the time when the department was struggling with the construction of Noah's ark and these men have been kept on the payroll ever since. There may be something really useful for them to do, but I shall be glad to have it explained.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The chief naval architect
is Mr. Duguid. He has to look after any new construction and supervise all repairs.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not mean the repairs. Here are four other gentlemen in the same category; what architectural work is going on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The naval architect has to prepare the designs of all repairs when designs are necessary, to look after all new construction, and to supervise the work. Besides he is practically the adviser for all the departments when they have to buy vessels, including the Canadian National Railways.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What have we built in
the last three years in the way of naval architecture, and what has it cost? I am not suggesting that anybody be thrown out of a position, but there cannot be naval architectural work for so many men, and I suggest they might usefully be transferred and take

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
up other duties. If this were the Department of National Defence I could understand that four men could rebuild the navy in about a year, but it is the Department of Marine and Fisheries; and I was under the impression that boats were bought ready-made and that repairs were generally done by contract. I cannot think that ordinary repairs would require any special drafting by a naval architect, who, I understand, is a man concerned with original construction. The repairs must really be a small matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is true we have not in
recent years done any important construction work. But these employees have been in the service a long time and in past years very important construction work was done in the department. Practically all the dredges used on the St. Lawrence ship channel were built by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and designed by the naval architect.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister is under the impression that I am directing my remarks to the chief naval architect. Not at all. I do not know who they are, but I am referring to four, all told

the chief, the assistant chief, and two assistant naval architects.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is only one assistant to the chief naval architect. The others are in the lighthouse branch.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
ask the minister and the committee to cast
their eyes over the following items:
1 Director of radio service	 $4,500
1 Division superintendent of	radio service.. 3,480
3 Radio electrical engineer	 2,880
1	Senior radio inspector	 2,700
2	Radio inspectors, one at $2,200 and one
at $1,980	 4,200
1 Junior radio electrical engineer	 2,040
Making a total, roughly, of $20,000. Frankly I had no conception that the radio activities of this government had extended so rapidly as to justify an expenditure of this kind. I do not know whether or not the radio is going to be used for election purposes in the next election. I do not know what it is being used for to-day beyond the broadcasting of market reports, time signals, and other matters. There may be some justification for it; I do not want to be over-critical. But $20,000 seems to be an enormous sum of money for this country to be spending on radio in salaries only.


Thomas George McBride: From practical experience
on the Pacific coast I know that this money is well spent. Anybody who has ever been connected with the steamboat business knows full well the value of the service that is given
in this connection. A boat which has not wireless, equipment may get into difficulties up north yet some other boat which has the equipment can report to Vancouver so that assistance can be rendered; and if an accident has taken place it can be found out and help given. In that way a vessel can be put in touch with almost any part of the coast whether it has radio connections or not. It is a very important service, and those who have been connected with sea life appreciate it more than I could find words to express.


Edward Joseph Garland: Now that
the acting minister has answered, perhaps the minister would give us some information. I have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. McBride) has some intimate knowledge of the matter and I do not in the least dispute his contention; no doubt a great deal of good service has been rendered. But the men mentioned here are not the men who are broadcasting the messages at sea, picking up S.O.S calls and that sort of thing from ships on the Pacific ocean.


Thomas George McBride: They are picking them
up from the stations.


William John Ward: Is it not a fact that all steamships of any consequence carry their own wireless apparatus? Are these government radio stations necessary for the protection of shipping and the like?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department must control receiving stations in order to pick up the messages that come from the steamships. It is true these men are not operating the stations owned by the department all over the country, but they have to see to the construction of all our stations, draft all the designs, arrange to get the materials, and supervise the work. Further, they have to see that the stations are kept in proper order and up to date, so far as new developments are concerned. Having regard to the responsibility attached to their work and the importance of this branch of the service, which is increasing every day, I think these men deserve the salaries they receive.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
complaining of the salaries, but of the number of officials and superintendents. I think technical men ought to be paid in regard to their ability, but I fail to see the justification for all these officials. The minister might take a leaf out of the book of the Minister of Railways. I do no' think the Canadian

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
National Railway system carries a staff of experts of this size, and they are doing probably just as much broadcasting as this department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In how many places are
these radio stations installed, and in what parts of Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department has 20
stations on the east coast, 9 on the west coast, and 8 on the Great Lakes.


Alfred Speakman: Have these officials any duties to perform in connection with the supervision or inspection of private radio, in addition to the 'government service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Would the minister give
the location of these nine stations on the Pacific coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Alert Bay, Bull Harbour,
Cape Lazo, Dead Tree Point, Digby Island, Estevan, Gonsales Hill, Point Grey and Pachena Point.


Mr. DOUCET (Translation):: Would the
hon. minister state where the stations on the Atlantic are located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Belle Isle, Point Amour,
Cape Race, Grindstone Island, Fame Point, Clarke City, Father Point, Grosse Isle, Quebec, Montreal, Cape Sable, Camperdown, Sable Island, North Sydney, Halifax, Heath Point Lightship, Lurcher Lightship.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What are the duties of the director of pilotage, and what territory does he cover?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He has charge of the entire pilotage service in the St. Lawrence and the gulf and on the Atlantic coast, but has nothing to do with pilotage on the west coast.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have these inspectors any supervision over the stations maintained by the Canadian National Railways?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any correlation between the stations of the Canadian National and the stations maintained by the Department of Marine?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department supervises the stations of the Canadian National; these are broadcasting stations. This department has no broadcasting stations, simply wireless telegraph stations.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there a wireless station at Fort Vermilion in the province of Alberta? I had some correspondence with three departments about a year ago regarding this matter. I wrote first to the Minister of the Interior; he referred me to the Minister of Public Works. I wrote to the Minister of Public Works; he referred me to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I wrote to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and was referred back to the Northwest Territories branch of the Department of the Interior. This may not be the right time to take this question up, but I would ask the minister if a station has been established at Fort Vermilion, or if it is the intention to do so, or if the department is studying the question at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no station at that place. If one has been established there, it may have been by the Department of National Defence or the Department of the Interior.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The application in the first place was for a telegraph line, and I understand the suggestion was made that a wireless station connecting up with the wireless station at McMurray and the Yukon would be more efficient and more economical. The people residing at Fort Vermilion were under the impression that a wireless station would be established there, and I just wanted to get a statement from the minister regarding that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is probably under the control of the Interior department.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Has the
Interior department anything to do with wireless or is it entirely under the control of the Marine department? The point is, if wireless is to be established in preference to a wire line, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I suppose, is the one that will have to handle it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Logically that may be, but I am told the Interior department is operating three stations independent of the ones my department is operating. I admit there is a possibility of amalgamation there.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Have the radio men who are employed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries anything at all to do with the stations under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Have any other departments radio stations?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of National Defence have no station, but they have some radio sets for their own use.


Alfred Speakman: In that case the supervision of the officers of this department extends only to stations under its immediate control and over privately operated radios, but does not include the radios that may be established by other departments.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is right.


Alfred Speakman: They would be entirely under the supervision of their respective departments?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are independent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: These other departments would have radio experts of their own?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Interior department
has no radio experts. Very often they depend upon ,our experts, and the experts of the Department of National Defence.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understood the minister to say a minute ago that the Department of National Defence has no experts.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Department of National Defence have a certain number of officers who are trained experts in wireless and radio-telegraphy, and there is in the department a certain number of portable sets that are used for training purposes in camp or elsewhere. But the Department of National Defence have no permanent stations such as the Department of the Interior and the Department of Marine and Fisheries have.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What I am trying to
find out is whether there is any interlocking or overlapping between the different departments?


Eugène Fiset: There is none.


Mr. MILNE:: Has the department a system of wireless telegraphing as well as a system of wireless telephoning?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Milne: With the same experts?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the work
of the superintendent of harbour commissions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This officer supervises all
the works carried on in the different harbours, and checks the payments made by the corn-192
missioners out of advances voted by parliament. The various harbour commissions have to make reports to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, of all the disbursements they have made, and this official checks these expenditures,


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then as I understand it the harbour commissions of Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver report to him?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They report to the department, and this officer is charged with the checking of all these reports.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does he have anything to do with the estimates of the expenditures of these commissions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the work he
does is merely clerical?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He acts more or less as an auditor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The accounts come in from the different commissions and he audits these accounts?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.	.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why is it necessary to have any other than a competent auditor to do this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is practically an auditor's work he is doing. He audits the accounts and books for the different harbour commissions.


William Thomas Lucas: I notice considerable increase
in his salary this year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: His position has been reclassified by the Civil Service Commission.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is this the vote on which the harbour commissions can be discussed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
gentleman referred to .make trips, we will say, to Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal? I should imagine that would be necessary if he is properly auditing the books?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. His duties take him to those cities.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, this iman simply holds the position of auditor. Is that correct?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.



Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Edward Joseph Garland: I was wondering at the glorified name he has. Would it not be juet as well to put him down as auditor of the department? If that were done it might hurt his dignity but it would not confuse members of the House.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The title in question is given to this office under the classification made by tlhe Civi Service Commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: I really
must take exception to the continued practice of ministers of 'blaming everything on the Civil Service Commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not blame the commission; this classification is made in accordance with the law.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I submit to the minister that before anything is done by the Civil Service Commission in his department he passes upon it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot agree with my hon. friend in regard to that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, the minister has the right to do it. Does the minister deny he has that right?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I contend I have no right to interfere witih the decisions of the Civil Service Commission. They are the ones who decide in the end; the decision rests in their hands.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister suggest for one moment that the Civil Service Commission has ever refused to accept a recommendation of his own?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have never had that experience, because I have always respected the desire and the will of the Civil Service Commission.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister
whether we will have any other opportunity to discuss the work of the harbour commissions, particularly the Vancouver Harbour Commission, or should the discussion take place under this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret that it cannot be
done under these estimates. Usually the work of the harbour commissioners is discussed when they ask for a loan or advance of money from the government.


George Gibson Coote: I understand they are not
asking for any grants this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One never knows


George Gibson Coote: There certainly should be
opportunity for some discussion in the House this year. I would think we would have a

right to have that discussion now but perhaps this is not the proper time. I therefore ask the minister whether we will have some other opportunity for such a discussion as I have indicated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think there will be an
opportunity of discussing these matters before the close of this session.


George Gibson Coote: The minister is not very
positive. I wonder if he will not give us some assurance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am pretty sure there will be an opportunity for discussion.


George Gibson Coote: It is a very important matter and I think we should have the positive assurance of the minister that opportunity for discussion will be afforded later on. If not, we will attempt to discuss the matter now.


George Perry Graham: Could the discussion not
take place on the Grain Act when it comes before the House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
. Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, that is the point my hon. friend has in view. If I am correct he wants to discuss the conduct of the harbour commission as it affects the handling of grain to a large extent.


George Gibson Coote: Particularly as it affects the
handling of grain.


Mr GRAHAM:: That would come in I
think without question when we are discussing the Grain Act. I think there would be full opportunity then.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to have the
assurance of the minister that we would have some opportunity.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, you will get it.


Alfred Speakman: Is there any item in
the estimates for the payment of salaries to officers of harbour commissions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Alfred Speakman: Are they not paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are not paid by the government; they are paid out of the revenues of the harbour.


Alfred Speakman: I was quite aware they were paid indirectly, but I thought they were paid just as inspectors are paid. For instance where fees are charged for a particular service those fees are paid into the account of the Receiver General and the salaries are paid from that fund. In this case salaries are paid out of the revenues of the harbour, are they?

Supply-Marine and Fidie ics


Leland Payson Bancroft: The harbour commissioners are like members of parliament are they not?-they pay themselves.


Alfred Speakman: I may point out there is a difference in that respect. Our indemnities are paid by a vote of the House of Commons and therefore we can discuss our own actions under that vote.


George Gibson Coote: I think it was stated in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that the government had an engineer superintending or inspecting building of the new elevator at Vancouver. Under what estimate would that engineer's salary come?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sure the answer
given was that the department had no engineer inspecting the work. As a matter of fact there is none.


George Gibson Coote: Then I am under a misapprehension. I thought the answer stated that you had. I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to a bond for $321,000 which was given by the contractor for the completion of two ships at Prince Rupert some years ago and which, up to a year ago had not been paid by the bond company. Has this bond been collected?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Collection has not been
made. Proceedings to collect the amount are still pending in the courts.


George Gibson Coote: Has the government taken
action against this company for recovery of the money?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My department has
handed the matter over to the Department of Justice.


George Gibson Coote: How many years has the
country been out this money?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Since about 1918.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give us
a satisfactory explanation as to why it has not been collected yet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department handed
the case over to the Department of Justice a long time ago but so far no decision has been given. The matter is still pending.


George Gibson Coote: When was the matter
handed over to the Department of Justice?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nearly two years ago.


George Gibson Coote: It seems to me that the
department has been very lax in this matter and is certainly open to criticism. Will the 192*
minister give his opinion as to whether the money will ever be collected.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I really hope that the
collection will be made; but it is wholly dependent on what the decision shall be.


George Gibson Coote: I presume that the minister's hope is the best we can look for.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hope is based on my
own conviction, but I do not know what the decision of the Department of Justice will be.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Did the minister's department ever request the Justice department to hand down its decision, or did it ever remind them of the matter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The matter was submitted
to the Justice department with a request that proceedings be taken.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Have you requested a
decision?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the exact
details, but I know that the matter was submitted to that department and their decision is still pending.


George Gibson Coote: The Department of Marine
and Fisheries cannot disclaim all responsibility even though it has submitted this matter to the Department of Justice. In private concerns, if after two years a 'lawyer had been unable to report results his clients would not fail to prod him regularly. Is this money collectable or are we to abandon all hope of getting it? I am afraid the department has forgotten about it and that no attempt will ever be made to collect it. If the bond is collectable, why has it not been collected? Was some mistake made in the drawing of the bond so that the money cannot now be collected? The committee is entitled to a frank statement from the minister. I realize that this happened before the present minister came into office, but I think that an explanation is due the committee and the country of the delay there has been in attempting to collect this money. What is the use of paying for a bond if we do not make some real attempt to collect the money when the bond is in default?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My department has done
all that it could. The officers were under the impression that the money could be recovered, and, as I have said, they have placed the matter in the hands of the Justice department and are now awaiting its decision.


William Thomas Lucas: I see that provision is made
for an overseer. What are his duties?

Supply-Marine and, Fisheries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He supervises the operations of all vessels belonging to the department.


Arthur John Lewis: There is a senior inspector
of fog alarms. What does he do?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He has charge of all fog
alarms throughout the country. These alarms are very expensive pieces of machinery and he has entire supervision over all of them.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What are the duties of the superintendent of masters of seamen?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He deals with all questions affecting seamen generally; everything related to seamen comes under his jurisdiction and control.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What provision is made for life saving off the west coast of Vancouver Island and off the entrance to the straits of Juan de Fuca?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department controls a life saving station at Bamfield creek and another one at Clayoquot. The department also directs what is known as a patrol from Bamfield to Pachena. It was understood yesterday that this item would stand at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How are those stations
manned? What is the nature of the vessels? How man}' men are there at Clayoquot and Bamfield creek?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Bamfield, there are one, a coxswain, one engineer, seven boatmen and one cook. At Clayoquot there are one coxswain, one engineer and eight boatmen.
Mr. TOLMIE): Are any of the vessels of the Canadian navy engaged in this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: During the winter time they are operating in conjunction with my department in this work.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the nature of those vessels?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are of the trawler type.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: About how fast would they steam against a good stiff wind off the Pacific coast, say a forty or fifty knot gale?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to state.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the normal speed under the most favourable condition?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About twelve knots per
hour.
fMr. Lucas.]


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I thought it was about nine.
Mr. SPEAIvMAN: I notice we have in this item a private secretary at $3,360, a secretary to the executive at $1,860 and $600 allowance for secretarial duties in -the minister's office. What is the difference between the duties of a private secretary and a secretary to the executive?


George Perry Graham: Under the act a minister can bring his own private secretary with him, but that private secretary, if not a member of the civil service, retires with the minister unless some other minister accepts him. In addition to that, the act provides
10 p.m. that each minister can, without reference to the Civil Service Commission, bring in one called the secretary to the executive and one or two stenographers with, I think, two grades. These are not subject to the Civil Service Commission and they likewise go out with the minister. The duties of private secretaries are well known. In many departments the reason why this was allowed was that one private secretary was not able to cope with the work, and under the act the minister was allowed to bring^ in another called the secretary to the executive whose duties are any duties that may be provided by the private secretary.
Mr. SPEAKiMAN:	He is really an assistant to the private secretary.


George Perry Graham: Largely so. The minister
can adjust the duties and services of the private secretary and the secretary to the executive in almost any way.


Alfred Speakman: Although these secretaries appear under the heading of civil government and are paid out of this vote, they are not subject to the Civil Service Commission?


George Perry Graham: No.


Alfred Speakman: The mere fact that
they appear under this vote -does not mean that they are under the Civil Service Commission?


George Perry Graham: No.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Referring for a moment to our life-saving provisions on the Pacific coast, I am informed that these trawlers, owing to their lack of power, are inadequate for the purpose in the wintertime; that they can steam only about four knots against a gale; that they have been quite powerless in a gale on a lee shore; that they would have great difficulty in lowering boats under 'bad weather conditions. I would like to call the attention

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
of the minister to conditions that prevail on the west coast during certain seasons of the year. That particular section of the country has had a number of very serious wrecks in years past, and there has been a great loss of life owing to the fact that no proper provision has been made. In a matter of life and death like this, the government should provide adequate vessels in sufficient numbers to be a real protection.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I notice in this list there are nine accountants or account clerks, one audit clerk and numerous clerks. What is the difference between these positions? Why are some called account clerks and others audit clerks?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can only repeat that these titles are those which are ascribed to the positions by the Civil Service Commission. Very often the difference between the duties is slight.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I see that the services
of one storekeeper have been dispensed with and that no money is allowed for him this year. How has it been possible to do away with this position?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Readjustment of duties
amongst the other employees has rendered possible the abolition of this position. The duties are performed by other employees in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection service, $880,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Would the
hon. minister inform us if his department has considered a resolution adopted on June 17, last, by the committee of Marine and Fisheries in connection with the lobster fishing season in the straits of Northumberland. This resolution recommends that the lobster fishing season begins August 6 instead of August 16?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot offhand give a precise answer to the question of the hon. member; however, if such a resolution exists in the department, I am satisfied that it will receive due consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I understand some discussion has taken place as to the actual merits of fish hatcheries and the stocking of streams. Is an investigation into this matter under way?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Complaints have been made to the department, but no definite stand has
been taken because no specific proposal has been made to displace the present system. The biological board has received instructions to investigate the whole system and report thereon.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I noticed
an article in the press a short time ago regarding Lesser Slave lake in Alberta, according to which an attempt is being made to save the white fish business there by reducing the annual hatch. Of course this means the curtailment of the industry. Is there any possibility of increasing the number of white fish by artificial means, or is it too expensive?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Representations have been
made to the department, and if I remember correctly the annual catch has been reduced to 650,000 pounds. The department thinks the best means of protecting the fishery is by limiting the catch and enforcing a close season.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there any possibility of establishing a hatchery or replenishing the supply of fish by any other means than simply limiting the catch?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the fact that
representations have been made to the department that our hatchery system is defective, it is very hard to give an answer before the report o'f the biological board, which is in charge of the investigation, has been received.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Where is
the nearest hatchery to Lesser Slave lake?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Banff hatchery.


Edward Joseph Garland: According
to a rumour that is going the rounds with respect to the methods adopted by the Fish Culture branch, it would appear that during a certain season a river was stocked with trout, and some time subsequently it was stocked with bass, with the result that most of the trout were devoured. Is there any truth in the rumour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information is that
these waters have not been stocked with bass.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, were
they stocked with some other fish that were not exactly friendly to the trout?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nothing of the kind has
come to the knowledge of the officers of the department.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would suggest to the minister that it might be advisable for him to look into the matter. Stories are circulating that that actually took place.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Leland Payson Bancroft: If we are discussing
fish hatcheries under this item, I would ask the minister if anything has been done to replace the hatchery on the Dauphin river that was burned down?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No decision has been
reached because, having received complaints about the whole hatchery system, the department hesitates to take any further steps until the report of the biological board, which is now conducting an investigation, is at hand. If the system is wrong, of course the department will not undertake the construction of new hatcheries.


Leland Payson Bancroft: In that connection, I
might say that the people up there think that before the hatchery is rebuilt there should be a conference between the officials of the department, the fishermen and the fish companies as to where the new hatchery should be located, so they may all be satisfied that the best location has been selected. It is generally thought that some other spot on the lake would be much better adapted for a hatchery than the old site.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will make a note of the hon. member's recommendation.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: What is the personnel of the biological board?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: While the minister's assistant is looking up that information I have a question to submit. I did not know that the subject of hatcheries came under this vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It does not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Might I ask what progress has been made with respect to changing the location of the Sparkle fish hatchery, so-called, on the Miramichi river? This matter has been under investigation by the department, I understand, and it has been decided that there is not enough water at that point to supply a hatchery. I was informed, I think about six months ago, that a new hatchery was to be established on Simpson's brook, where there is a better water supply.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that no decision has yet been reached in regard to this matter.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think I have a letter on my file from the minister, or someone in his department, saying that a decision had been reached, and they were only waiting to secure a suitable site from the provincial government before constructing the hatchery. That was six months ago. We had hoped that
[Mr. E. J. Gariand.l
the hatchery would have been constructed in time to take care of the hatching of fry this spring.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no recollection of such a letter. The officers who are with me to-night inform me that no definite decision has been reached. However,) I will make further inquiries and let my hon. friend know next week.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is another item that does, however, come under this vote- the salaries of temporary guardians who are put on in the summer for fish protection work. I have urged upon the minister bbfore that these salaries should be increased, and as one of the members of this House who believe in economy my suggestion possibly may not seem just in line with my belief. The salaries of these men should be increased. In my province at least, in order to carry on this work they must in some cases camp thirty or forty miles from a settlement, must transport their own food, build their own shelter, furnish their own boat, be ready for duty day and night- and all this at the magnificent rate of $2 or $2.25 a day. I do not think we can expect to get very good service at that rate of pay. The men give better service, no doubt, than they are paid for; at the same time we cannot get the best class of men or expect the best service when the remuneration is inadequate. Has the minister considered the question of increasing the pay of these guardians?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To increase their pay would mean a very large expenditure,>
because a considerable number of guardians are spread all over the country. The department is always afraid to come to parliament and ask for increases in the salaries of employees. But I am free to admit that, personally, I take a sympathetic attitude toward the views of the hon. gentleman. I realize that a good many of these guardians are rendering efficient service, are faithfully 'carrying out the important duties 'assigned to them, and are deserving of the consideration of the department. This matter is not closed, and I can assure my hon. frienidi that I aim quite ready to 'look into it. I agree that his remarks are worthy of consideration.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How many 'of these temporary gulardians are there? The minister mentions his fear of asking for money to increase the pay to these men, but I notice he is not very bashful about asking us for $16,000,000 to canry on dredging as to the necessity for which we are not ail agreed. I do not think that is a valid reason. Those who live in the inland

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
provinces hardly realize the importance of our fisheries, and this is a branch of the 'Service that must not be allowed to starve for want of efficient men to carry it on.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The number of guardians is 423.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much would it cost to increase their pay by $1 a day, which would even then be a small wage? What is the average period of service of these temporary guardians?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: From two to four or five months.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: An average of about
ninety days. Possibly some hon. members do not appreciate this feature of it:	we have
immense fisheries off the coasts of these provinces. The salmon, for instance, do not breed in the salt water but must go well up the fresh water streams to the cold brooks to Spawn and thus propagate the species. In some cases poachers fence the river with hen wire fencing so that the fish oannot ascend. The system is to build a cage covered with this wire netting, anchor it in the middle of the stream and run out wire fences each way to the shore So that the fish are caught on the way u,p; and from these cages they are taken out by the wagon load. This has been done in more than one instance and in more than one river in New Brunswick. If it continues, the fisheries along the coast will be destroyed, because the fish will be unable to get up to the fresh water brooks to spawn. Our fisheries off the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are something immense. It would be interesting to hon. members to examine the statistics for the past year. I do not know what the statistics of the department indicate, but it is my impression that the value of the fisheries is decreasing, due to the very things of which I apeak. These guardians are required to traverse the streams in this wilderness country at a great distance from civilization, in Some cases 'taking their lives in their hands, because sometimes these poachers are fairly desperate men; there was one murder committed on the north shore of New Brunswick, the victim being a fishery guardian, and I do not think the murderer was ever apprehended. These guardians need to 'be men of nerve and resourcefulness. They are asked to furnish their own boat and blankets, to carry their own flood, to build their own camps, practically to qpend day and night in this service-all at the magnificent rate of $2.25 a day. It is not reasonable at all. I do not think I am often heard in this House advocating an increase of pay for anybody, but
this is one case where we are not getting the service because we are not giving enough pay; and so long as the pay is so inadequate we cannot expect anything else.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Mr. Chairman, citizens
in Madawaska county, in New Brunswick have organized a club comprising actually more than 200 members. They requested the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to appoint an inspector for Madawaska county. The .minister assured us that the request of the members of the club would receive special consideration. I trust that he will not forget.
As to the salary paid to those fish wardens. I may state that it is too small. Many of them work for $2 or $2.25 a day. I share the views of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) and I trust that they will be better treated in the future. Moreover, I hope that we shall have an extra fish warden appointed to watch over all the rivers of Madawaska county.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall not fail to give my best consideration to the request of the hon. member for Madawaska.
I repeat what I have said in reply to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton. I am absolutely sympathetic towards the views he has expressed, and I will do the best I can to comply with his request.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to shut anybody off at all, but if we could finish these marine estimates, we could go home. The first item is the really important item, and if we could dispose of it I think we would have done a pretty good week's work.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would ask the hon. member to report progress on this item. We have put through a lot of items this afternoon and evening, it is nearly half past ten and I think we might as well let this stand over, because there are a number of questions that can reasonably be asked from all parts of the House on this item.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: This vote involves the whole fisheries in the Dominion of Canada. As has been stated by my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton, we have in the province of New Brunswick very extensive fisheries. Some varieties of fish will ascend the streams and rivers and spawn, especially some bass and smelt. We have across these rivers, bridges in certain places, and under these bridges there will be a fish passage. The fishermen take advantage of these passages to set traps and fish nets, and obstruct the passage of the fish up the river. I think this should certainly be looked into.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

As far as the salaries of the coast guardians are concerned, I believe that the fact that several fishery officials are employed in each of the constituencies has been overlooked by my friend from Victoria and Carleton. In my constituency, besides the coast guardians, we have four overseers of fisheries, whose duty it is to prevent poaching, and to enforce the fishery regulations throughout the constituency. These fishery overseers are being helped by the coast guardians, and I believe we have too many fishery overseers and too few coast guardians. We have in my constituency, as I have just said, four fishery overseers, and each fishery overseer is being helped by the coast guardians. One fishery overseer for the whole constituency would be sufficient. An extra good man should be appointed, and the recommendation of the Department of Marine and Fisheries should be taken into consideration by the Civil Service Commission when any man is to be appointed in connection with the fisheries. Only	lately an inspector of
fisheries was appointed having jurisdiction over half the province of New Brunswick who was a school teacher. He is a very bright young man, but instead of selecting a man who had thirty or forty years' experience in the fisheries, and some men with this experience have been recommended-I recommended one myself, a very competent man who had spent most of h'is life in the fisheries of New Brunswick, but the application was not considered by the commission, and the school teacher was appointed in his stead. If this is the way we are going to promote and protect our fisheries in the Maritime provinces, it is about time this government should hand over the fisheries of the Maritime provinces to a joint commission composed of representatives of the three provinces by the sea. The old government before the Civil Service Commission was inaugurated appointed a church minister to take charge of cur fisheries in the Maritime provinces, in the person of Warden Fisher of Halifax.


George Perry Graham: He was fishing in the
wrong place.


Jean George Robichaud: In so far as the protection of our fisheries is concerned, I reiterate that a man who has had experience in the fisheries should be selected, and a man who can devote his whole time to the fisheries. Unless this be done, and unless our fisheries are duly protected, I say that the Dominion government should hand over the fisheries of the Maritime provinces to the three Maritime provinces. The province of Quebec is
[Mr. Robichaud.l
handling its own fisheries, and making a real success of it. I do not say that this department is not doing its duty. We have very efficient men at the head of the fisheries of this country. Our director of fisheries and his staff are all very competent men, and they are doing their duty, but they are too far from the scene of action. They cannot cover the ground as they should, and they have not the required number of officials under them working along the different sections of the coast. I truly believe that some remedy can be found for this difficulty. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries should, I believe, send some of his officials down to the Maritime provinces and investigate the whole situation. Our fisheries have been badly depleted, and the quality of the fish produced is perhaps not quite up to the mark.
I am going to ask the Department of Marine and Fisheries-and I am sure the officials of the department and the House will not look on this as an unnatural request-to grant a small sum of money to our farmers' fair in Gloucester county this year. Why? Our fishermen are not producing the class of fish that is required by the different markets of to-day. The markets of fifty years past were not as particular as the markets of to-day. Our markets to-day are demanding an extra good quality of fish, and the curing of fish is an art in itself. We have in my constituency several classes of cured fish, such as the Gaspe cured dried fish, which is a brand two hundred years old. That is produced largely in my own constituency, and the Gaspe cured fish produced in my constituency does not fill the requirements of the market. I believe that we should have a system of education amongst our fishermen, and it is for that reason I intend to ask the department to grant $500 or $1,000 to our farmers' fair, so that we can have a fish stall where the fishermen will exhibit the finest quality of fish they can produce. This exhibit should be under the supervision of an official of the department. I believe a great deal of good could be accomplished in this way.


George Perry Graham: The minister of Marine
and Fisheries is getting weary and I think perhaps it will appeal to every hon. gentleman if we allow vote 239, to provide $880,000, for salaries and disbursements in connection with the fisheries patrol and fisheries protection service and vote number 245, to provide $370,000 for fish culture, to stand and pass the smaller items. We can reserve the two larger items referred to, under which every

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
thing under the sun in relation to fisheries can ibe discussed, for another day, 'but if the committee are agreeable we might put through the smaller votes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Vote number 242, which
provides $95,000 to assist in the conservation and development of deep-sea fisheries and the demand for fish, deals with a large question of policy. I do not know that we will gain any time by rpostponing matters; they will be discussed just the same.


George Perry Graham: I am trying to make a
reasonable compromise.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We have given you the
big end of the compromise all through.


George Perry Graham: Personally, I have been
sitting here every night until after midnight and I am just beginning to get accustomed to it. I think we ought to reserve the $880,000 item because some hon. gentlemen who wish to discuss it are not here. My proposition is that we reserve the two large items I mention, put the others through, and then adjourn.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: H the minister will
guarantee that we can discuss any matter that arises in connection with the votes referred to I see no reason why we should not accept his proposal.


George Perry Graham: I do not think there is
any question about that. We have been discussing every possible thing under the first item.


William Garland McQuarrie: Just before that is
done let me point out that I asked a question some time ago and' I understood the minister was having the matter looked up.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The members of the
Biological Board of Canada are:	Dr. A. P.
Knight, chairman; Dr. E. E. Prince, secretary-treasurer; Dr. J. P. McMurrich; Mr. John Dybhaven, Mr. Handheld1 Whitman, Mr. J. J. Cowie, Professor O'Donahoe, Professor C. J. Connolly, Professor P. Cox, Very Rev. Canon V. A. Huard, Professor W. J. Mc-Clement, and Dr. A. H. McKay.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do the members of
this board receive any remuneration or any salary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They receive no salary.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has any reorganization taken place in the board? My reason for asking the question is that we were promised last session, I believe, that the board would be reorganized, particularly in so far as the Pacific representation was concerned-that
someone would be appointed who would devote his whole time to studying scientific questions in regard to fisheries on the Pacific coast. Up to the present time, as I understand it, representation has been confined to some university professor who during his holidays, would devote a certain time to studying the habits of fish. That, however, was not considered to be a satisfactory method of representation and, if the minister will remember, the Fisheries Commission of 1922 made certain recommendations in that connection. I think we were promised that some better system, of representation would 'be adopted, and that is what I would like to have an explanation about.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As a matter of fact the
act was amended in 1923, in order to increase the membership of the board and to permit the appointment of three additional men. Two of these were to represent industry-one from either coast-and the third was to be from the department. In this way the particular industries concerned and the department were linked together in such a manner it was thought, as would promote the best interests of those industries. The representative chosen for the Atlantic coast was Mr. Handfield Whitman, of Halifax, and for the Pacific coast Mr. John Dybhaven of Prince Rupert. The question of giving British Columbia larger representation on the board is under consideration and will be taken up at the next meeting of the board.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not catch the
name of the British Columbia representative.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is Mr. Dybhaven.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is he a scientific man?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is representing industry, I am informed.


William Garland McQuarrie: That does not touch
the point at all. As I understand it we were to have a scientific man on the coast who would devote his whole time to studying the habits of the fish, the possibility of restoring the run of salmon on the Fraser river and other matters connected with the Pacific coast fisheries. The minister knows how important the matter is particularly in regard to the Fraser river. The minister no doubt is aware that a few years ago we had a run of salmon on the Fraser river which brought in something like 900,000 cases of salmon per year. That run has been depleted so that at the present time it amounts to simply a matter of fifty or sixty thousand cases or so a year. In consequence the loss to the country is enormous. The matter to be looked into and

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
investigated is whether something can be done to restore the run of sockeye salmon on the Fraser river. Who is going to do that? It is not a matter for some man who is engaged in industry but for a scientific authority; one who will devote all his time to the work, and not a university professor who will simply employ part of his vacation for the purpose. I think the department is derelict if it does not make arrangements to carry out the promise which was given to us. We cannot play with this question. I do not think the minister is anxious to play with it as he must appreciate its importance. In connection with the Fraser river there are various matters that have to be taken into consideration. One of these, of course, is whether or not it is possible to make some arrangement with the fisheries board of the state of Washington. There must be co-operation between the authorities of the state of Washington and our government if anything permanent is to be achieved. I should like to ask the minister also what is the present state of the negotiations with the state of Washington authorities as to the Fraser river. I understand, and no doubt the minister has the necessary particulars, that some negotiations have been carried on, and that a joint committee has been appointed composed of representatives of the state of Washington and of the Canadian Department of Marine and Fisheries. It would be interesting in fact I think it is necessary, to know what is going on in this connection.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The situation at present is more encouraging than it has ever been before. The negotiations that are being carried on are quite satisfactory and the department is hopeful that the results Obtained will be equally gratifying. No definite decision has been reached so far. As regards the employment of an experienced man to look into the question of the restoration of the fisheries on the Fraser river, Dr. Forester is devoting his time to a study of the matter. The biological board, at its next meeting, will consider the question of increasing the number of its members and, if a decision is reached, the request of my hon. friend, to appoint someone with a special knowledge of conditions there, will no doubt foe taken into consideration.


William Garland McQuarrie: What are Dr. Forester's qualifications?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is well known as a
scientist and has been recommended by the biological board.


William Garland McQuarrie: Where is he located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is attached to the
station at Nanaimo, under Dr. Clemens.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is hardly studying the Fraser river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is his particular work ; he is looking particularly into the Fraser river situation.


William Garland McQuarrie: But the minister says that he is at Nanaimo. What investigation is he carrying on? I am not asking these questions merely for the sake of taking up the time of the committee. The matter is an important one, as the minister must realize.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite understand the importance of the subject. I understand that he has been carrying on an investigation on the Fraser river for quite a while.
Mr. MicQUARRIE:	Has he been actually
on the Fraser river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
Mr. McQUARRlhE:	Could the minister
furnish the committee with any details as to what investigations he has carried on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He is supposed to make
reports to the biological board, who in turn will report to the department.


William Garland McQuarrie: When was he appointed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Over two years ago.
M:r. McQUARRIE: And has he not made any report yet?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No report has been made
to the department, but .possibly he has reported or given information to the biological board. So far the department has received no information from the board.


William Garland McQuarrie: I submit that the department should be interested in the matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department is, indeed.


William Garland McQuarrie: Then I think that the
department should ascertain what reports Dr. Forester has made to the board, and we should have the details of them. Surely there is not much object in having a man make investigations unless some action is to be taken or unless we can know what reports he submits.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These investigations must
necessarily cover a long period; he cannot report every few months.


William Garland McQuarrie: But he has had two
years now in which to study the situation. I admit that there are a number of matters

Immigration Act Amendment
which will need to be investigated. There is for instance the matter of hatcheries, which has been referred to. I do not say that I am in favour of doing away with hatcheries; as a matter of fact, from my study of many years of hatchery methods, I thought that some improvement might be made in connection with the hatcheries of this country. But I have never advocated that the hatchery system should be discontinued, for I do not believe that this would be wise. Then there is the matter of the enemies of the salmon; for instance, the hair seal. This is a subject that must be studied. The hair seal at present destroys more salmon than the fishermen can catch. The fishermen have great difficulties to contend with in bringing in their fish, which are caught in the nets, before the seal can destroy them. There is also the danger from trout, which destroy the salmon spawn. Then there is the question of the restoration of the spawning grounds, thousands of acres of which, in the upper reaches of the Fraser river, have been entirely depleted, 'being now barren. Are these spawning grounds going to be restored? If you cannot restore them and get the fish to go there and spawn, then of course the run of sock-eye salmon will never be restored. What I want to know is whether this matter is being taken up seriously, or whether it has simply been handed over to Dr. Forester, who is looking into it and will perhaps in the dim and distant future submit some report which will be pigeon-holed. Is this what will happen, or do we intend to get down to business and see whether something practical cannot be accomplished? I must say, I am not satisfied with the information which the minister has given us to-night, and I really think the department should show more interest in the subject.


Mr. NEILL:: I may explain that this
biological station is not at Nanaimo but at Departure Bay, which is in the district of Comox-Albemi. I visited it last fall, but I am sorry to say that my memory is not sufficiently vivid to enable me to describe exactly wffiat investigation they were carrying out. Dr. Clemens was not there, but I met his assistant, who showed me over the grounds and explained carefully the kind of work he was going in for and the methods employed. I can only say, speaking in a general way, that I was favourably impressed with the economy and the efficiency with which the station was being run, and with the fact that there was being carried on a work of a thoroughly useful character.	I am sorry I
cannot state the precise work he was engaged
on, but the impression left on my mind was that we were getting good value for the money spent on that station.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $30,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like this item to stand, because there is something regarding New Brunswick about which I wish to get some information. It depends upon the information I get whether I shall be justified in making any observations in this House or not upon this subject.
Item stands.
To assist in the conservation and development of deepsea fisheries, and the demand for fish, $95,000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This is a very large
question, and I do not think this is the time of night to enter upon a discussion of it. I know there are some hon. members, in this part of the House at all events, who have expressed an intention of discussing the question of getting better markets for deep-sea fish. We might let this item stand.
Item stands.
To provide for investigations into practical and economic problems connected with fisheries, $10,000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would ask that this
item stand, because I do not think any of us understand what is intended by it.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Monday, May 11, 1925