[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the first report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Quebec Savings Bank Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: This bill is similar to the one which has been introduced hitherto at the decennial revision of the Bank Act. Its purpose is to extend the charters of the Quebec savings banks, which consist of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank and the Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec of Quebec city.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This bill is similar to the one which I introduced last year at the end of the session but which could not be discussed at that time. Its purpose is to amend the form of the oath of allegiance which all public officials have to take. It is intended to change the word "possessions" to "dominions," to agree with the title which His Majesty has had since the Imperial conference of 1926. It is intended also to strike out the words "dependent on and belonging to the said kingdom," which appear after the words "Dominion of Canada." These words are not true, they are against constitutional law and national dignity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) in connection with a question asked previously in the session as to the intention of the government to introduce legislation implementing the report of Sir Alexander Gibb on the national harbours.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The matter is still under consideration.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon.
member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) that at an early date I would endeavour to make a statement with respect to the wheat agreement. As the provincial legislation in connection with this matter will be introduced to-day or to-morrow I think it desirable to make a statement at this time. During the last few months the dominion government and the governments of the three prairie provinces have been Considering the action which should be taken to make effective the London wheat agreement so far as it relates to Canadian interests. Legislation has been agreed upon by the four governments and will be introduced to-day or to-morrow in the legislatures of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The proposed legislation empowers the lieutenant governor in council in each of the provinces to set up what is termed an emergency wheat control board, with power to licence and restrict within the province sales and deliveries of wheat. Provision is made also that in addition to or in lieu of such board a joint board may be established by the three prairie provinces or by one or more or all of the provinces in conjunction with the dominion. Such a board, if created, will be clothed with all the powers usually vested in what is commonly described as a "wheat board." The provisions dealing with the
Wheat Agreement-Mr. Bennett

licensing of sales and deliveries of wheat within the several provinces can, of course, be enacted by the legislature of a province, but legislation of this parliament is required to permit control of sales and deliveries outside the provinces. With respect to a wheat board, parliament will be invited to enact the necessary legislation to enable the government, in the event of the four governments being of the opinion that the necessity for same exists, to cooperate with the provinces in establishing a board, with all the necessary authority and powers to deal with any situation which may arise. It will be observed that the proposal contemplates the enactment of enabling legislation so that problems that may arise by reason of an unexpectedly large crop or from any other circumstance can be effectively dealt with.
The bills introduced to-day or to-morrow- I believe it is possible that they may not all be introduced to-day-into the legislatures of the several provinces will provide that the lieutenant governor in council shall, on and after the date upon which the act founded on the bill is assented to, and prior to the date of the establishment of the board or joint board, as therein provided, have power by order in council to make all such orders, rules and regulations, and do all such acts and things as in the opinion of the lieutenant governor in council may be necessary and requisite to bring the production of wheat in the province concerned in the year 1934 into proper alignment with the estimated current export demand for the crop season 1934-36 and normal domestic requirements in the same period, having regard to the quota applicable to the Dominion of Canada as provided. by article 2 of the London wheat agreement.
I may add, for the information of the house, that officials of this government have been in the past few weeks in consultation with the governments of the three prairie provinces. The steps already taken, together with the contemplated action, as provided by the proposed legislation, will, in the opinion of the governments concerned, fully implement the undertakings of the dominion under the London agreement..
Some time ago the hon. member for Wey-burn asked a question which I promised I would answer more full}'' when I had obtained further information which I was then securing. Hon. members will recall that negotiations and consultations among the four overseas wheat exporting countries had been in progress under the auspices of the League of Nations for some time before the London w'heat agreement was signed. As a result of

those discussions it was possible to allocate among the overseas exporting countries quotas for the crop year 1933-34 within the terms of article 1 of the agreement. At the time of the signing of the agreement, no quota had been agreed upon for the U.S.S.R., nor had a final agreement with respect to such quota yet been concluded but it is expected that at the meeting at Rome next month a satisfactory arrangement will be reached.
The four overseas exporting countries agreed, by article 2 of the London agreement:
to limit their exports of wheat during the crop year the 1st August, 1934, to the 31st July, 1935, to maximum figures 15 per cent less in the case of each country than the average out-turn on the average acreage sown during the period 1931-33 inclusive after deducting normal domestic requirements.
The determining of the quotas under the provisions of this article is, in the main, a statistical operation. In the case of the four overseas exporting countries, the three years 1931, 1932 and 1933, are used for computing the average acreage, and the yield per acre is determined over a ten-year period.
It is to be borne in mind that the purpose of the agreement is to raise the price of wheat, which can only be done when the surplus carryovers have been removed from the market. In this regard we must distinguish between formal obligations contained in an international agreement and collateral measures of domestic policy which may have to be taken to give effect to the provisions of the agreement. The measures of domestic policy taken by the signatory countries will not be identical. Argentina and Australia have, for instance, stated that they are not in a position to agree to any precise acreage reduction although they are willing to reduce their exports by the accepted figures and to take the necessary action to prevent the accumulation of further surplus stocks. The United States has definitely decided to reduce acreage by 15 per cent and has put into effect a wheat adjustment program for that purpose.
So far as Canada is concerned, having accepted an export quota for the period ending 31st July, 1935, it becomes a matter of national interest that our production in that period should not exceed the domestic requirements plus the export demand. The measures necessary to ensure this have been determined by the appropriate Canadian authorities. It is obvious, of course, that there is no international agreement determining the methods to be adopted by the governments of Canada and the several provinces to give effect to the agreement.

Wheat Agreement-Mr. Bennett
It might be well to refer to a statement made in this house as to the influence of government purchases of wheat in recent years in increasing normal carryovers. The use of the words " government purchases " is, of course, inaccurate, for what the government has done is to guarantee the obligations created by the purchasing agency, namely, the
pool agency at Winnipeg. The following table gives the Food Research Institute figures for world carryovers for the past six years, as of August 1, together with the Canadian carryovers on the same dates, and the 'Percentages which the Canadian stocks form of the world totals:
(In millions of bushels)
Percentage which
World Canadian Canadian carryover
Year-	carryover carryover forms of world carryover
1928	
705	92	13%1929	
970	127	13.1%1930	
922	127	13.8%1931	
1,007	140	13.9%1932	
996	136	13.7%1933	
1,106	219	19.8%
Owing to the abnormal crop of 1932 the world carryover in 1933 had reached 1,106 million bushels, the Canadian carryover being 219 million bushels or 19-8 .per cent of the whole.
Most of .the increase in world carryovers of wheat has been due to the inability to absorb the huge wheat crops of 1928 and 1932. The record world crop of 1928, which amounted to 4,712 million bushels or to 3,905 million bushels-ex Russia-caused the major rise of 265 million bushels between August 1, 1928, and August 1, 1929. There was then no great increase in carryovers until the large crop of 1932 caused ani increase of 110 million bushels between August 1, 1932, and August 1, 1933. There will be a decrease on August 1, 1934.
Canada was carrying 13 per cent of the world's supply on August 1, 1928. It increased to 13-8 per cent by August, 1930. It remained at the 1930 level throughout 1931 and 1932. From 1928 until 1932 there was only a fractional variation in that five-year period. That ratio was not disturbed until August last, when it reached 19-8 per cent. We need not search far to discover the cause of the increase. The crop of 1932 in this country reached the huge .total of 443,000,000 bushels from a record of 27,200,000 acres. Our exports from that crop reached the very large total of 264,000,000 bushels, or 43 per cent of the total export trade of the world for that year, as compared with the ten-year average of 37 per cent. I particularly direct the attention of the house to these figures. There can surely be no complaint when our share of the world available trade reached such large proportions, and yet, in spite of such unusually large exports in that year, there was left
from .that crop some 80,000,000 bushels to be added to our carryovers from past years, dating back to 1928.
Prices have not been maintained at a fixed level but rather they were supported, particularly during the seasons of the year when farmers were, from necessity, forced sellers of their production in order to meet the demands and needs of their creditors. Export demand, at such times, was utterly inadequate to absorb the farmers' sales, as it always had been throughout past years, and owing to world excessive supplies, speculative as well as investment buyers, who in normal times were purchasers of wheat, were practically non-existent. Under these circumstances, the government has enabled the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to purchase all grain that was not otherwise- sold. Had it not done so, what would have been the position of the wheat market to-day? The farmer would have hauled his grain to the elevator, would have been unable to sell it and there it would have remained and finally would have been baoked up on to his farm; and you would have had absolute chaos, which would have been destructive .to the whole economic life of Canada. There has been no speculation in wheat, and the wheat that has been .bought is now being held and sold as demand offers, not for speculation but for export. It would therefore appear that any criticisms that the action of the government in preventing chaotic marketing conditions has brought about an increased surplus are not founded on facts.
The London agreement sets the world quota of wheat exports in the 1933-34 crop year at
560,000,000 bushels. The following table shows

Wheat Agreement-Mr. Bennett
the division of this world quota among the different exporting countries, the export movement from the first of August to the end of
February, and the balance of the quotas remaining to cover shipments in the remaining five months of the crop year:
Argentina	
Australia	
Canada	
Danubian countries.. ..
United States	
Others, including U.S.S.R
Totals	
		Balance of quotas
Export quotas	Export movement	for exportAugust-J uly, 1933-34	August-F ebruary (million bushels)	March-July, 1934. 110.0	65.0	45.0. 105.0	54.0	51.0. 200.0	121.0	79.0. 54.0	27.0	27.0. 47.0	19.0	28.0. 44.0	26.0	18.0560.0	312.0	248.0
The other countries, including the soviet union, had an export quota, as then fixed, of 44,000,000 bushels, although it is subject to final determination at Rome or sooner if an agreement can be reached. As the table shows, 26,000,000 bushels of this had been shipped to the end of February and there remains a balance of 18,000,000 bushels.
The advisory committee set up under the provisions of the London agreement is holding a meeting at Rome on April 5 next, when the matter of increasing the consumption of wheat will be discussed by the countries affected and such measures taken as, in the opinion of those present, will result in the diminution of the surplus carryovers that threaten the wheat prices of the world.
The question of endeavouring to settle the final quota for Russia will also be brought before the advisory committee and, if possible, disposed of.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: The Prime Minister says that Canada's quota under the agreement would be 200,000,000 bushels, but if we figure our quota on the basis suggested by himself, that is a three-year average acreage and a ten-year average yield, our quota would be 292,000,000 bushels. Will he explain the discrepancy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was unable to follow me because I was reading rather rapidly. The quota for the year ending July 31, 1935, is to be settled in the manner I have indicated by the statisticians on the three-year average acreage multiplied by the ten-year average yield. The quota of 200,000,000 bushels for the crop year ending July 31, 1934, was settled by agreement on the basis of the figures supplied as to our crop, and the figures I have just given as to the shipments already made and the balances remaining to be made indicate that the quantity -was perhaps in excess of any amount that we would be able to ship.


Edward James Young: I am not yet clear as to the meaning of this agreement. If I understood the Prime Minister aright, our quota for the year 1934-35 is to be based upon the ten-year average yield on a three-year average acreage, but article 2 of the agreement says the three-year average yield on a three-year average acreage. That is the difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member will look at the agreement, that is not what it says. I admit that it is open to that construction, but if he will look at it carefully I think he will see that it does not say that. It says 15 per cent less in the case of each country than the average out-turn on the average acreage sown during the period, and the average out-turn is for ten years and not for three.


Edward James Young: The ten-year period is not mentioned at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but that is the fact.


Edward James Young: It is not in the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is how the statisticians agreed that the quota should be reached. That is, the average yield was taken over a period of ten years as being fair. I think the figure is 174 bushels per acre, but it was thought a fair average acreage would be one taken over a three-year period.


Edward James Young: Are all the other countries agreeable to that interpretation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that was the agreement arrived at, and when the agreement was drafted late at night there was some difficulty about the translation. That was observed, but there was no difference as to the manner in which the computation was to be made. There was difficulty in determining what, under those circumstances, should be the quota for Russia, and I have explained that point. This talk about a supplementary agree-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
ment is talk that relates to the quota for Russia, and when that quota has been determined the whole matter will then be reduced to a formal document. In the meantime, as I explained to the hon. gentleman, we agreed to 200,000,000 bushels as the quota for Canada for the year ending July 31, 1934. The manner of the computation for 1934-35 is as I have indicated: a three-year average acreage multiplied by the average yield over a ten-year period.



DELAY IN THE MAIL FOR GENTILLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Dupre) a question relating to a telegram I received this morning and which reads as follows:
Gentilly, March 12, 1934. Mr. Lucien Dubois, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Monday, four o'clock, have not received any mail since Saturday morning. The postmaster has not been notified on what train it will arrive. The "Cure" has received no reply from the deputy minister, since ten days.
A. Moras.
Wild the hon. minister inform the house whether he will immediately take whatever steps is necessary?


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Acting Postmaster General) (Translation) :: In reply to the hon. member, I shall investigate the matter immediately so as to remedy the situation as soon as possible.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I desire to ask a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. 'Cahan). Perhaps I should have asked this question in French but as I had no opportunity of communicating the matter to him beforehand, I think I should in order to be fair ask the question in English. I desire to refer the hon. minister to page 1282 of Hansard, about the middle of the page, where he is reported as having said:
I have received statements from certain gentlemen who have qualifications as translators and who are bilingual by education and experience.
On the next page, on the lefthand side, in answer to a question which I asked, the hon. minister was pleased to answer:
You will have to seek the information from them.
Now I have before me the file of the daily French paper, La Presse of Montreal, of Friday, March 9, in which the parliamentary
correspondent of that paper has placed the following words in the mouth of the hon. minister. In order to do no injustice to the minister I shall not endeavour to translate his speech into current English, but so that there may be no mistake about the accuracy of the translation I shall do it literally:
The worth of this work having been put in doubt, and not having myself unfortunately that which is necessary to judge of these criticisms. I have addressed myself to two recognized authorities: Pierre Lefort special correspondent of La Presse, and the Chanoine Chartiem, vice rector of the university of Montreal.
The two questions which I now desire to direct to the hon. minister are, which of the two reports, that of Hansard or this press report, correctly reports what the hon. minister said at that moment? Did the hon. minister in any manner solicit any opinion from these two experts, as is alleged by Pierre Lefort in this article?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that I will look at the article if the hon. gentleman will send me a copy, and I will compare it with what I stated. Regarding the latter question, as to whether I solicited opinions from any person, that is a matter about which the hon. gentleman has no right to ask and I certainly shall not answer it. As a minister of the crown I think that if I wish to know whether a translation made by a translator of this house is correct or not I have a perfect right to ask the opinion of any gentleman I choose.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then I shall summon
these people and find out from them.



RECOGNITION OF MANCHUKUO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Timiskaming North):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to direct a
question to the right hon. Prime Minister as 'Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada recognized officially the new state of Manchukuo?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in
the negative.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Supply-Fisheries-C onservation


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23, to ratify and confirm the agreement respecting the joint use by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of certain tracks and premises of His Majesty at Saint John, N.B.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24, to ratify and confirm an agreement made between the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, an act respecting fruit.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Fisheries-to assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $85,000.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think it is in order to ask the minister what I asked yesterday on the same estimate, as to the intention of the government or the department in regard to Hudson bay and James bay.


Alfred Duranleau: I listened yesterday with great attention to my hon. friend in regard to the possibilities for the fishing industry in Hudson bay and James bay. I have discussed the matter with my officials and I must state frankly that we cannot contemplate any further investigation in those bays this year. It may be that in the future we can do something, but not this year. I may state to my hon. friend for his information that private interests are extensively concerned in the fishing industry in those waters.

As a matter of fact, we are helping as much as possible all those who desire to enter the fishing industry there. In 1931 we issued three fishing permits; in 1932 four other permits for fishing in those bays, in 1933 we issued four permits, and this year we have issued one permit to the Albany River Fishing Company, Limited. We anticipate that many other companies will start fishing next summer. The department is quite satisfied that surveys have been made, are being made and will be made during the coming season by those private concerns in order to locate the best spots for fishing in those waters.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the minister tell the committee if those private concerns have any direction from the government to make those inquiries? As the minister appreciates, my question relates to an expanse of water of nearly 700,000 square miles, so unless those private concerns go there with definite direction from the government they are not likely to make an investigation for the sake of the government. I appreciate what the minister has said, but will he be a little more explicit as to when we might expect a more thorough inquiry to be made?


Alfred Duranleau: The report of the
investigation made in 1930 might be of some use to those interested, and I may add that a few days ago I had a request from a certain individual who wants permits for several fishing boats. That gentleman told me that he knew the best spots for fishing in those two. bays, and that other people also knew where to go. So at the moment I do not think it would be advisable for the government to incur the expense of a further survey. If in future we have such requests from various parties we will look into the matter and see if we would be justified in making a further survey.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I may tell the minister that the request comes from that entire section of the country, and surely the pressure should be as great coming from the people living in that country as it would be coming from people directly interested in the fidhing. I believe the government owes it to itse'lf and to our section of the country to take the lead in such an investigation and not leave it to private interests. I think they should take the initiative, and I believe the work should be wholly under the direction of the government.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I should
like to ask my hon. friend if it is not true that in 1930 the then Minister of Fisheries

Supply-Fisheries-C onservation
did have an investigation made into the possibilities of commercial fishing in Hudson bay, and that the report was adverse?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The report was adverse, but the investigation took only a short time.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to ask the minister if he has any report to give the committee with reference to the negotiations that were supposed to be going on between his department and the government of Quebec with regard to increased cooperation between the provincial and federal governments. I remember that a long debate took place in this house two or three years ago, and the then Minister of Fisheries, who is now Minister of Finance, said there would be cooperation as far as this government could bring it about between the federal and provincial governments. I saw in the press some time after that some mention of interviews between the minister who is piloting these estimates today and officials of the provincial government with the view of improving conditions in Quebec. I should like to ask the minister if he has any report to give tthe committee as to the progress that has been made along these lines.


Alfred Duranleau: I have no report to
make on the subject as yet. It is true that conferences and interviews took place and that correspondence has been exchanged between the provincial and federal authorities with regard to cooperation having in view the betterment of fisheries in Quebec, but nothing definite has been arrived at as yet. We had planned a French school for fishermen and inspectors on the Gaspe coast, in Gaspe itself. I hope these negotiations will eventually lead to the establishment of such a school, where two or three French teachers will instruct in the curing and canning of fish and so on, but nothing definite has been agreed upon. The provincial government was supposed to supply the building and the federal authorities were to provide the teachers.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: During the last few days I have been in receipt of many resolutions from various municipalities in the province of Quebec, who apparently are alarmed because the government has not made the headway that was expected. I have none of the resolutions before me, but I think I received about a half dozen to-day, and they all complain of the situation which exists in the fishing industry in the province of Quebec. Some of them even go so far as to ask that the order in council passed in 1922 giving the administration of fisheries to the provincial
government should be repealed, if that is the only way to bring about an improvement in the condition, and I think I even went so far as .to advocate such a step during the course of the debate in this house two or three years ago. In view of the difficulties with which we are faced to-day, and in view of the fact that a moment ago the minister said that it was hoped to do something on the coast of Gaspe, though apparently nothing has been done yet, I think this is the proper time to have the minister who is in charge of this very important department make a statement not only as to what is supposed to have been done but as to something tangible that will be done in order to relieve the situation. It is all very well for the minister to come here year after year and tell us that negotiations have been entered into between his government and the provincial government, but nothing has been done, and the people on the north shore are asking that action be taken by this government.
I do not think the minister can get away with that answer to-day. Last year we were told that an institution would be established on the coast of Gaspe to help the fishermen in the province of Quebec. I think at that time the minister said he could not proceed with the project because of the lack of money, that they were not ready to undertake this work. This year I think some steps should be taken in that direction, because if this is not done the fishing industry will go from bad to worse. The people in that part of the country have had a hard time to make both ends meet; they have been barely able to secure a living for their families and themselves, and most of the fishermen in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent are on direct relief. I have no doubt the minister has recevied many requests that these people be assisted. I think we should be given a better statement than the minister has given so far; I do not think it is enough to say that this project could not be proceeded with. Why has nothing been done? Why can they get nothing done for the fishermen of the province of Quebec, when a resolution was adopted by this house two years ago urging this government to cooperate with the government of that province? That resolution was tantamount to an order directing the government to take some steps in that direction. What steps have been taken, and in what way? To-day the minister is mum; he has nothing to say as to what is going to be done, if anything. If we cannot get ministers of the crown more responsive

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
to the people than .those we now have sitting on the treasury benches, some day the people will clear out the whole administration. I am surprised that the minister is not able to give me any answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him a chance.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am going to give him a chance. I ask him to give me the reason why this school has not been started in Gaspe, which was supposed to be the first step. The minister need not tell me there is no money; there is money for some other institutions, some other boards and for other ventures which here and there the government have seen fit to patronize. Surely there ought to be a certain amount of money to put at the disposal of the Department of Fisheries for the help of the fishermen of the province of Quebec.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, may' I add a few words to what has been stated by the hon. member for Charlevoix Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). It cannot be gainsaid that the situation of fishermen on the Gaspe coast and of those on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river is absolutely intolerable. However, we must take into consideration the fact that in 1922 the Liberal government, passed an order in council transferring all its fishery rights to the government of Quebec. Since that date, the fisheries come directly under the administration of the provincial government. It is now requested that the Dominion government collaborate with the Quebec government, and it is contended that if there is no co-operation or if anything goes wrong, the Dominion government will be held responsible; but when all is well the Quebec government gets the credit for it. There is but one remedy and that is to cancel the 1922 order in council.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I suggested and requested it.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What should be done is the return of the control of all the Quebec fisheries to the Dominion government and to put matters as they stood before this order in council was passed. Were we to probe this question, or hold an inquiry in order to find out why the control of the Quebec fisheries was taken away from the Dominion government, it would be shown that it was simply to favour a few persons who wanted to take possession of the salmon fishing in the rivers on the north shore and the Gaspe coast.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation) :: Name these persons.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The list would be too long; the hon. member for Laprairie Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) must be aware of this fact because he has had the occasion of visiting Gaspe and the north shore. These persons intended not only to take possession of the salmon rivers of the Gaspe peninsula and the north shore of the St. Lawrence, but to also control the estuaries of these rivers and that was the reason the dominion government was requested, in 1922, to pass an order in council. I think that the only real remedy to the situation, under the circumstances, as I had the occasion of suggesting to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) would be to cancel the order in council of 1922, so that the control of the fisheries of Quebec would be returned to the dominion government as it was previously and as it is the case in all other provinces.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not agree with all the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), for instance, when he states: when all is well the government of the province of Quebec takes the credit, and when all goes wrong, the Dominion government is blamed.
All are aware that if depression exists in this country, the dominion government must be held responsible. It is not the provincial government which is at the helm of affairs in Ottawa, but those who sit to your right, sir. The fisheries are federal property and only their administration is the prerogative of the provincial government.
As to the repeal of the order in council of 1922, I suggested it, when I brought up the subject about two years ago and a discussion ensued. I again suggest it, to-day, because the Quebec government has not at its disposal experts like the dominion officials of the Department of Marine. The order in council not having been repealed, we are forced to request the co-operation and good will of the two governments. The hon. minister cannot assert that Quebec refused to cooperate in improving the fisheries of the province. He cannot make such a statement, because it would not be true. The Quebec government is willing to co-operate with the Ottawa government-whether it is a Liberal or Conservative administration-to improve the situation. Negotiations have been carried on to this effect. I should like to know why, after stating, I think, last year, that a biological station would be established on the Gaspe coast as soon as possible, the minister did not implement this promise of establishing that station to help the fisheries of Gaspe and those of the north shore of the St. Law-

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
rence river. Why this delay to open up this biological station? The establishment of this station with the co-operation of the hon. minister and his officials together with that of the Quebec department of Fisheries, would be an embryo, a first help, on the part of both governments, to improve the situation of the fisheries on the Gaspe coast and the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
We agree on that point: we must endeavour to improve the situation of the fisheries, however to reach this aim, the dominion government and the hon. Minister of Marine must show their good will and put in practise what they advocated. We are informed that the dominion government could not do more because apparently no funds were at their disposal. The government seem to have funds for many enterprises; however, when it is a question of the Quebec fisheries, there seems to be very little funds. I think the government could find the necessary funds to establish this biological station and the Quebec government would certainly contribute its quota.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there no reply?


Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to page 606 of Hamsard, I find that the fish exports to the various parts of the British Empire, in 1933, that is, after the Imperial Conference, amounted to $2,116,116 less than in 1930, and to foreign countries, $9,521,337 less; a total decrease, comparing 1938 to 1930, of $11,637,453. Therefore, the Canadian fish exports to the various parts of the British Empire and foreign countries have considerably decreased.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: Would the hon. member kindly give the amount in pounds instead of money?


Jean-François Pouliot: My reply to the hon. member is that I put the same question to the Bureau of Statistics and I could not obtain the amount in pounds. The answer would have been too long because the quantity of each species of fish would have had to be enumerated. If the hon. member wishes to get the information he may forward his request to the hon. Minister of Marine who, he will find, is always willing, courteous and an example for the hon. member to emulate in the house. As to fish and fishery products, by comparing 1932 to 1930, we note a decrease of $21,847,107. May I ask the Minister of Marine why this decrease in value in the
fishery products and how many fishermen were affected by this situation?


Mr. MARCIL (Translation):: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall avail myself of this opportunity-without wishing to interrupt the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil)-to point out an error in Hansard on the same page, in a quotation by the right hon. Prime Minister. In the second column 188 cwts. of fish is mentioned, while it should read 188,000 cwts.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Chairman, this question of cooperation between the two governments of Ottawa and Quebec in connection with the fisheries, dates away back. I had the privilege, in 1897, of being the Liberal candidate, in Gaspe, against the Hon. Mr. Flynn, then Prime Minister of Quebec, His campaign plank was the fishery question, he maintained that the fisheries should be the prerogative of the Quebec government. He won his election by a majority of one vote-that was rather a small majority. Eleven votes which he gained following a recount, were the result of a cablegram from London, which he received a few days before the voting day, informing him of the Privy Council's decision, that in the future salmon fishing permits would be issued by the Quebec government. So they have been issued for quite a long time. Therefore, if we go back to 1897, almost ancient history, thirty-five years ago, we note that, at that period, there already existed a divergency of views between the two governments.
It gave me much pleasure, to hear from the lips of the minister, on Friday, that he was, at present, negotiating with the Quebec government in order to come to some arrangement in this respect. What interests me most, is the welfare of the people. These poor fishermen, on behalf of wbom Mgr. Ross, the eminent bishop of Gaspe, has pleaded, are very downcast, at present, and an "entente" between the two governments is greatly hoped for. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Minister of Fisheries is considering the question, and I have the assurance that the Hon. Mr. Laferte, Minister of Fisheries, in Quebec, is also disposed to do everything possible to arrive at some arrangement. If it is necessary, for the welfare of the fisherman and the success of the Quebec fisheries, that the provincial government should release the control which it has over the fisheries, at present; I feel certain that the Quebec prime minister, who is broadminded and highly esteemed in the province would take such a



Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
step. Proofs would have to be given him first-and that is but fair-that the Quebec government is not in a position to look after the fisheries in deep water. On the south shore of the Baie des Chaleurs, the fisheries are owned by the province of New Brunswick. This province allows the Dominion government to administer its fisheries. Such an arrangement might be possible between the Quebec provincial government and the Dominion government.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Minister of Fisheries state, last Friday, that, while on his visits to the GaspS peninsula he had had a talk with Bishop Ross, and had himself ascertained that Quebec fisheries were, indeed, in a sad plight. I trust that before long some "modus vivendi" will be agreed upon between the two governments and a considerable improvement will be the result.
Meantime, I congratulate the minister on his intention of establishing a biological school at Gaspe or in the best suited locality the commission may find in that county, thus giving these people whose forbears were the first to settle this country, instructors speaking the French language. We too often forget, we, French Canadian members, who constantly speak English in deference to our colleagues, that both languages are official. When the Dominion government places English speaking instructors in New Brunswick, the people of Quebec are likewise entitled to have French speaking instructors- I was, therefore, pleased to hear that the minister intended to place French speaking instructors in this new biological school which will cater not only to the counties of Gaspe, Bonaven-ture and the Magdalen Islands, but also to the whole gulf of St. Lawrence, including the counties of Saguenay and Chicoutimi; thus putting us on an equal footing with the people >f other provinces. We have to contend with our climate and strive against difficulties which exist neither in British Columbia nor in Nova Scotia where the fisheries are opened twelve months in the year. For these reasons, I think the Minister of Fisheries and the Dominion government should see that the people of Gaspe receive the necessary help, even a generous one. Owing to the difficulties encountered in earning a livelihood, the population of my county, I regret to state, has dropped by a few thousands within the last 25 years, due to the lack of encouragement, communication facilities, markets to dispose of their fish and other reasons for which no government in particular is responsible, neither provincial nor federal.
[Mr. Marcil.3
Indeed, this problem must be solved and if the hon. minister can come to some arrangement with the Quebec government in order to settle this question, he will be looked upon as the benefactor of those people.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, first, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr Pouliot) who has noted a decrease in the exportation of the fishery products, I may state, that in no way is this astonishing, ii we consider that, owing to the world-wide crisis, which has lasted three or four years, all countries are exporting less products. The lower price obtained is also one of the causes of the decrease in exports.
I can only state to my hon. friend that the Department of Fisheries is doing its utmost to foster the exportation of our sea and river products, by making regulations and seeing that they are enforced, so that our products may be shipped abroad in the best condition possible, endeavouring thereby, to raise the standard of our products on foreign markets. I feel certain that within a few years our fish exports will greatly increase.
I am somewhat amazed to hear the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) criticize so sharply the Quebec provincial administration of fisheries.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not
criticize it.


Alfred Duranleau: In 1922, however, our Quebec government friends requested the administration of the provincial fisheries-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not consulted in this respect.


Alfred Duranleau: -under the plea that the provincial government was in a better position to put that administration on a more productive basis, and improve the lot of the fishermen of that province.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Especially
the salmon fishermen.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose that my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay did not find fault, at the time, with the order in ' council-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not
consulted concerning the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: -and
the arrangement which was made between the.* provincial and Dominion governments.

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not consulted.


Alfred Duranleau: That is astonishing.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not a member of the government.


Alfred Duranleau: That is astonishing, the hon. member being one of the representatives of the lower St. Lawrence, one of the most important representatives of the northern coast of the St. Lawrence river.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, pardon. If the hon. minister will allow me, I did not represent, at the time, the Saguenay county, my constituency only extended to the Saguenay river, I did not represent the northern coast.


Alfred Duranleau: My
hon. friend had his eyes on the whole northern coast then, and must have taken an interest in the welfare of the fishermen.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not as well acquainted with the situation of the fishermen as I am to-day.


Alfred Duranleau: It was precisely because he was interested in the welfare of the fishermen of that section of the province that he was called upon later, to represent them.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: A tout pecheur misericorde.


Alfred Duranleau: I must state to my hon. friend that opinions vary among members opposite and the people of Quebec as regards measures to be taken to improve the lot of the Quebec fishermen. Some say: "We shall request this French speaking school at Gaspe." Others say: "That is unnecessary, that is not what we want. What is required is some agreement between the two governments to cancel the 1922 order in council and return the administration of the fisheries to Dominion government." Others again contend: " The Quebec government's administration of the fisheries is above reproach." And I think an attempt was made to prove that the provincial government's administration of the fisheries was efficient, if I am to judge by the debate which took place recently in the Quebec Legislative Assembly. Naturally, a request was made for the collaboration of the Dominion government, however, it was stated: "The province had well looked after the fisheries, improved the lot of the fishermen." I am therefore amazed to-day to hear the hon. member
74726-91j
for Charlevoix-Saguenay draw such a gloomy description of the situation. The hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay differ in opinion in this respect. At all events, sir-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Action,
is all I request.


Alfred Duranleau: At present, the fisheries are within the purview of the provincial authorities, and I do not think that one is justified in criticizing the Dominion government in this respect. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay states that he would be willing to request the repeal of the 1922 order in council. Does my hon. friend imagine that we could proceed "ex parte" in this affair? It is an agreement concluded between the Dominion and provincial governments and he knows that it is not by another agreement that we could improve the situation. The Quebec government has never requested us to abrogate what was done in 1922.
. Did my hon. friend suggest to the provincial authorities that they should request the Dominion government to resume the administration of all the fisheries which were under its control ? As to the Acting Minister of Fisheries, he is as willing as he was last year, he has not altered his stand in this respect, he is ready to cooperate and grant all that was requested by the Hon. Mr. Laferte, namely, instructors speaking the French language-


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Hear,
hear 1


Alfred Duranleau: -in a school of biology which will be located in Gaspe, on premises chosen by the provincial government. These instructors should even be chosen by the provincial authorities. Young men having a fair knowledge of fisheries were to be assigned to the biological school at Halifax, for a year, so as to acquire a more thorough knowledge of fisheries, thus qualifying them to take charge of the Gaspe school, the following year. I am informed that the Quebec government sent a few young men to Europe to qualify as specialists in fisheries and biology and they are probably those who will take charge of the school referred to. My hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay will realize that one cannot accomplish in one day what we, the Dominion government, intend to carry out in conjunction with the provincial department of fisheries.

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation


Joseph Léonard Duguay: May I inquire of the hon. minister whether the Dominion government made a proposal to the provincial government toward reestablishing the situation as it existed previous to 1922?


Alfred Duranleau: There
has been no request from the provincial government to that effect.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Has there
been a request from the Dominion government to the provincial government to reestablish matters as they were previously?
Mr. DURANLEAU (Translation) No request of that nature was made to my department by the provincial authorities, likewise none was made by the Dominion government to the provincial government.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish to put a question to the hon. minister: What is the yearly catch of fish in each province?


Alfred Duranleau: I wish to inform my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) that the Quebec yearly fishery products amounted, in 1928, to $2,976,000; in 1929, to 2,933,000; in 1930, to 12,502,000; in 1931, to $1,952,000, and in 1932, to $1,815,000.


Vincent Dupuis: What was the cause of this decrease?


Lucien Dubois: The crisis.


Vincent Dupuis: Are the fish
affected by the crisis?


Alfred Duranleau: In the prices, yes.


Vincent Dupuis: Has the
minister any statistics in connection with the the consumption of fish in the Dominion and what is the total amount of fish exported yearly?


Alfred Duranleau: The whole consumption in Canada is about 95 million pounds of fresh, frozen and mildly cured fish.


Vincent Dupuis: I want to know what the whole production amounts to-the amount of fish exported and the principal countries importing Canadian fish.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will find in the Fisheries statistics for Canada for 1932, the last volume we have, at page 204 and following pages, the list of all countries importing Canadian fish, the kinds of fish, quantities, price and so on. He will see that our best customer is the United States, then the West Indies; South American countries also import from Canada. There is a large list of countries importing Canadian fish.


Mr. SHORT:: How much of this $85,000 is to be used for advertising to promote the consumption of fish in Canada? The item is intended for the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish.
I presume the expression "to assist the demand for fish" means advertising fish to create a demand.


Alfred Duranleau: We advertise in
various ways in regard to fish. For instance, we have sent to different exhibitions electrical exhibits of all the fish produced by our fisheries. In Toronto at the last exhibition large crowds were attracted by our exhibit, and a few weeks ago a departmental exhibit which did not cost very much was staged in Montreal and proved a great advertisement for our fisheries. I see from the details of this item that we are expending $15,000 to extend the demand for fish.


Harry Bernard Short: In what manner will that be expended?


Alfred Duranleau: Apart from the exhibitions we have tried to increase the home demand for fish by employing, as I informed the committee yesterday, Mrs. Spencer who is an outstanding expert in the use of fish for meals. She has attracted crowds all over Canada.


Mr. FAFARD:: She or the fish?


Alfred Duranleau: Mrs. Spencer with her way of cooking fish. In Montreal and other centres where the French population is large, we have the services of a bilingual lady who cooperates with Mrs. Spencer. They have visited all the convents in the vicinity and have done splendid work with the educators and pupils in those institutions. At the present time we have about six hundred ladies at each demonstration at Eaton's store in Montreal listening to Mrs. Spencer's lectures on the subject of fish.


Harry Bernard Short: We all agree that Mrs. Spencer has rendered excellent service to the fish industry of this country, and I hope the department will retain her in her present position. But I understand strong representations were made to the department by the fishing industry through the Canadian Fisheries Association for an appropriation to be made for the purpose of newspaper and magazine advertising in this country in order to create a greater demand in the Canadian market for the products of the industry. I am a little disappointed that no item appears in the estimate for that purpose. I thought

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
a sufficient amount or part of the $85,000 might be used in that way. I understand only some $46,000 of the $85,000 that was voted last year, was expended. Am I right in that?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, prior to Decem-mer 31.


Harry Bernard Short: Then it is fair to suppose that the same amount will be used this year. Why cannot the balance be used for advertising purposes, because this money could not be expended in any better way? As hon. members know, the fisheries of the maritime provinces are at the present time in bad shape. The fishermen there, owing to the state of the markets for their products, have been unable to make both ends meet in the last three or four years. The foreign markets have been in very bad shape during the last four or five years, and we have had to depend a great deal on our home market. If we can increase the consumption of fish in our own markets this will help our fishermen more than anything else. The only way in which that can be done is to get our people to eat more fish, and the only way to do that is to advertise, to keep the matter of fish before our people all the time. I believe last year the minister appropriated $85,000 and expended $41,000. Perhaps he could see his way clear to use $40,000 for advertising.


Alfred Duranleau: During the fiscal
year 1932-33 we expended practically the full amount voted, that is, $84,766, but I said just now to my hon. friend that during the present fiscal year, 1933-34, prior to December 31, 1933, on that appropriation of $85,000 we had expended the sum of $46,411. To the last day of February we had expended about $50,000.


Harry Bernard Short: Possibly a sufficient amount
might be placed in the supplementary estimates for this purpose. I am sure the minister will agree with me that the money could not be spent in a better way. That will create a demand for fish. It will be remembered that two years ago the department spent some $20,000 for advertising, being assisted by the trade which raised about fifty per cent more, making the total amount some $30,000. Splendid results accrued from this advertising. Nothing has been done recently in the way of advertising except by individual firms and they are not at present in a position to spend any money for advertising, because I do not think there is in Nova Scotia a single firm in the fish business that has broken even in the last three or four years. I believe the time is now opportune for the
government to step in and give all assistance possible to this industry. I would strongly recommend to the minister that he try to have a sufficient amount placed in the supplementary estimates if he cannot take it from this item of $85,000 which appears in the main estimates. I hope he will give the matter his serious consideration.


Mr. NEILL:: As the hon. member for
Digby-Annapolis has exhibited a very proper interest in this appropriation, it might be as well to put the details on Hansard because they will reveal possibly something more than the particular information for which he was asking. They will reveal the fact that practically the whole of this $84,766.31 has been spent in the maritime provinces. Where does British Columbia come in, which has furnished the greater part of the fish trade of Canada? According to the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1933, the amount expended under the heading " Aids in expanding demands for fish " was $13,706.06. There is an item for Mrs. Spencer, who did not come to the coast last year. An amount of $1,200 is included for broadcasting weather reports. Then there is:
Bait collection service-Canso, $1,278.
Canso, so far as I know, is not in British Columbia.
Bait freezers-Canso: salt and ice, $403.25.
Then:
Marie Joseph, painting, $101.32.
Marie Joseph, whoever he or she was, got $101.32 for painting. Whether Marie painted the freezers or a sea picture in oils I do not know. On educational work, wholly in the maritimes, $10,229 was spent. Exhibitions, Lunenburg-I seem to have heard that name somewhere-cost only $4,182. Then we get the big figures; lobster collection service, subsidy to some company, $21,375. Lobster patrol service, a separate item, $21,340. Then a scallop investigation;-we do not raise scallops in British Columbia,-$5,885. Packet service; I do not know what that is, I will ask the minister to tell us that, a subsidy for the steamship Petite, $1,500. I notice that while this Auditor General's report is for the year ended March 31, 1933, the order in council authorizing that was passed April 4, 1933, alter the olose of the fiscal year. Apparently it was some unusual and out of the way expenditure or it would not have had to be covered by a special order in council.
Then, grant to assist in the publication and distribution of the Canadian Fisheries Manual, $2,000. I do not think even the members in British Columbia get a copy of that. And

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
there is $2,764 for odd items. As far as I know, unless we shared in that small item of the king's printer, practically the whole of that $84,000 was spent in the maritimes. I do not wonder the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) blushes; he might well do so-


Harry Bernard Short: I do not feel myself blushing at all.


Alan Webster Neill: But I noticed it. The hon.
gentleman is so accustomed to having to blush for this cause that he does not notice it. I want to know where British Columbia comes in on this. British Columbia has some rights. How they are recognized is difficult to see. Surely out of over $84,000, and producing as we do nearly if not half of the total fish production of Canada-which puts us away ahead of the maritimes, because there is a large fishing industry in Manitoba, which is not generally known-surely we are entitled to a look-in on some of these things.
While I am on my feet and, as the hon. member has introduced it, I would like to revive a twice told tale in connection with an item that appears lower down, "voted by statute," as if that made it any better. That is the question of the perennial wrong done to British Columbia in connection with that item of $160,000 called the bounty, also I suppose for the conservation of the fishing industry. Since I brought this matter up last year and the year before and the year before that, further confirmation has come into my poses-sion which shows that this is not a mere annual fad of mine but that it had engaged the very serious attention of tlhe British Columbia and the dominion governments years ago, and I think possibly also the home government. Here is an item from a British Columbia paper, one of those items carried under the heading, Fifty Years Ago To-day:
The dominion government has received a claim from the government of British Columbia demanding-
I note the word.
-a share of the Halifax fishery award, on the ground that the presence of American fishermen in their waters has seriously interfered with the privileges of their own fishermen. Nothing can be done in the matter until parliament sits, as no allotment whatever has been made to the provinces, individually, and it is not probable that the claim of British Columbia will be recognized, the proceeds of the award having gone into the consolidated funds of the dominion.
That has a double significance. It shows first that British Columbia at that time made a demand, and secondly, it corroborates my statement that that sum awarded under the

Halifax award went into the consolidated fund where it was certainly lost sight of. While I do not propose to burden the committee with the whole brief I might just quote one or two sentences. At that time, 1884, fifty years ago, the question was raised. British Columbia closed its brief to the committee of the privy council thus:
The committee advise that this minute be approved and that a copy thereof be forwarded to the hon. the Secretary of State for Canada, in order that the claim of this province to share in the annual appropriation of $156,000 may be considered by the dominion government, and in order, also, that due consideration may be given to the uncertain and unsatisfactory position of the fishery interests of British Columbia as regards the future.
There was as I say a brief setting out at great length the claim of British Columbia to share in the award. I am not dealing so much with that aspect except as a basis for my claim that we should share in this $160,000 that is being spent now.
Here is another quotation:
It remains only to be added, what is well known, namely, that the fisheries of British Columbia . . . are the richest in the world.
And they deal with that and with other conditions, the inshore fishing grounds, the mild winters and so on, and say there would be a big fleet in British Columbia waters if they got a fair share of this amount. They claim that their statement is a fair and temperate exposition. I also would try to make a fair and temperate exposition. They say that any one with any fairness will recognize the justice of the claim, the grievous injury sustained and so on. Then the brief proceeds:
While highly appreciating the consideration usually given by the government of the dominion to British Columbia matters, so far as they are known to them, yet, as this province is unrepresented in the dominion cabinet . . .
So this province was unrepresented in the dominion cabinet when this deal went through. Then further on:
The Canadian government attribute their unwillingness, in part, to their opinion as to the intention of the Canadian parliament, evidenced by the discussions therein when the grants were made to other provinces without including British Columbia, but it may be remarked that the claim of this province was not then, and has not since been, submitted to parliament in such a manner as to be fully understood-a fact that must weaken materially any inferential argument from the presumed intention of parliament.
That word "inference" is one beloved by the Minister of Finance and also my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. MARCH 13, 1934
Supply-Fisheries-C onservation
Duff) who always says it was inferred that we should suffer this wrong. Then:
Approved report of the honourable the privy council of Canada, 30th April, 1875.
W hich supports this contention, and another one dated December 10, 1879: Then the brief
goes on:
Taking a general view of the matter as it now stands, it is not denied that British Columbia has suffered grievous, exceptional injury by the operation of a treaty not submitted for assent to her legislature, and under which Canada has received a very large sum of money. In seeking redress, the question, practically seems to be whether the provincial claim is to be judged simply by a strict legal construction of the terms and wording of a treaty which it is admitted does not embody the requirements of the contracting parties as expressed in the preliminary correspondence and' instructions, and by a construction which is one of several different interpretations given by competent authorities, and is at variance with the former opinions.
They quote the two minutes of the privy council that I have mentioned, and they go on to say:
Under these circumstances, if the Canadian government do not see their way to recommend a favourable consideration of the provincial claim to His Excellency the Governor General, the. committee advise that they be requested to facilitate a joint reference to the home government . . .
Further:
A very strong feeling exists in the province on this subject, which will be increased by delay in making an adjustment or by the refusal of equitable treatment.
That was in 1884, fifty years ago, so we may judge what the feeling is now in connection with the long delayed justice in this matter:
F or this reason, the committee, in again referring to the matter, express the hopes that the dominion government will review the considerations that have been urged to show the grievances of which British Columbia complains. and the justness of her claim to participate in money received from the home government by Canada, under the treaty which has operated so injuriously to British Columbia.
Then again they repeat their demand that, failing justice, they should be allowed to go to the foot of the throne so to speak. I do not know what the outcome was. There seems to have been a hitch there. As far as I know they did not take it to the home government. If they did the matter was ignored. I am only quoting that as a basis for the demand that I now present. I am not asking that we should share in that $4,500,000 or whatever it was, but I cite it as proof that the best men they had in public life in British Columbia at that time
were strongly of that opinion, and said that there was a growing, bitter feeling against the injustice. But I noticed in the first quotations I read a reference to the money having disappeared into the consolidated fund and therefore could not be obtained. That bears out what I have argued here again and again. The matter will not down until we get justice for British Columbia. This money was put into the consolidated revenue fund and was never heard of or seen again. It could not be; you might as well put a can of condensed milk into the ocean and then seek to recover it. Once anything goes into the consolidated revenue fund it ceases to be ear-marked. These things are common knowledge to all of us. Then some three or four years later, on the eve of an election, the government suddenly decided to spend
8150,000	a year on fisheries bounties, later increasing it to 8160,000, by an act which I have quoted in this house in previous years and which I challenge anyone to quote in contradiction of what I have said. That act never mentioned the Halifax award; it never inferred it or hinted at it in any way. The government simply said they were going to spend so many thousand dollars for the development of deep sea fisheries, and they did so; that is all. Every year we are told that something was left out; that technically I am right but that it was intended to be a quid pro quo for the losses sustained under this award, and so on. That is not so, but even if it were, according to the brief from which I have quoted British Columbia had the same rights. But it is not so, there is no reference to it in the act. I was once in court, and I heard a lawyer who was also a member of parliament trying to argue as to the meaning of an act. He said, "My lord, I was present when that act was put through; the understanding to which we all agreed was that it meant so and so." But the judge said, "I am sorry, but unfortunately they neglected to bind you up with the statute, and your recollection as to what took place does not bind me. I am here to administer the law as I find it," and that is all I am here to ask.
I forget the number of that act, because it is a year or two since I have referred to it, but it is well known and it states that $160,000 shall be spent yearly to benefit the deep sea fisheries of Canada. If British Columbia is not in Canada it is time we knew it. I have brought up this matter on other occasions, and hon. gentlemen just try to pass it off by saying that technically I am right but that the intention was so and so. I do not know anything about the intention; J know what

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
the act says, and I demand justice for British Columbia.
I am only referring to this item as another illustration of the raw deal British Columbia gets. We are asked to vote $85,000; under this item last year we spent $84,766.31, and I think we got the 31 cents out of it. Is that fair? Can hon. gentlemen expect this sort of thing to promote the harmony and bonne entente we hear so much about? They were able to put through these measures because of their majority; these things took place when British Columbia was not represented in the cabinet and had only two or three members in the house. Times are changing however; even nature is on our side. The population of British Columbia is growing while the population of Nova Scotia is becoming less. At every redistribution we see the representation from Nova Scotia become smaller while the representation from British Columbia increases, so even nature is protesting against the injustice of this thing. The day will come when we will be of greater importance in relation to our numerical strength in this bouse than is the case today, and then we will get justice. I only hope I will live long enough to see that day.	_
Before sitting down I should like to ask the minister what this subsidy is in connection with the ss. Petite.


Mr. DUFF:: I am sure we were all interested in hearing the hon. member for Comox-Albemi dwell upon the beautiful scenery in British Columbia and the reasons why, in his opinion, they do not get as much money as they should get. I have no objection to that, but let us look at the situation. We vote $1,443,000 for the fisheries of the Dominion of Canada. I made some hurried calculations while listening to my hon. friend, and I find that of this total $737,543 is spent in British Columbia.
Now let me go a little further. The hon. gentleman speaks of $62 being spent in Canso, and he goes on to say that he does not know where Canso is. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman study the geography of Canada; he is a member of parliament, and he should be acquainted with all parts of the country. I can tell him where Albemi is; I can even tell him where Comox is. I can even go so far as to tell him where the Queen Charlotte islands are, but my hon friend is selfish, and that is not usual in a Scotsman. I am sorry to see that a Scotsman, with such a name as that borne by my hon. friend, should be selfish in the matter of the expenditure of a few dollars.
'Mr. Neill.]
He wants all the money for his own province; in fact I think my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi would like to see this $1,443,050 spent in his own constituency, but that is not possible.
Let us see what is spent in British Columbia. Here we have an item of $25,000 to provide for an investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut by an international fisheries commission appointed under the Pacific Halibut treaty of March 2, 1923. That is quite a large amount, and it is all for British Columbia; there is nothing for Ontario, Quebec or the little province of Nova 8cotia, which my hon. friend deliberately picked out this afternoon to find fault with because $62 was spent in Canso. Here we have $25,000 devoted to the halibut in British Columbia, and we do not object to that. In fact perhaps I can claim some credit for arranging that this amount should be spent, because it was recommended by the commission of 1922, of which I had the honour to be chairman and of which my hon. friend was a member, that a commission should be set up to protect the halibut industry.
But let me go a little further. Here is an amount of $240,000 for fish culture, and practically the entire amount is spent in the province of British Columbia. If my hon. friend does not get his proportion of that vote it is not my fault. Surely it is not fair for him to rise in his place and try to tell this committee and the public that British Columbia is not getting a fair proportion of the expenditures made by the fisheries department or the government of this country. I hold no brief for this government or for the department; right now I should like to move a resolution that this amount of $1,443,050 be reduced to $1.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: The
hon. gentleman is not discussing the correct item; we are discussing item 154, to assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $85,000.


William Duff: I am answering my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. gentleman does not even know the name of my constituency. It is Comox, but he is pronouncing it " Comax."


William Duff: After listening to my hon.
friend I knew there was some ox in it. Then my hon. friend interjected into this argument the matter of the Halifax award. Of course this is a hardy annual with him; every year

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
he gets up and tries to impress upon this house the fact that British Columbia should get part of that $160,000, which is the interest on $4,000,000-


Alan Webster Neill: Is it? I do not know.


William Duff: It is not my fault if you
do not know; why don't you find out? I say, sir, that the hon. gentleman gets up in this committee every year and tries to make out that the province of British Columbia should get a portion of the $160,000, which is 4 per cent on $4,000,000, that was paid by the government of the United States in return for certain privileges on the Atlantic coast. British Columbia had nothing to do with this, but my hon. friend tries to make out that because in the legislation which was brought down the word " Canada " was used instead of the words " maritime provinces," British Columbia should get some of this money. My hon. friend, being a Scotsman, is trying to take part of this money from the maritime provinces. I say to him that British Columbia has no right at all to this money; it is purely a matter between the government of Canada on behalf of the maritime provinces and the government of the United States. British Columbia has never received one cent of this money, nor will she ever receive a cent of it. My hon. friend had better realize that now, because we will never pay British Columbia one cent of this $160,000 a year.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: They have no right to it.


William Duff: Of course not. Let us get
back to the item under consideration. Before doing so may I apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, for having to be called to order. The item now under consideration is to assist in the conservation and development of the deep-sea fisheries, and the demand for fish. To me this seems to be a double barrelled item. First it speaks of assisting in the conservation, which means the curtailment of fishing operations, and then it speaks of a development of the deep-sea fisheries, which means an increase.


Mr. MUNN:: My hon. friend seems to
have a pick on British Columbia. I would ask him, please, to forget British Columbia and to look after his Atlantic sea coast.


William Duff: I am very glad the hon.
member for Vancouver North has made a statement; I can only reply that it was not my fault. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni started this discussion, and that is the reason I have spoken. I am not against British Columbia; my hon. friend should
know that in 1922 I went out to that province for ten weeks, at my own expense, in order to try to do something for the fisheries of British Columbia. I should like to know this from the minister: How does he propose to spend this $85,000, which is voted, at least partially, to assist in the conservation of fish? He is going to assist in preventing people from catching fish, just the same as under the wheat agreement, about which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon, he is to prevent people from growing wheat. It would seem to me that the expression "assist in the conservation" would mean that the fishermen are not to be allowed to catch fish. Then in the second place, the fisheries are to be developed. How can those two operations work together? How does the minister justify this item? I state he cannot justify it, but I should like to know how he proposes to do it.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose the hon.
member knows that the conservation of fishing means the saving of the fishing industry. The aim of the department is to protect as much as possible fisheries in all parts of Canada and, further, to help the industry. We have to protect fisheries by means of regulations, a course which has been followed for years. That is the way we have protected our fisheries. If my hon. friend wishes, I could give the details concerning the proposed expenditure of this $85,000. Does my hon. friend wish that that should be done?


Mr. RALSTON:: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: These are the expenditures:
To aid in extending the demand for fish, $15,000.
Contract for Nova Scotia boats, $30,000.
Supervision of lobster collection service, $400.
Packet service L'Ardoise-Halifax, $1,500.
Aid in educational work, looking to the use of better methods by fishermen, $15,000.
Subsidies to bait collection service, $1,500.
Grants to Canadian fishermen towards cost of New Year's issue, $2,000.
Grant to Canadian Fisheries Association towards cost of annual convention, $250.
Grants to exhibitions, $2,300.
To provide exhibits at various exhibitions and to stimulate demand for fish, $6,000.
Subsidies to bait freezers, $1,000.
Scallop investigations, $6,000.
Destruction of sea lions, $600.
Transhipment of fur seal skins. $2,500.
Miscellaneous, $950-Total, $85,000.


William Duff: Is the vote for destruction of sea lions to be effective in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia?


Alfred Duranleau: British Columbia.


William Duff: I thank you very much, indeed.
1440	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-C onservation


Mr. REID:: I am surprised at the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough rising to attack the province of British Columbia. I just happened to consult the report showing fisheries expenditures, and I find the figures show that since 1867, the year of confederation, approximately 815,000,000 has been spent on the eastern coast and only 813,000,000 on the Pacific.


Mr. VBXIOT:: We did not attack British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: But, looking at the revenues I find that almost 83,000,000 has been returned from British Columbia, and not quite $1,000,000 from the eastern provinces.
Mr. MAGDOUGAiDL: Would the hon. member permit a question? How much did this government have to advance to the province of British Columbia during the last three years to keep it from going bankrupt?


Edward James Young: What about the Duncan report?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That has not anything to do with it.


Thomas Reid: We are dealing particularly with fisheries, and I believe an answer is not necessary. The answer to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is that there are probably more crabs raised on the Atlantic coast than there are in British Columbia.


Harry Bernard Short: The hon. member is mistaken, there. British Columbia is the coast for crabs, not Nova Scotia.


Thomas Reid: However, I do not think we should divide Canada into two parts, the east coast and the west coast. I believe if British Columbia is getting any help she is getting only that which has been long delayed. I am sorry to have to oppose the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


Mr. VENIOT:: Discussion on this item has gone far afield. May I point out to hon. members from British Columbia that while we from the maritime provinces are defending our rights we are not attacking British Columbia.


William Duff: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni did it.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni made the suggestion that we were getting that which did not belong to us. I believe we have a perfect right to point out that such is not the case. So far as I am concerned British Columbia can get all the kudos possible out of the fishing busi-

ness. Let me point out however that since hon. members have spoken about favours conferred upon different parts of the dominion, under the agreement between New Zealand and Australia and Canada, British Columbia gets a preference on its fish which is not granted to any other part of the dominion. It is a discrimination in favour of sockeye salmon as against what we should get for our canned fish in the maritime provinces. For that reason I do not believe hon. members from British Columbia have any reason to complain if hon. members from the maritime provinces stand up for their rights.
I had intended to put a question to the minister in the French language, but having begun my observations in English I shall endeavour to finish what I have to say in that language. If I understand correctly, the acting Minister of Fisheries has informed us it is the intention of the government in the near future to establish a biological station on the Gaspe coast. The object of this station is to enlighten the younger generation engaged in the fishing business on the conservation, the greater production and the marketing of fish. I understand the station is to be established in the province of Quebec, and that the lessons given will be, no doubt, in the French language. Perhaps I would not be asking too much if I were to suggest to the minister that the benefits to be derived from the biological station on the Gaspe coast should be extended to the south shore of the Baie des Chaleurs to include certain parts of the province of New Brunswick, such as the county of Gloucester and sections of Northumberland, Kent and Restigouche, where a great majority of the fishermen are of French extraction. The large majority of the fishermen are of French extraction and they should receive the benefits of the teaching in French which will be carried on at the Gaspe biological station. I know that at the present time the French boys from Gloucester, Restigouche, Madawaska, Northumberland and Kent have the privilege of attending a short course in fishing which is carried on at Halifax during the winter time. This is all right as far as it goes but it does not meet the situation. It is too far for the boys to go and besides the general course in French at the biological station would prove of more benefit to our French fishing population. I suggest to the minister that he take this matter into consideration with the view of having the facilities of the biological station at Gaspe extended to certain sections of New Brunswick and if necessary to other sections of the maritime provinces.

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation


Alfred Duranleau: When discussing the organization of the fisheries experimental station at Gaspe with the provincial authorities of Quebec, I had this particular point in view. I hoped to have the benefits of this school extend not only to the French fishermen of the province of Quebec but also to the French fishermen on the coast of New Brunswick and the Magdalen Islands as well as those of Nova Scotia if they should desire to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the school.
I realize that what has been said by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) is quite true. Advertising is very important in increasing the home demand for fish. I was visited by a delegation last year and I told them that if it were at all possible this vote would be increased this year. My hon. friend will realize that in these times it is very difficult to have a vote increased. The home market is the best market and advertising offers the best medium of increasing the home demand. If we could increase the per capita consumption of fish in Canada by ten pounds we would remedy the whole situation. I can promise my hon. friend that if it is possible to make a saving in the expenditure of this 885,000 we will apply the difference to advertising purposes. I cannot promise that the committee will be asked to vote a supplementary item, but any saving will be applied for that purpose.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: We are probably wandering a little far afield from the particular item now before the committee, but I think it may be in order at this time to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). There are few hon. members in the house to whom I listen with greater interest and from whom I derive greater benefit than from that hon. member. But he seems to have an obsession on this particular matter of fishing bounties. Year after year he claims that British Columbia should share in this
8160,000	and year after year we have to go to the trouble of explaining everything to him. We give him the findings of the Maclean commission and we go over the history from the time of the establishment of the tribunal before which witnesses were called. The whole thing had reference only to the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec. The finding of the tribunal was that S5,500,000 should be paid. I think
81,000,000 went for grants, $500,000 for expenses and 84,000,000 was placed in consolidated revenue. It was understood by everyone at the time that British Columbia had
absolutely nothing to do with the matter. That province had no more interest in this than had Manitoba or Ontario. The finding of the tribunal had to do with the advantages which the United States had in our fishing grounds over the fishermen of the maritime provinces and the amount awarded was regarded as recompense. A mistake was made in putting this award into the consolidated revenue fund instead of into a trust fund.


Alan Webster Neill: But .they did put it in.


Finlay MacDonald: Once it was placed in consolidated revenue my hon. friend thinks it is open to anyone from any place in Canada to come in and grab it. Of course, that is something that we cannot tolerate. While we are willing to do anything to assist the fisheries of British Columbia we cannot allow unholy hands to be placed on this S160.000. I do hope that with this explanation we have heard the last of this matter.


Alan Webster Neill: No, never.


James Layton Ralston: I am glad that the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has brought up the question of the Halifax award because I wanted to refer to it in another connection. I was a little surprised at hearing him repeat the claims which he had made before as to the injustice which he considers has been done to British Columbia in not sharing in this grant. I feel that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) and those other hon. members who have spoken have done a signal service not only to British Columbia but to Canada generally by placing side by side with the statement of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni the real facts with regard to this particular grant. I do not think he should be allowed to get away with the claim which he so characteristically persists in making. Let us remind him again that the treaty of Washington, referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, provided expressely that American fishermen should be allowed certain fishing privileges in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, not in British Columbia, and that article 23 of that treaty provided that a tribunal should be set up to award damages to Canada caused by reason of the invasion of our maritime waters by these American fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: To Canada.


James Layton Ralston: To Canada, certainly.


Alan Webster Neill: Not to the maritimes.

Supply-Fisheries-C onservation


James Layton Ralston: That tribunal was set up and an award was made. Surely the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not so unfair as to suggest that when the fishermen of the maritime provinces have paid the piper and suffered the damages the whole Dominion of Canada should participate in the award given by the court. I do not believe he is sincere in making that claim. He does make a technical claim because of the fact that this award was placed in consolidated revenue instead of being set aside for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. This difficulty was realized three years later in 1882 at which time a statute was passed providing, first for a grant of $150,000 and then subsequently for one of $160,000 to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. That amount has been paid out ever since in fishing bounties.


Alan Webster Neill: There was no reference to
the award in that act.


James Layton Ralston: No, but there was a reference to the award in the debates that took place in the house at the time, showing why this money was being voted. Surely my hon. friend does not suggest that members from the west or from other parts of Canada would sit there and permit money to be voted to the maritime provinces alone unless they were convinced of the justice of it. Because the preamble did not declare, "Whereas this is money of the people of the maritime provinces," that does not alter the fact that it was money belonging to the people of the maritimes, and it was voted to them to compensate them for the damage they sustained in connection with the fisheries. Moreover, you will find it expressly stated in the debates in the house that this was why the
8160,000	was to be voted each year to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Since my hon. friend has gone into the question, let us remind him that there remains to be paid the interest for three years. That was the subject of a claim before the Maclean commission, reference to which has been made by my hon. friend from Cape Breton South, and that claim was recognized by the commission. They said that it was a fair claim, holding that the money should be paid for the benefit of the maritime fisheries. Interest on interest had rolled up until it amounted to millions, but the Maclean commission in their report expressly recommended that, considering the grounds upon which the award was made, the request that the three years' unpaid interest be appropriated by parliament to be applied to useful purposes in connection with the Atlantic fisheries or fishermen ap-

peared to them to be fair and equitable, and they recommended that the amount be so appropriated and applied. I do not think my hon. friend wants to take away that little ewe lamb we have in the maritime provinces in connection with this vote. Surely he would not expect us to be paid for damages suffered by British Columbia fishermen with respect to some arrangement with the United States regarding the fisheries on the Pacific coast. These are facts, and while I am pointing them out to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I want him to understand that we agree with him that the fisheries on the Pacific should receive all the encouragement possible. Apparently however the salmon fishery, so far as exports are concerned, has not done too badly, because this year the increased exports amount to some 8800,000 out of a total increase in export trade of $1,300,000. So that while the British Columbia fisheries are in difficulties they are nevertheless showing some measure of progress.
I come back to the item under consideration. I wish to refer the minister to two or three matters in the maritime provinces in connection with the fishing industry. The first thing I want to discuss is the question mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis, namely, the desirability of increasing demand. One of the objects for which this vote is intended is to promote the demand for fish. Everyone recognizes the good work done by Mrs. Spencer and those engaged teaching the ladies how to cook fish. But after all most of us feel that this does not account for a large proportion of the consumption of what is produced by the industry as a whole. Our export markets have to be taken into consideration. We are all for increasing the home market as much as possible. I am for it as much as anyone else, and I am of the impression that what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis has suggested is a good thing. The minister would be well advised to consider favourably what has been submitted to him in regard to the need for assisting the fishing industry through the medium of advertising. I do not attempt to suggest to him how much money should be voted but I do think that a definite campaign should be undertaken in Canada in the direction of instructing the people in the food value of fish. This is one of the primary industries of the country; it employs a large number of people who use a good deal of gear. A definite campaign along this line would therefore be productive of very desirable results and would increase the national prosperity

v	Supply-Fisheries-Conservation
substantially. I would ask the minister to assist in the marketing of fish by increasing the demand through advertising. The united maritime fishermen met last November and passed a resolution which I suppose the minister has received, urging upon the hon. gentleman the need for extending assistance along that line. I believe it could well engage his attention, and I submit that part of this money should be used for that purpose. The minister will say no doubt, "We have not enough money." Well, I say to him, use part of the money from the Halifax award still remaining unpaid; it has not yet been paid the fishermen in the maritime provinces. There is one object to which it could be devoted. Remember this-and I am not talking east and west-that we have not had any bonus on the production of fish. There was a wheat bonus two years ago, but we have not asked the government to undertake the stabilization of the fishing industry as it undertook to do in connection with wheat in the west. The Prime Minister made an announcement to-day with regard to the stabilization of the wheat market. We have not had anything of that sort, but we do submit that something should be done to extend the market for fish by stimulating the demand for that product, so as to meet a call which is coming generally from the fishing industry for assistance, not by way of the dole, but by helping men to help themselves. That is all they ask.
There is one other matter 1 wish to mention along lines in which the department might render assistance. I refer to the collection services. The minister has mentioned the collection service for which part of this vote is intended. Everyone naturally thinks of his own constituency, and I have in mind particularly a collection service that could be instituted along the coast between Yarmouth and Shelburne for the purpose of collecting fish -and lobsters by the way-and bringing them to Yarmouth to be shipped by boat to Boston. I would ask the minister to take into consideration the inauguration of services along Clarkjs Harbour, The Pubnicos, Wedgeport and Yarmouth, for the purpose of assisting in the expeditious marketing of the fish produced in that part of the country.
The next matter I wish to discuss briefly is this. I know that the minister and the department have had reports regarding the very serious effect of the storms of last winter on the fishing industry. I do not think that any industry has been so hard hit as those engaged
in fishing. The fishermen have taken a terrific beating; they have lost boats and gear and, most tragic of all, lives. I believe the loss of lives in the fishing industry was something like six.


Harry Bernard Short: Seven.


James Layton Ralston: Seven, in the southern and western part of the province of Nova Scotia. Now, I am not discussing a general policy of loans to fishermen, but I did bring to the attention of the minister the circumstances of one fisherman who, through no fault of his own, lost his boat as a result of the storm. It was a total wreck. He has no capital to get another, and he is a good fisherman. He has done well. I should like to find out whether there is not some way in which he can be assisted. As I say, I am not suggesting a general policy at this stage; I am not going as far as that. I am pointing out however that the extraordinary situation which presented itself along the coast this winter ustifies an extraordinary emergency provision for that type of case


Alfred Duranleau: Has my hon. friend any suggestions to offer?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; there is no question as to what can be voted for assistance to the industry and I think my hon. friend should have an investigation made by his officers and lay down some rule whereby, in emergent conditions, where a man has completely lost his capital, the only thing with which he can earn his living, he may be helped by either a loan or a grant.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Can that not be done under the Relief Act?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly, but the minister was asking me for some general principles to lay down in regard to the matter.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is the general principle which should be laid down.


James Layton Ralston: There is no doubt that it could be done under the Relief Act. This is an emergency year; the hard winter has created hardships, financial difficulty and distress to the fishermen, and they are asking not for the dole but for an opportunity to help themselves. There again I say that if the minister needs justification for asking his colleagues for more money, it can be found in the Maclean report which points out that the sum of S480.000, without counting interest, is payable still in respect of the Halifax award.
Last year I brought up the matter of the
1444	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Conservation	[DOT]*
lobster industry. It has been represented to me repeatedly that the department might do well to consider paying the fishermen for the fantail or mother lobster, that is the large one, which although not showing any eggs, is a productive lobster, which may not be very much good for food, but which at the same time substantially increases the production if thrown back into the water. This payment is made, I understand, in other places. The tail of the lobster is punched so that the department will not pay for it twice. The payment does not amount to a great deal, but this is a matter of conservation coming directly under this item. I mentioned it to the minister last session, and I should like him to study it seriously and favourably.
I wish to refer to one other matter in connection with the fishing industry. Has the minister any further report from Washington with regard to the progress or otherwise of a bill, I think it was H.R. 74-19, which was introduced by a congressman to prohibit the importation of fish into the United States?


Alfred Duranleau: As to the last query of my hon. friend I may say that our latest information is that the bill to which he refers has not yet gone to committee.


James Layton Ralston: I want to thank the minister for information I received from the department with regard to the lobster code, which was giving some concern to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. As the minister knows, a minimum size limit was introduced which was slightly different from ours, but ours has now been made to conform. A maximum size limit was also proposed to be inserted, but later I understand that was struck out. I am sure the lobster fishermen received that news with considerable satisfaction.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I have not time
now to deal with the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, but I intend to do so at a later date. I just want to ask the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth to tell me, when I subsequently deal with the fishing industry of my province, whether he will join with me as a member of the House of Commons, forgetting politics altogether, in assisting the fishermen by helping to bring about the abolition of beam trawlers in Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: I was a member of a
government which passed an order in council which was held subsequently to be ultra vires, but if I had been in the government when that situation occurred, I would have made that order in council effective by having it validated.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: All I can say to
my hon. friend is that I am very glad to have his cooperation in that matter.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Under this vote which
mentions conservation and which deals with the regulation of the lobster fishing industry, I should like to ask the minister whether new regulations have been adopted in the county of Prince where there are late and early lobster fishing seasons, and whether, if those regulations have been adopted, they have been properly advertised in the province in order that the fishermen may be made aware of them.


Alfred Duranleau: No special regulation
was adopted for Prince county, but there was one to limit the number of licences to different districts and this regulation has been advertised as much as possible.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I do not think it has
been advertised as it should. In all fairness to the fishermen and the packers, if the department makes a change in regulations in connection with any section of the country where lobster fishing is carried on, widespread information to that effect should be given. I do not think it would cost the department very' much to insert an advertisement in the papers telling the fishermen that those in a certain section will be allowed to fish only in that section and that only one fishing licence will be issued to each fisherman for the year. The trouble is that I am flooded with letters from fishermen in that locality asking whether this regulation has been put into effect and complaining that they cannot get the information. It should not cost the department very much to insert in the four newspapers in the province a notice telling the fishermen just what has happened. The fishermen migrate from one side of the province to the other. At this season of the year it is often the case, not only in Prince county but in every section, that the lobster packers make advances to the fishermen. This is the season of the year when the fisherman comes in for an advance. He is looking for it in order to equip himself to fish in a certain section. If the packer advances him money to equip himself with gear and so forth and then finds out later that the fisherman is not allowed to fish in a certain section, this is not fair to the packer or to the fisherman. I suggest frankly and in all fairness to the department and the minister that they should advertise in the local papers in that section of the country stating definitely what the regulations are for the coming season, so that the fishermen and the packers may be made aware of the correct situation.

Supply-Fisheries-Conservation


Alfred Duranleau: That regulation was
published in the Canada Gazette, and printed and circulated among the fishermen and can-ners by our inspectors in that district. But if my hon. friend states that some people have been complaining that they have had no notice of that change, I have no objection to putting a little notice in the local papers. It may be an advisable thing to do so. I quite understand that all interested parties should be posted as to the regulations.


Mr. BRASSET:: I wish first to thank the
minister for having placed in the Magdalen islands an instructor in the curing of codfish. This instructor, whose name I think is Merrier, has done a lot of good work, and since he has been there the curing of codfish has been improved. But the cod fishing industry has expanded a good deal in the Magdalen islands in the last few years, and I do not think one instructor is enough. In the first place he is sent to the islands too late in the season and is retired too early in the fall. He should come when the fishing begins in the spring and should stay as late as November, whereas I think he has been going there late in June and is obliged to come back by the beginning of October. It would be a good thing if instead of one instructor the minister would send two or three and let them stay there through the season. There are quite a few fishermen in the Magdalen islands and one instructor cannot go to all the fishing localities, consequently the instruction given is not sufficient. I would therefore ask the minister if it is possible to place at least two instructors on the island, and send them there earlier in the spring and keep them there until later in the fall.


Alfred Duranleau: I thank my hon.
friend for his words of commendation for what we have done. As to the suggestion made by him, he knows that we have had to curtail expenses as much as possible during these years, and we are not prepared at present to increase the expenditure. Nevertheless I can assure my hon. friend that I will look into the matter and see if it is possible to do anything to improve the situation.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I see that this vote is for the purpose of increasing the demand for fish. In Manitoba we have a couple of big lakes, lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, and not so many years ago they were filled with excellent whitefish that I believe brought the highest price on the New York market. In Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, although
perhaps we are not very great fish eaters, the consumption of fish could well be developed. But there is a very decided demand for salt water fish, white-fleshed fish-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacNicol):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but this item refers to deep sea fish, and I imagine the hon. member's remarks would be more in order under the next item.


John Power Howden: Well, I have just a word to say. Deep sea fish, fish of the white-fleshed variety, are specially desirable from a medical standpoint, being more digestible and less offensive to a delicate organism than red-fleshed and fat fish, such as the white-fish and pickerel and other varieties that we have in Manitoba. So there is a decided demand and a good market for this sea fish. Of course the only way we get it is frozen hard; that cannot be altered, we appreciate that. But we have to pay twenty or twenty-five cents a pound for this frozen fish. I believe that the fishermen on the Atlantic coast get only one or two cents a pound. I have no suggestion as to a cure for that, except that the dominion owns a railway and that railway operates an express service, and it seems to me this railway and these express facilities could be very well put to work transferring this fish in the shortest possible time and with the least expense to the consumer. If some such measures were taken to develop the business, I think a much greater market could be found for deep sea fish in Manitoba.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Concerning this matter of the conservation and development of our deep sea fisheries, might I, perhaps more for the sake, of information than for anything else, draw the attention of the minister to what I understand to be new regulations that are to come into effect in 1935 in connection with the packing of lobsters. At the present time it is not required that all packing establishments be provided with steam for the cleansing of fish and cans and so on. But I understand that in 1935 new regulations to this effect will become effective, applicable to all canneries large or small, and I fear the result will be that a great many small packers will be put out of business. It is not always easy for them to comply with such stringent regulations, which I do not believe are necessary to keep up the quality of our Atlantic coast packed lobsters. I would therefore ask the minister if it would not be possible to consider an extension of time for the coming into force of this act.

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture


Alfred Duranleau: We have been asked for ameliorations in the canneries from year to year. It is true that the regulations requiring steam retorts in canneries, large or small, will come into force in 1935. Of course it is possible to extend the time, and if after we have heard representations from all the interested parties we think it is advisable so to do, we may extend the time for the coming into force of that regulation.


Peter John Veniot: If that requirement comes into effect it will mean giving a monopoly of the lobster industry to a small group of larger packers who can avail themselves of those conditions. The small packer who under present conditions cannot afford to comply with such regulation will be driven out, leaving the business entirely in the hands of a few large concerns, many of them American packers having branches on this side. I believe in the proper canning of our lobsters, but I do not believe it is necessary that such a stringent regulation should be enforced in order to maintain the quality of our canned lobsters. The Canadian lobster has won for itself an excellent reputation on the markets of the world, and so far as I know nothing has been shown to indicate that that quality would be greatly improved by the enforcement of the proposed new regulation. That is my reason for referring the matter to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $240,000.
William Duff: I am opposed to this item,
in view of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had to say with regard to the few dollars spent in Nova Scotia. Most of this money is spent in British Columbia, and consequently I want to oppose the item.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister tell us
how much of this money will be spent in British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: The estimated expenditure in British Columbia this year is

Item agreed to.
Oyster culture, $10,000.


Peter John Veniot: On this item, Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise the same objection that I laid before the committee last year. I appreciate what the government are doing and what former governments have done in the matter of oyster culture, but I cannot agree that the regulation as to the size of the oyster is just. I understand how difficult
fMr. Veniot.]
it is to have a general regulation which will apply to all sections of the oyster fishing industry in the maritime provinces; I also understand how difficult it is to adopt regulations that may be parochial, so to speak, but there are considerations that should be taken into account. For instance, consider what is known as the Caraquet oyster in the county of Gloucester. This oyster does not reach the full size of three and a half inches or more as rapidly as the round oyster matures in other parts of the province. In the cultivated bays of Buctouehe, Shediac and Shemogue we find that the spat is deposited in fre^h water at first in order to bring about a more rapid growth, which allows the young oyster to be placed in colder waters sooner than is the case with the Caraquet oysters. In northern New Brunswick there is no cultivation of that kind carried on, and the Caraquet oyster, and St. Simon bay oysters, have to depend entirely upon nature to reach their mature size. It will take the cultivated oyster three or four years to become marketable, whereas in the case of the round oyster in the northern waters it will take a year or two longer. Under the present regulations three and a half inches is the smallest size at which an oyster is allowed to be caught, and this imposes an absolute hardship upon the oyster fishermen of northern New Brunswick.
Last year I asked that this matter be looked into more fully. I do not know whether or not that has been done, but I am sure no harm would be done to marketing of the round oyster from Caraquet bay if the fishermen were permitted to take them at three inches. I would suggest to the minister that he seriously consider reducing the size of the round oyster to three instead of three and a half inches. Very few small oysters are fished in Caraquet bay, because the regulation is very strictly enforced. I think the fishermen obey the law almost to the letter and return any three inch oysters to the waters of Caraquet bay and St. Simon bay. So I would ask the minister to reconsider the decision that has been made, fixing the size of the oyster at three and a half inches instead of three inches, as it was previously.


Alfred Duranleau: I see that my hon. friend realizes the difficulty of adopting different regulations for different fishing areas. This subject has been carefully studied by my department, and we are still considering the advisability of reducing the minimum from three and a half to three inches, not only in the northern part of New Brunswick but in the whole fishing industry.

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture


Peter John Veniot: I think it could be done for the whole province.


Alfred Duranleau: We are still considering that reduction.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I could give the minister an example of a similar case. In connection with the lobster fisheries there are parochial regulations, so to speak; in northern New Brunswick, up to a certain imaginary line there is a certain season from the spring on into the summer, while from that point east there is a different season. Perhaps that might help the minister in coming to a conclusion, even if he should decide that the three inch size could not be made uniform all over the province; at least the regulation could be changed in certain sections, following the lines of the regulations in regard to the lobster fisheries.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I should like to ask the minister how much was spent last year and where that money was spent. Was it all spent in Prince Edward Island or was part of it spent in New Brunswick.


Alfred Duranleau: The amount spent
up to December 31, last was $8,803. I have not the exact figures as to the expenses in the different provinces, but I can tell my hon. friend that a large amount was spent in Prince Edward Island, in fact nearly all the vote.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I wish to thank the minister for that information. I should like now to get from him information as to the receipts which have come in from the operation of the oyster industry. As the committee is probably aware, the government has taken over the administration of the oyster areas in Prince Edward Island, especially in the Prince county area. In the administration of those oyster areas certain grants have been made by way of leases to some who are taking out leases for the .propagation of oysters on leased grounds. We would like to have from the minister information as to the total amount received from all oysters sold off those public grounds last season.


Alfred Duranleau: I am afraid some
time would be required to give exact information as to the amount of money received from the sale of oysters, but I can .tell my hon. friend results from the planting of spat. An area of about one-third of an acre on the Totten bed in the department's reserved area at the head of Bideford river was cleaned by tongers in 1929, and thoroughly mopped for star fish, on which were planted 74726-92
about four hundred bushels of shells, on which set of spat had been obtained by exposing them in wire boxes and in heaps on shallow shores. In August, 1932, 140 barrels of oysters were taken from half of the area. In 1933, an additional 216 barrels were taken, of which about one-half were of the original planted spat, and the remainder younger. In addition there were left on the bed all the oysters smaller than one and a half to two inches, and an estimated quantity of fifty barrels of larger oysters missed by the tongers. About one barrel per man was obtained on the last- day. To summarize, in 1929, shells with spat planted amounted to 400 bushels; 1932, oysters fished, largely 1929 spat, 140 barrels; in 1933, oysters fished, 1929 spat, 216 barrels. There were estimated left on bed, in addition to many very small oysters, about SO barrels, forming a total of 406 barrels. Then, in 1931 there were sold by the department for consumption, 67 barrels; in 1932, there were sold 12 barrels, and in 1933, 327 barrels. I can tell my hon. friend also that for planting purposes 225 barrels were sold in 1931, 233 barrels in 1932 and 153 barrels in 1933.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister tell
me whether in the policy adopted by the government in connection with the cultivation of oysters empty shells alone are used, or if they use any other material for adherence of the spat? Do you use clean wood instead of shell for the adherence of spat?


Alfred Duranleau: We use different kinds of culch.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The minister has stated
that about 440 barrels of marketable oysters were sold, and that in the three year period some 611 barrels have been sold to the parties who have taken the areas for planting purposes. I should like to know if the oysters were sold by tender, and if public tenders were invited for the sale of the best quality oysters, namely those fit for shipping. Then, may I ask further at what price they were sold?


Alfred Duranleau: We asked for tenders in every case in which we sold oysters. Is the hon. member asking for the price we received?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes, for best quality.


Alfred Duranleau: In 1931, for best
quality, we received $8.25; in 1932, we received the same price, and in 1933, we received S8.

144S
Private Bills


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The complaint has come
to me that instead of public tenders being invited, tenders were invited from only a few parties who were interested in the shipping of oysters in the immediate vicinity. Fishermen feel it would have been wise to advertise for tenders in a public way. Then, there is the question of oysters procured for replanting on the beds. Included in those oysters were the 611 barrels which were taken for planting in private beds.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to incorporate Thousand Islands Bridge Company-Mr. Maloney.
Bill No. 30, respecting a certain patent of the American Dairy Supply Company-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 11, respecting Prudential Trust Company, Limited-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 2-Dividends.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson):: This
new section has been suggested by the superintendent of insurance and agreed to by the banking committee.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Bell (St. Antoine) in the chair.
Oyster culture, $10,000.
Alfred Edgar MacLean: When the house rose at
six o'clock we were endeavouring to get information from the minister regarding this vote, and I must confess that I was not altogether satisfied with such information as he had been able to give up to that time. I really think that we should have a full statement of receipts and expenditures in connection with this vote. It will be observed that the vote is for $10,000, and the minister told us that $8,800 had been expended. We

endeavoured to ascertain from him where that money had been spent and we were unable to find out; all he said was that the largest portion of it was spent in Prince county, Prince Edward Island. It might leave a false impression with the committee simply to be told that $8,000 odd was spent there, and for that reason I should like to have ample information with regard to the item. In addition to that, we tried to get some information regarding the receipts that came in from that area and the minister told us that 327 barrels of oysters had been taken off the public areas in the Bideford section. These were sold at $8 a barrel, making a total of $2,616. Then 153 barrels were sold at $2 per barrel, making in the neighbourhood of $2,922. That amount was taken in as receipts for the oysters picked up around that vicinity. Now, if they were able to pick up about 480 barrels of oysters it would seem that these were fairly good producing areas. We must remember that we are not speaking now of cultivated areas; they are altogether a different matter from the areas off which the 480 barrels were taken. The committee will readily understand that in these hard times of depression the fishermen feel that they should have had the opportunity of fishing these oysters, and even of fishing to a larger extent and selling the product for their benefit, as was always done in former years. But some years ago restrictions were imposed and the areas were closed. Since that time the government and the Department of Fisheries have been handling the industry- Whether they are on the right trlack or not, I am not prepared to discuss at this time. If the department have decided that they are going to follow that course, I suppose all that the fishermen in that locality could do is to put up with it, but the fisheries have been looked upon as a right and the question has arisen whether even the government of the province or of the dominion can really prohibit the fishermen in that community from fishing for oysters in tidal waters. I understand that a test case has been started and is in the supreme court of Prince Edward Island at the present time, and I believe the fishermen intend to take it to the highest court in the land to see whether they are correct in their understanding of the situation.
What I want to point out at present is that if the sum of $8,000 was spent there, the government must have received in rent and sale of oysters some $3,000 or $4,000. I would ask the minister what was collected in the way of rentals this year. There are the yearly rentals for the areas and the new

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
licences that have been taken out. In all fairness to the people of that community, the government should furnish this information in detail, giving the amount of money received from oysters sold, the amount collected for rentals and new leases issued and all the details in connection with the matter. If the minister can give the committee that information now, I shall be glad to have it.


Alfred Duranleau: The number of leases issued last year was forty for Prince county and nine for Queens county, or a total of forty-nine. As regards fees, we are charging one dollar per acre for the first three years, three dollars per acre for the next two years and three dollars and a royalty for the succeeding years. The amount of the royalty has not yet been decided.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What is the total amount collected for leases and rentals for 1933?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the exact figure before me. The leases are not all the same; some are for five acres, others for three, and I think the hon. member knows enough about the matter to have an idea what revenue we get from that source.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: 
Alfred Duranleau: I am prepared to give a statement that I have on the subject, if it is the desire of my hon. friend, but it may be rather long.
Mr. MadLEAN: I think it is as important as any other subject.


Alfred Duranleau: I can give information about the number of acres under lease. We have about 245 acres under lease at the

present time, at $1 per acre. We are pursuing the policy adopted by the former government for the improvement of oyster culture on Prince Edward Island; we have done nothing else.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If the minister will permit, I have to take issue with him there, because under the former government there was never any policy of leasing public areas to private individuals.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my colleague will permit me to say a word, I think perhaps what the acting minister has in mind is that the policy which now obtains was arrived at by agreement between the former government of Prince Edward Island and the present administration. As far as I am aware it has been earned out with full approval of the present administration of Prince Edward Island. May I say to my hon. friend with regard to the petition he read from the group of fishermen, although I sympathize very sincerely with them in their plight, I regretted the views they expressed, as I do not think they are in accord with their own welfare. My hon. friend knows full well the oyster fishery that was wiped out in that area was because of free fishing; every man who could hire or buy or borrow or steal a rake would go out and help himself. The result was that a magnificent fishery, which was a source of great wealth to the countryside, was practically destroyed, to such an extent that they had to attempt to restore it by bringing in seed oysters from the United States. This resulted in ruin because they brought with them a parasite which gave the final coup de grace to the few remaining oysters in that area. It is only now being built up through the policy which has been arrived at by agreement, I am happy to say, between the provincial administration and the federal Department of Fisheries. If opportunity is given there can be developed in that area a fishery which will yield in wealth many times more than the whole of the fisheries of Prince Edward Island ever yielded in the past. I am speaking of just that one area in Mal-peque bay alone. It has been estimated by those who have made a study of the matter that soil under the sea suitable for oyster cultivation can be capitalized at SI,000 an acre and yield a profitable return. These very men who signed that petition, if they had their wish, just as soon as these fisheries were built up to a certain stage would go out and tear them to pieces, as happened in the past. What will happen under the present system

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
of private leases, in which preference is given to those who live in the immediate neighbourhood, is that the individual who acquires a lease, having to pay a certain rental to the government for it and operating under government supervision, will endeavour to build up an enterprise which will grow with the years, producing more and more oysters, and in doing so more employment will be afforded for the very men who signed that petition; and instead of their going out for a few months in the year and raking a few oysters, under a proper system of cultivation there will be employment for them twelve months in the year.
I have briefly expressed my view after having given a great deal of study to the matter, because I have always felt that we have never properly utilized and developed the great potential value of our oyster fisheries in Canada. I believe the oysters from that area are the finest in the world. I have always felt great regret, in going to hotels and clubs throughout the country, even at a time when the United States dollar was at a premium as high as fifteen per cent over the Canadian, that we had to eat the American oyster- which I submit is an inferior oyster-because there were not enough Canadian oysters to supply our own demand. Let me say to my hon. friend and to the committee that if they do not subscribe to the point of view that I have just endeavoured to put forward, at least let us give the policy a chance to work out. It will take a few years, and in the meantime no one will suffer. I am convinced that if it is given a chance to operate under the excellent guidance and supervision of the Department. of Fisheries-and I mention in this connection especially the work of Dr. Needier, who, I am glad to know, according to my hon. friend, has done most excellent work-this industry will thrive and prosper to the great benefit not only of Prince Edward Island as a whole but particularly that of the fishermen for whom my hon. friend has spoken this evening.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), but those of us who have had actual experience all our lives in that area would have to take objection to some of his remarks. In the first place he states that the oyster industry was killed by overfishing. There my hon. friend is absolutely wrong. The oysterfishery is quite different from many other fisheries, for the life of the oyster industry is the annual fishing; the raking of the beds keeps them
clean and in condition to catch the spat, and in that way you get your yearly crop. What did kill the industry there was the importation of oysters-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because it was overfished. They brought these oysters in because the area had been overfished.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Well, no. If the government had been wise-it was under the local government then-the season would have been shortened to restrict overfishing, and imports of oysters from outside would not have been allowed. If the oyster industry gets back in the public areas to a position where the fisherman can make a day's pay, and he is not allowed to overfish, there is nothing in the world that would benefit the industry to the same extent. Members of the house must realize that these areas include thousands and thousands of acres, and it is impossible for the government to clean them by boats, by drags or by rakes. The only possible way in which they can be cleaned is by public fishing, provided that the areas come back sufficiently to allow the fishermen to make a decent wage. There are some sections at present where they can make some profit. The very fact that 4S0 barrels of oysters were picked up right around this area indicates that the public areas are coming back to quite an extent.
My hon. friend says that this policy was adopted by the previous government. May I inform him and those who were not in the house at the time that I took a very great interest in this matter because these fisheries are right in the centre of the county which I have the honour to represent, and, as the Minister of Finance has said, this industry is worth millions of dollars. My aim, and the deputy minister would bear me out if he were allowed to speak, was to bring back those areas for public fishing under the supervision of the Department of Fisheries rather than for private lease. I wish hon. members who represent fishing counties would put themselves in my position; let them realize if they can what it would mean if the banks off the coast of Newfoundland were leased to private individuals. We have seen the fuss they have had in Nova Scotia in connection with trawlers, and that is only a small instance of what happens when the fisheries get out of the hands of the public. We would like to see these areas brought back in the interests of the public fishermen under the direct supervision of the government. I think I have made a reasonable request, and I hope that
1452	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
before anything very drastic is done in the way of leasing large areas the department will go into the whole situation very carefully and see if they are on the right track.


Alfred Duranleau: I have only a word to say in reply to my hon. friend, and I should like to emphasize what has been said by the Minister of Finance. During the best days of Malpeque bay, in my hon. friend's constituency, they produced over five thousand barrels per year; in 1912, before this policy was adopted, the production had dropped to four hundred barrels per year. The fisheries had practically disappeared through overfishing in that part of the country. May I tell my hon. friend that the views expressed by the Minister of Finance are shared by outstanding citizens, members of the Liberal party, of Prince Edward Island. I should like to put on record the appreciation expressed by an outstanding Liberal of that province, Hon. Walter Lea, leader of the Liberal party in the province of Prince Edward Island. In 1932, Mr. Lea stated:
I may be treading on very dangerous ground to suggest the approval of any method of protection for our oyster industry, but certainly the cultivation of the beds by the federal department is a very wise move and should have the support of every man in this province regardless of his political affiliations or who was responsible for the change that was made.
I think this expression of opinion should be worth something to my hon. friend.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If the minister wants to
introduce politics into this question, which is the last thing in the world I want to do-


Mr. CANTLEY:: You are down to the
bottom of your argument now.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Let me tell my hon. friend that if he would play politics in a matter of this kind in Pictou county I would not stoop to that in my county. If I wanted to make political capital out of this I certainly could do so, but that is not my wish. This matter is too important for that, and I am surprised that any hon. gentleman holding the portfolio of fisheries should even make the suggestion. I agree with what Mr. Lea has said; we all want to see those areas brought back, but if anyone should get credit for what has been done it is my humble self. I worked hard to get the government to take over that area, and it was only after getting the provincial government and federal government in line that we were able to get the dominion government to take action and spend some money. If my hon. friend wants to raise
[Mr. MacLean 1
political considerations let me tell him that the Conservative government of Prince Edward Island took over those areas and destroyed them, worked them out through careless importation of oysters, without giving any consideration at all to the fisheries. That is the situation, if my hon. friend wants to know it.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to bring politics into this discussion at all. The subject is too important for that; it affects too many people. There are thousands of people in that community who are looking forward to the day when something will be done in their behalf in connection with this industry. It gave them a livelihood for a number of years, and you may be sure that they have had very' hard sledding, as the saying is, since this industry was wiped out. So I hope no one will try to inject politics into this matter. Last year I was even accused by some hon. gentleman opposite of arranging those indignation meetings which were held in connection with the leasing of those areas. I want emphatically to deny that statement. I was sorry those meetings were held. I attended them, as did my opponent in the last election, and we did all we could to reconcile the two factions and get them together. That feeling is there, however, and now it is up to my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries to look after this industry. The government have adopted the policy of leasing, which was never contemplated by the Liberal party; I never gave my consent, and never would give it, to this proposal. I am prepared to stand by the public fishermen as against private interests first, last and all the time. So I am going to leave that matter with the Minister of Fisheries, if he wishes to introduce politics.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Prince is rather ingenious, to say the least; he proceeds to find fault with the acting Minister of Fisheries for introducing politics, and then he immediately says the Conservative party is responsible for annihilating the oyster beds in Malpeque bay. Of course there is nothing political in that remark. As a matter of fact the acting Minister of Fisheries did not bring in politics at all; his reference was made solely with a view to preventing politics being introduced into the discussion. I may say to my hon. friend that, as Minister of Fisheries during the period when this agreement was entered into with the province of Prince Edward Island, as far as I am concerned I am happy to assume my full share of the responsibility. At the same time I want to

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
pay tribute to the statesmanship and breadth of view of Mr. Lea, who was the Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island at that time. He had the capacity to rise above petty political considerations and keep in mind only the welfare of the industry itself and those who were dependent upon it. I hope my hon. friend will not misunderstand me when I say that in the maritime provinces we have ample subjects upon which to engage in political discussions and disputes, if we so choose. It is a most fertile area. In fact, I sometimes think that if we cannot find a subject for political dispute we will invent one. But may we leave any discussion of this industry, one which is fraught with such great possibilities for Prince Edward Island and other sections of the maritime provinces, outside the realm of political discussion. I can assure my hon. friend, and I believe I may speak for the acting Minister of Fisheries, that there is no desire to make political capital out of the matter, either one way or the other, and so far as I am concerned I will do my best to keep my eyes focused on the welfare of the industry. I hope the hon. member for Prince will take my word for it that that is the attitude of the acting minister and myself, and I venture the hope that the hon. member will cooperate with us for the benefit and common welfare of the industry.


Mr. McLURE:: Before the item passes I should like to say a few words. On one point, namely that of the importance of this industry to Prince Edward Island, I must agree with the hon. member for Prince. It is so important that I believe hon. members on this sicfe of the house do not wish to make a political football of the oyster business in Prince Edward Island. It is admitted to-day that the leasing and cultivation of oyster areas in that province has been a decided success, and while there has been some criticism of the acting Minister of Fisheries, I want to say that in my constituency, one in which great interest is taken in oyster farming, the people are loud in their praises of the policy pursued by the Department of Fisheries and the success it is having in the cultivation of oysters and the renewing of the industry. To such an extent is interest awakened in the industry that dozens of people are asking for leases in Alexandra bay, Pownall bay, Vernon river, Orwell bay, Orwell river and Rustico bay. A proper survey should be made of these territories. We know they are not barren bottoms, but there are certain areas in those rivers which should be leased for the benefit of the whole industry, because every farmer who takes a lease does some
cultivation, and the fishermen fishing on the regular beds get the benefit of it.
As has already been said, the oyster business of Prince Edward Island has reached the point where an excellent article is offered to the trade. Apart from the information the hon. member for Prince has given the committee in connection with some dissatisfaction in regard to leases, I must say that I have never heard any person opposing leases. In fact, the fishermen look upon leasing as a regulation which will save the industry for them, and while there may be an odd one, such as has been described by the hon. member for Prince, who would like to see a cancellation of the leases, I believe the majority of the fishermen know enough about the regulations with respect to lobster fishing and as to what the regulations have done for that industry that they are quite anxious to uphold the Department of Fisheries in what it is doing for the oyster industry. In 1928 the federal government entered into a contract with the provincial government, and the policy inaugurated at that time is the policy being carried into effect to-day by the Department of Fisheries. If we are to give the government in power in 1928 credit for its policy and outlook, we must also give this government and its Department of Fisheries credit for carrying that policy into effect, and for promoting an industry for the fishermen of the province. I should like to impress upon the acting minister that in the county of Queens we would like a further survey of the bottoms of areas which are unproductive, with a view to affording our people an opportunity to take up leases for oyster farming.


Thomas Reid: I should like to ask the minister a question regarding two areas in the district of Surrey. In 1930 two areas were set apart for biological purposes, on the Serpentine and Nicomelk rivers, not far from New Westminster. Can the minister say if those reserves for biological purposes still remain in the rivers I have named, and if so what work, if any, was done along those lines last year?


Alfred Duranleau: There was no change in the regulations.


Thomas Reid: Was biological work done last year by the department on those rivers?


Alfred Duranleau: There was a station at Nanaimo studying the oyster problem of the Pacific coast, but I do not know to what extent they have used the rivers mentioned by the hon. member.

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture


Thomas Cantley: I should like to call the attention of the minister to the East river of Pictou. Some years ago a decision was made to dredge the channel of the river. Three tangents were set out, one of which cut through the most important oyster bed of the East river and cut through eighteen feet of oyster shell. This operation destroyed to a very great extent the oyster fisheries on the river. Would the minister be good enough to take whatever steps are necessary to replenish the river from the Malpeque beds, or from some other beds, because this is a matter of importance to us. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, our maritime oyster beds were formerly a great source of revenue, and with attention could be made as great a source of profit in the future. I hope the minister will be good enough to consider my request, and act upon it within a reasonable time.


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the provincial authorities have in hand the development of the oyster culture in that area. I shall be pleased, however, to look into the matter and see if something can be done by my department.


William Duff: Before we get away from this matter of oyster culture may I say that while I have listened with great interest to all that has been said I am still at sea as to what it all means. Those who are in favour of the present policy endeavour to tell the committee that the policy was followed in order to conserve the oyster areas and to make oysters more plentiful. They say the reason for giving the leases to private individuals was to protect industry. Well, I believe the minister will agree that the point as to whether a private individual would protect the beds better than the public would protect them, is a moot one. In the first place, I cannot understand how the fishermen are going to benefit through the leasing of these oyster beds to private individuals. If the beds are leased the only persons who are going to benefit are those who have leased them. After all, it is the fishermen who really own the ocean. The minister and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) say that these beds were leased to private individuals in order to make more money for the people of Canada. I cannot understand that. I should like to know how the minister or the department or the government can lease oyster beds outside the low water mark. Anyone can go and fish outside the low water mark and 
neither the minister, the department nor the government can prevent them. I should like to know from the minister how the interests of the fishermen of Prince Edward Island are being protected by the leasing of these beds to private individuals.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They were leased to private individuals when the hon. member was supporting the King government, yet he made no objections.


William Duff: That does not make it right. The King government is not on trial, and the fisheries department under that government was not any worse than it is under the present government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Perhaps not.


William Duff: There were no private leases
granted when the King government was in power; these leases have been made since 1931 under this government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Leases were given
in 1922 under the King government and the hon. member did not object.


Alfred Duranleau: We are building up
an industry where practically none existed previously. These lessees are cultivating the areas and are producing where there was no production before.


William Duff: If the idea was to build up
the industry, why did the minister lease these areas to private individuals? Why did not the government keep the thing in their own hands and not lease these areas to private individuals who will be the only ones to have the right to fish? The minister does not mean to tell me that after leasing these areas to private individuals those individuals cannot -rake the beds and take off the oysters. If the minister had said that this matter was going to be kept in the hands of the government in an effort to increase production, that no one was to be allowed to take oysters from the areas in question, then I could understand it; but the minister has leased these areas to his own friends who can go on-


Thomas Cantley: No.


William Duff: Yes, I know what I am talking about. The minister has leased these areas to friends of his party in Prince Edward Island. These private individuals can go on the areas and take off all the oysters they want. Does the minister mean to tell me

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
that these men who have leased these areas are not going to take just as many oysters from the areas, if not more, than if the public were entitled to go there and fish?


Mr. MYERS:: I do not know whether the hon. member for Antigonish-tGuysborough (Mr. Duff) has done it deliberately, but the fact is that he has conveyed a false impression to the committee. It should be understood quite clearly that the Department of Fisheries has not leased any of the public beck. What it has done is to lease barren bottoms where oysters were never cultivated before. An industry is being built up on bottoms which were never productive before. It should be understood that there are still public beds available to the public just as there have been since the time Adam was a little boy.


Edward James Young: He never was.


John Howard Myers: For quite a long time. These barren bottoms are being leased to men who live adjacent thereto. The government is saying to them: Here, you go on there and plant your small oysters and then you will have the right to fish them. It is well known that the spat will drift to the public beds and in that way a benefit will accrue to those who fish those beds. There will be a benefit to the fishermen at large.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) stated that he did not seek to interject politics into this discussion. This matter is really too big for that; it is one of the most wonderful industries we have in Prince Edward Island. Yet that does not prevent the hon. member from playing the game of politics. I know of no member in this house who is more expert in twisting and turning everything to his own political advantage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Howard Myers: If you knew him as well as I do you would say I was well within the mark. I am of the opinion that if the department had taken the opposite course and had refused to lease these barren bottoms in an effort to build up the industry, the hon. member for Prince would have kept his ear quietly to the ground until he heard the reaction in Prince county, and just as soon as he saw the direction in which the wind was blowing he would be right there with the goods. Far be it from me to interject politics into this discussion. I feel quite sure that when I take my seat the hon. member for Prince will tell me that I do not know anything at ail about oysters. I think I remember his telling me that last year. However, I can tell him that I know a good deal about oysters, and my sympathies are all with the oyster fishermen. I hope the minister and the department will carry out the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MciLure). I think the department would get a squarer deal if they forsook Prince county altogether and moved their activities into Queens. They would receive the support to which they are justly entitled. I hope the minister will follow up the suggestion of my colleague that a survey be made of the areas in Queens county which we have the honour to represent. If that is done I can assure the minister that we will give our heartiest support to the project and do everything to further the activities of the department along these important lines.


William Duff: I appreciate what the genial member for Queens (Mr. Myers) has just said, because he backs up my argument. He stated that while the government was not able to help the public beds they were arranging that leases be given to private individuals. I stated that if the government hoped to help this industry in Prince Edward Island, leases should not be given to private individuals.


Thomas Cantley: Why not?


William Duff: The answer is very simple. If leases are given to private individuals, the ordinary fishermen will have no chance to fish for oysters.


Thomas Cantley: The ordinary fisherman can get a lease; he is a private individual.


William Duff: These leases were given to a favoured few. If every fisherman in Prince Edward Island had a chance to get a lease-


Thomas Cantley: He has, equally with his Grit or Tory neighbour.


William Duff: We will find out. The hon member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) says that every fisherman in Prince Edward Island has a chance to get a lease of an oyster bed. Will the minister tell me how many leases have been granted during the last three years, and to whom they were granted?


John Howard Myers: The hon. member says that oyster areas should not be leased to private individuals. May I ask him what a public individual would be.


William Duff: A public individual is the
public, that is, one or more or a dozen or twenty-five or thirty. My hon. friend knows
1456	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
that he is more responsible than anyone else for advising the minister to lease these areas in Prince Edward Island to some of his Conservative friends.


John Howard Myers: That was done prior to 1930; the agreement was arrived at before 1930. So far as leasing these areas is concerned, let me tell my hon. friend that we hope by that action to make the lessees Conservatives, but they were not Conservatives when they got the leases.


Alfred Duranleau: In answer to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, I may inform him that the number of leases issued during the last three years was forty-nine, forty in Prince county and nine in Queens.


William Duff: How many were issued before
that?


Alfred Duranleau: There are sixty-four
approved applications in addition to the leases already issued.


William Duff: Were any issued before August 1930?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think so.


William Duff: No, exactly. Will the minister give the names of those to whom leases were issued?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall try to get the information. In regard to my hon. friend's charge, that we are leasing to friends of the party in power, may I tell him that we have adopted certain regulations that are followed very Closely, and everything is published in the press before the leases are issued. This is the policy we follow. In the event of there being conflicting applications preference is given in the following order: first, to the shore front owner; secondly, to the owner of the shore front opposite a departmental reserve area; thirdly, to a resident of the district, and so on. We are following these regulations strictly, so that there is no question of politics in the granting of the leases. Moreover, we are making the areas so small that almost every fisherman, if he desires, can get a lease.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: A licence of a similar sort has been granted in Nova Scotia for the last fifteen years.


Peter John Veniot: That is under the local
government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, some of it was under the King government.


Thomas Cantley: My friend the admiral
makes a mistake in supposing that oyster fishing is carried on beyond the three mile limit.


William Duff: Low water mark.


Thomas Cantley: To-morrow morning we
shall see in Hansard what the hon. gentleman said. The fact is that oysters grow only in brackish water, in the estuaries and bays where the fresh w'ater mixes with the salt water.


Peter John Veniot: Don't they live in fresh
water at all?


Thomas Cantley: No, clams will.


Peter John Veniot: They cultivate them in fresh wrater.


Thomas Cantley: Perhaps they do in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: We have the real thing
there.


Thomas Cantley: I suppose you think you have. Now the other point I wish to make, in reply to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough, is that the man does not get a licence to fish but to cultivate oysters. He is allotted a certain area, and the minister has explained how and why. There is an important difference between establishing an oyster farm, if you call it that, because that is really what it is, and getting a licence to fish oysters. They are two separate and distinct things, and I hope I have educated my friend the admiral and given him some little information of which he was not before in possession.


William Duff: I am glad my hon. friend from Pictou likes me, but I must say this. While we are living in a very unselfish world, where we have at heart nothing but the interests of the state, I can understand that when we get to heaven the idea of the hon. member for Pictou may be carried out and people will get a licence from the government to cultivate a certain thing or build up a certain industry without reaping any rewards.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is predestination.


William Duff: Yes. But I have been mixed up with Methodists and Baptists and Episcopalians for so many years that I realize that apart from my hon. friend from Pictou and other Presbyterians, people generally expect to reap the reward of their labours; and no one can tell me, and I am sure my hon. friend from Pictou did not mean to suggest, that any man would ask the Minister of Fisheries for a licence to cultivate oysters for someone else to reap the benefit therefrom.

Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Cultxire


Thomas Cantley: No, of course not; no one so suggested.


William Duff: Absolutely not; my hon. friend did not finish his sentence. What he said was that all that these men get the licence for is to cultivate oysters, but he said nothing about reaping the benefit from that cultivation; he mentions nothing about taking and selling the oysters. Now, no one can tell me that people living in Prince Edward Island, who are the canniest Scotchmen in Canada, would cultivate oysters without expecting to market them. So that my hon. friend knows that from these beds which have been leased to private individuals oysters have been taken for the last three or four years. These Conservative lessees, recommended by the junior and the senior members for Queens, have been cultivating the beds and taking the oysters. My hon. friend from Pictou is so innocent and simple in his Presbyterian doctrine that all he thinks of is building up the country. But I want to say to him that the people in Prince Edward Island are different from those in Pictou; they are a different class of people. These Prince Edward Islanders not only want the leases but they want to make money out them, and that is what they are doing. The innocent acting Minister of Fisheries is placed in a very awkward position when he brings the estimates of the fisheries department to the house; he has to get the hon. gentleman who was minister for a couple of years to help him out. In connection with the oyster question, my hon. friend from Pictou deliberately entered into an argument to assist the acting minister, because he knows that the minister had no right to grant leases to private individuals. The fisheries are public property; they belong to all the people of Canada.	What	right has	the	Minister ofFisheries to grant a licence to any private person? This afternoon he told us, when I did not have an opportunity to answer him, that he has even given licences to people to catch fish in Hudson bay. Why should there be any licences? If the hon. gentleman who has just held up his hand, the Bright Fan advocate, wanted to catch fish in Hudson bay, why should he	have to	have	a licence?Imagine	people	sailing to	the	middle ofHudson bay, five hundred miles from land, having to apply to the deputy minister or the minister for a licence to catch codfish or haddock. The thing is ridiculous. And the same applies to granting licences to men to cultivate	oysters	in Prince	Edward Island.
That is not the idea of this fisheries business. Let all the fishermen of Prince Edward Island go out and cultivate oysters. They are more
interested in the matter than is the Minister of Finance or the acting Minister of Fisheries, and they are not going to kill an industry. Why? Because their bread and butter depend upon it.


Thomas Cantley: They did practically
kill it.


William Duff: No, they did not kill it. The Lord killed it; the Presbyterian Lord of the hon. member for Pictou killed it; it was not killed by the fishermen. The trouble with the hon. member for Pictou is that he is a Tory; outside that he is a decent gentleman, but unfortunately he has Tory principles and he cannot get away from them. There is too much paternalism in the whole matter of carrying on government in this country; there are too many regulations, too many restrictions. My hon. friend must realize that the fishermen of Pictou county who catch smelts are more interested in the protection of fisheries than is the acting minister of that department. The reason is that it is their livelihood, their bread and butter. Does the hon. member mean to tell me that the fishermen around Pictou who catch thousands of barrels of smelts are interested in killing the industry? Of course not. He knows that better than I do. Is there any fisherman in Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia who wants to see the codfish or mackerel or herring exterminated? Of course not. Yet the acting Minister of Fisheries and his officials-and there are not two in the whole department who know anything about what they are doing-come to the house and make restrictions and regulations and give leases. What for? Just to try to show that they are earning their money. They do not know anything about the industry. Those who know something about the industry are the men on the coast of Nova Scotia who have to get up at four o'clock in the morning, boil a kettle, and go out in the fog, rain or snow to catch smelts in Pictou county or codfish off the Nova Scotia coast, and yet the acting minister and his officials try to tell us to-night that the fishermen do not know enough about what they are doing to protect the industry. Why should my hon. friend try to protect the acting minister who, after all, is only a figurehead? I see the Minister of Finance rather objects to my remark, but I am not saying it in a nasty way. The acting minister knows he is only a figurehead in this matter. The fishermen, whether they are on the British Columbia or the Nova Scotia coast, are more interested in protecting the fisheries than is the acting minister or his officials, and when the latter
1458	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Oyster Culture
tell us that they have to give leases of oyster beds to private individuals in order to protect the fisheries, they do not know what they are talking about or they are not telling the truth in regard to the industry in Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Cantley: I am glad a new prophet in the person of my hon. friend the member for Antigonish-Guysborough has arisen in Israel. It is quite evident from the latter remarks of the hon. member that he has learned practically nothing in the last half hour. He still confuses giving licences to establish oyster farms with giving licences to fish oysters. There are no licences, so far as I know, issued to fish oysters.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, there are.


Thomas Cantley: Perhaps so in his province. The hon. member can have his turn after a little.


Peter John Veniot: The best time to correct the hon. member is now.


Thomas Cantley: The other point on which the hon. member for AntigonishjGuySborough was astray was in respect to fisheries outside the three mile limit. There are no oyster beds outside the three mile limit, and so far as I know, never were.


William Duff: I did not say that.


Thomas Cantley: There is no intention of establishing farms outside the three mile limit, for the reason I suggested a little while ago, that oysters live in brackish and not in salt water. After these observations, I hope the admiral will hold his peace for the rest of the evening and allow the business to proceed.


William Duff: I am afraid I cannot do that. In the first place I did not say that oysters developed outside the three mile limit. I asked the minister whether the department had control of oysters outside the low water mark.


Thomas Cantley: No; that was not my hon. friends' statement. We shall see to-morrow what the hon. member really did say.


William Duff: All right. The second point is this: My hon. friend is still astray. What I say is that there is no private individual in Canada who is going to be such a philanthropist as to take a lease from the department to cultivate oyster beds unless, after cultivating those beds, he has the opportunity to reap the reward of his labour.


Thomas Cantley: Nobody ever disputed that.


William Duff: The hon. member did.


Thomas Cantley: No, I did not.


William Duff: Then what is the argument all about? That is exactly what I said, that if by giving those areas to private individuals-


Thomas Cantley: The hon. member is getting a little mixed now.


William Duff: No, I am not. I am afraid my hon. friend is trying to support what his Conservative government has done in the way of giving leases and special privileges to certain individuals, by saying that those individuals are philanthropists and are going to cultivate those areas without deriving any benefit therefrom.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They are fishermen and they have a right to that.


William Duff: No, they are not. What I say is that the government have no right to give those privileges to any particular individuals. If the government wanted to promote the industry, they should have taken charge of those areas themselves and cultivated them, and then when the areas were fit for fishing, they should have thrown them open to the public instead of giving them to private individuals who, the hon. member now says, after cultivating them, are going to reap the benefit. Those areas should have been taken over by the department, and then when they are fit for fishing, they should be thrown open to the public and not given to certain individuals whether friends of the Conservative or of the Liberal party.


John Howard Myers: I have listened with pleasure to the discussion to-night. I was interested to hear for the first time from the lips of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough that the Lord was a Presbyterian. I was just wishing that he had gone a little further and told us what political leanings He had.


William Duff: Liberal.


John Howard Myers: I rose to correct the hon.
member on one point. He questioned the right of the department to lease beds for the cultivation of oysters below low water mark. Does the hon. member know that an oyster cannot under any condition whatever live inside the low water mark? Does he know that they have to be in water deep enough that the ice does not touch the bottom? The hon. member by that remark showed me very clearly that he does not know the A B C of the oyster industry.


William Duff: Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis
folly to be wise.


John Howard Myers: That is what I say.

Supply-Fisheries


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member for
Prince started something to-night when he brought up this question of the oyster industry. I am grateful to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers) for being so complimentary to me and extolling my political acumen by saying that I have my ears to the ground and always know the way the wind blows. I accept his compliment with the best of grace-


William Duff: And with a grain of salt.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: -and possibly with a grain of salt, and I feel that I can reciprocate in that regard because my hon. friend might apply it to himself. I am not accusing the government of playing favorites in issuing licences, but I want to point out a few matters that the committee do not seem to understand. In the first place, when a man is granted a lease, he is the only one who can get a permit to take oysters off the public areas and put them on his own private area. I want- the committee to get that clearly. The public fishermen are not allowed to fish or market oysters, but the moment a man takes out a lease he can go to the Department of Fisheries and get a permit to pick oysters on the public beds. Not only can be get a permit for himself but he can get one for nearly every member of his family, I think every man who owns a plot can get four permits. In that way the people who hold these private areas can scoop up from other areas all the good oysters available and put them on their private ground. That is one of the things that the fishermen object to very strongly. Then the people want to know whether the department has the power to lease these areas to private individuals. If the government has that right, possibly the fishermen will be content, but at the present time they are obsessed with the idea that the department have no more right to lease oyster areas to private individuals than the}'' have to lease the Newfoundland fishing banks to private interests.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Was not the control of fisheries vested in the federal government under the British North America Act in 1867? Who else has a right to control them?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: No, it was not-only the
power of regulation.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I understand that the
power of regulation is vested in the Dominion government, but that the fisheries are vested in the provinces, and Prince Edward Island has signed an agreement turning these areas over to the dominion government for purposes of regulation.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Where do you find that in the act?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The fishermen would like to have that question settled definitely and clearly, as to whether in tidal waters the Department of Fisheries can lease areas to any individual.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the power of
the federal authority to issue leases to private individuals, I would refer my hon. friend to section 61 of the Fisheries Act, which reads as follows:
Special licences and leases for any term of years may be granted to any person who wishes to plant or form oyster beds in any of the bays, inlets, harbours, creeks or rivers, or between any of the islands on the coast of Canada; and the holder of any such lease or licence shall have the exclusive right to the oysters produced or found on the beds within the limits of such lease or licence.


William Duff: That is exactly what I said.


Thomas Cantley: Surely the man who
plants a farm is entitled to the crop. The same thing is true in regard to oysters. As the minister has pointed out, the only licence a man can get is to fish for oysters to plant on leased ground that he has taken, which up to that time has been barren of oysters.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I see clearly that my hon. friend does not understand the situation yet.


Thomas Cantley: He is very slow in the uptake.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: They have to have a
licence for fishing oysters even on the public beds; all oyster fishermen have to have a licence, the same as the lobster fishermen. But what they object to is the special privileges given to the private owner. If a man wants to lease an area and to cultivate it and wait until it builds up, possibly he has the right to it. But they do not feel that he has the right to go out and clean up all the oysters off the public areas and put them on his own private area.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: And even sell some of the oysters taken off the public bed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine biological board of Canada, $175,000.
Mr. VF.NIOT: Might I ask for some information in connection with the work of the biological board at St. Andrews? I wish particularly to refer to the part which they may be taking in the investigation that was begun and I understand is not yet finished in connection with the fisheries and the construction of a dam at Passamaquoddy bay.
Supply-Fisheries
Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon. friend knows that the report of that commission has been made and submitted to both governments, but so far nothing has been released by the governments as to the contents of the report.


Peter John Veniot: I know nothing of any report having been made either to the Dominion or the United States government. I am very anxious to know the purport of that report. Is there any means of my obtaining a copy?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot tell the hon. member now why the governments have not yet made public the report of that commission. There may be some special reason, but I can say that the report is in the hands of both governments at the present time.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister look into the matter, and if the report can be released have it laid on the fable of the house?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall look into the matter, with pleasure.


Peter John Veniot: It is very important. One of the biggest branches of our fishing industry in New Brunswick is sardine canning. New Brunswick has at Lepreau the largest sardine canning industry in the world. Some years ago it was proposed to construct a dam for hydro electric power development purposes, which would cross certain sections of Passa-maquoddy bay. It was to cross international waters, and the contention was that the construction of the dam would to a very large extent destroy this industry of sardine canning on the Canadian side.
An act was passed by the province of New Brunswick incorporating a company known as the Cooper company for the purpose of constructing such a dam. An act was also passed by the federal government limiting the time within which such work should be constructed, after submission of the plans and specifications to the departments of fisheries, marine and public works for their sanction. They came back to this parliament for an extension of that franchise, which expired, I believe, in 1929, and a committee of this house, after studying the bill, refused to recommend that the extension be granted. Then it was decided that a thorough investigation should be made by the Canadian and United States authorities; although the greatest part of this work was to be in Canadian waters a small section' of the dam would be on the American side. A certain amount of money was voted in order to carry on that investigation, and I understand that the members of the com-

mission representing the Canadian side of the question were the present deputy minister of fisheries, the head of the biological station at St. Andrews, and some other gentleman. Several meetings have been held; this matter has been under consideration for three or four years now, and I understand from what the minister has said that a report has been submitted to both governments. Since we in the province of New Brunswick are deeply interested in this enterprise and in the protection of this branch of our fisheries I think we are entitled to know what is contained in that report. I think we should be told whether the joint commission is favourable to the construction of the dam and whether they have discovered that it will not interfere with the fishing or destroy the feeding grounds of these sardines. There is only one place in Canada, in addition to the bay of Fundy, where sardines are found; I think the other place is the estuary of the Saguenay river, where sardines are found in small quantities. I believe that many of the sardines canned on the American side were caught in Canadian waters, and if this dam is constructed almost entirely on the Canadian side, and if it destroys the Canadian sardine fisheries, it will mean great hardship and loss to those living along the shores of the bay of Fundy and Passamaquoddy bay. I would like the minister to look into the matter and, if possible, table that report.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like the minister to use some of this money in following up the investigation into the habits of the pilchard on the Pacific coast. As the deputy minister knows, the pilchard run was a total failure this year; after a good deal of time had been wasted some steps were taken to hunt for them, and they were discovered a long way off shore. So far as I am aware no one knows why they act that way. We do not even know where they spawn, and this new industry is in a very bad way just now. So I think some of this money should be spent on an investigation of their habits, where they come from and where they spawn. Very little money was spent in this last year; the work was stopped because there was not enough money.


Alfred Duranleau: I can tell my hon. friend that this investigation will go on.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I have had some complaints from some of the lower paid staff in the biological service, to the effect that their wages are too low. I wonder if the minister has the scale of wages and if he would let me know just what the wages are.

Supply-Fisheries-Grants


Alfred Duranleau: Does my hon. friend refer to the Nanaimo station?


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: I can give the salaries paid the different officials at that station. They are as follows:
Director, Doctor Clemmens, $5,400.
Assistant Biologist, Doctor Foerster, $3,900.
Assistant Biologist, Doctor Hart, $3,000.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Pritchard, $2,760.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Elsey, $2,640.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Mottley, $2,280,
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Tulley, $1,620.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Tester, $1,500.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Ricker, $1,800.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Denno, $1,500.
Scientific Assistant, Mr. Hayes, $1,200.
Foreman, W. F. Baxter, $1,600.
Foreman, Mr. Stannard, $1,000.
Mechanician. Mr. Crocker, $1,000.
Caretaker. Mr. Russell, $1,260.
Stenographer, $900.
Stenographer and statistical assistant, $960.
Clerk, Miss Robinson. $900.
Master of boat. Mr. Grove. $1,200.
Engineer, Mr. Randall, $1,000.
Deckhand, $500.


Angus MacInnis: That is the whole staff?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for a grant to the United Maritime Fishermen, $4,050.
Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if, with fear and
trembling, one might ask for some details of this vote.


Alfred Duranleau: The fishermen of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen islands have formed themselves into an association known as the United Maritime Fishermen, with the object of enabling them to better their conditions by cooperation and other means. The association is proving to be of assistance in the development of fisheries, and enables the department to consult with officials who represent the fishermen as a body. Through its efforts improvement in handling and the preparing of fish for market can be brought about much more quickly. The association must depend on fees from the members to meet its expenses. Owing to the present depressed condition of the industry, it seems impossible for the association to procure sufficient funds to enable it to function properly. Hence it applied to the department for aid, and $4,500 was provided last year. Only $4,050 was paid to the association, because ten per cent or $450 was retained against the saving of $14,000,000 mentioned by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. Provision for that amount only, namely $4,050, is made this year.


Alan Webster Neill: How many members are there in the association, and how long have they been receiving this grant? I did not just catch what the minister said as to what they do with it. Do they make any return to the government as to how it is spent, or what does the government receive directly or indirectly in return for the expenditure?


Alfred Duranleau: The government does not have a report from the association, because we make only a grant to aid in the association's work.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister does not know how many members belong to it. That is a rather extraordinary statement.


Alfred Duranleau: I did not say that.


Alan Webster Neill: And he does not seem to have a very clear idea as to the return the government receives for its money. I should like to know why the aid is confined to the maritime provinces. Are there no fishermen anywhere else who are hard up in these days? Is there no need for union among fishermen elsewhere-British Columbia, for instance? Some of these days I am going to take a week off so that I may go down to the maritime provinces and see how they-


Harry Bernard Short: Why don't your fishermen unionize?


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps because they cannot get a grant. I shall go down and observe in their native fastnesses these strange, weird people with their quaint customs, and with their original ideas, one of the most marked of which seems to be that if there is a loose nickel in the Canadian treasury it belongs to the maritime provinces.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is all rot.


Alan Webster Neill: I do protest that. We in British Columbia are struggling for cooperation. Someone has said that cooperation is organized desperation. In British Columbia we had an organization which went into the canning business, which was not government supported and which, owing to bad times, met with disastrous results; they were ruined. Probably if they had had a friendly hand to give $4,500, even if ten per cent were deducted, they might have weathered the storm. But they were regarded simply as being in business and they had either to sink or swim. My hon. friend talks about not being organized. May I say to him that in British Columbia there are several organizations, and we can very easily give the numbers who belong to them too. We will not have to say that we do not know how
Supply-Fisheries-Grants

many belong to them. If we can get the guarantee that we in British Columbia, too, will get a share in this grant we will call our association the United British Columbia Fishermen, for the sake of euphony. Would an organization in British Columbia just as good as and for which there is as great necessity as the one now referred to, receive a share of this grant if they make application for it?


Alfred Duranleau: I will tell the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni that this government is as keen to help the fishing industry in the west as it is to help that in the east. If any organization of the same kind had applied for a similar grant I should have been pleased to consider inserting an item in the estimates of my department.


Alan Webster Neill: That is very gratifying.


Alfred Duranleau: We do not know of any similar organization on the western coast which has applied for any such grant.


Alan Webster Neill: I think I can undertake to
say we will have six organizations applying.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will have all next year to ask for the grant.


Alan Webster Neill: To-day is ours; next year is a long time off. We would like a share of this grant. Apart from the remarks I have just made, there is another angle to the matter, namely that of giving some assistance towards organization. The other day I suggested that the fishing industry of British Cdlumbia should get together under some arrangement such as that which the Americans call Nira. That would solve a great many of the problems from which we are suffering. Of course we know that almost the first necessity would be to have the fishermen properly organized. When industries in the United States come under Nira the first action is to encourage workmen to form unions, because that is the most convenient way in which to deal with them, and the workmen can then take their part in negotiating what the code shall be as regards hours, wages and so on. The same could apply to British Columbia. The first essential would be to have some definite form of organization among the fishermen, and a comparatively small grant of a couple of thousand dollars would go a long way towards helping the establishment of an organization along proper lines. Probably as a result of the price investigating committee we may have some form of organization equivalent to the Nira of the United States.

The fishing industry might be glad to take advantage of it, and a vote would be useful in getting the fishermen organized in preparation for such an event.


Angus MacInnis: I am not clear yet as to
what kind of organization this is. Is it an organization of working fishermen such as trade union organization? Is it a cooperative organization, or an organization of employers?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is a cooperative
organization of fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: Nobody knows.


Harry Bernard Short: We all know; we know all
about it.


Alfred Duranleau: The information the
department has is that it is an organization of fishermen operating under a provincial statute for the purpose of bettering the conditions of fishermen, in general. It has proved very beneficial to the fishermen of the eastern provinces.


Angus MacInnis: Are they employees of
some fishing companies?


Alfred Duranleau: It is an association
made up of fishermen.


Angus MacInnis: I have no objection to
fishermen getting a grant from the government, if they can get away with it, but I do think this is a poor way of doing business, namely to give grants to organizations who ask for it. I believe the better way would be for the government to say they are giving assistance to organizations of this kind, and then in turn organizations wherever they may form, either in the maritimes or on the Pacific coast, would make application for and receive a fair share of the grant, in a businesslike way. I object to an organization of this bind going to the government and receiving a grant without such application being made public, while similar organizations in other parts of the country do not receive the same assistance.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Because they did
not apply for it.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister is going
to give assistance of this kind I can assure him that I will not oppose it, but I am suggesting that he should let it be known on the Pacific coast that such assistance is being given. The people on the Pacific coast are in just as great need of assistance and are just as worthy as those in the maritime provinces.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why did they not
apply for it?

Supply-Fisheries-Grants


Mr. MICHAUD:: I cannot understand the attitude taken by the two hon. members who have just spoken. Apparently they object to the small grant being made to this organization of fishermen in New Brunswick, the Magdalen Islands and Nova Scotia. For many years these men were in a terrible plight due to the disorganization of the industry and they organized cooperatively with the idea of finding out what had caused the depression in the industry and to try to better their conditions. If the fishermen of the Pacific coast do not share in this grant, the fishermen of the maritimes should not be deprived of it. The two hon. gentlemen who have spoken seem to be surprised that this grant is being given to the fishermen of the maritimes. It is about the only grant that is made to the maritime provinces. The western provinces and British Columbia share in many grants made by this government. We would not object if a similar grant were made to the western fishermen or to the fishermen of British Columbia, but I submit that no part of this grant should be taken away from the maritime fishermen. If the fishermen of the Pacfiic coast will ask for a grant I have no doubt that the government will give it, but we cannot subscribe to any sharing of this one. There have been beneficial results from the cooperative work done by this organization; conditions have been bettered and we hope that this grant will be continued. These men are taxpayers and they need even more government assistance. Instead of the grant being shared by organizations in other provinces it should be left intact for this organization.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has said that this organization extends from the maritime provinces to the Magdalen Islands. I should like to know how far those islands are from the mainland of Nova Scotia.


Alfred Duranleau: About one hundred
miles.


Alan Webster Neill: This must be a very loose *organization when it is spread across one hundred miles of water, probably often rough water. One must think in rather wide terms of an association which covers areas so remote from each other. The minister cannot tell me how many belong to it, and it seems to me to be rather a loose kind of association.


Alfred Duranleau: It is a well organized association. It has a board of directors and holds a convention every year at which the welfare of the fishermen is discussed. As the
hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) has said, this association has proved to be very beneficial to the fishermen in the maritimes.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not opposing the vote in itself; I was simply asking for information which I do not seem to be able to get.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Eighty-five per cent of the fishermen in Nova Scotia are in this organization.


Alan Webster Neill: In this one organization.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Yes; it is their own organization.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I do not think the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is opposing this vote, and I know I am not. If the government intends to cariy out a policy of this kind, it should make an announcement so that organizations in other parts of the dominion can take advantage of these grants just the same as the fishermen in the maritime provinces. For instance, suppose the goat breeders in British Columbia should obtain a grant from the government, would not the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) object if a similar grant was not provided for the goat breeders in New Brunswick?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We would be the goat.
Mr. MaeINNIS: We are the goat in this case. The best thing the minister could do would be to let us know if other organizations of a similar kind will receive consideration provided they are doing work along the lines of that done by this organization.


Alfred Duranleau: I stated in answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that if a similar organization on the western coast will apply for a grant and it is found that it is doing something for the welfare of the fishermen, the government will give the matter consideration. The government is just as keen to help the fishermen in the west as it is to help those in the east. Up to the present no request has been made for a such grant to any western organization.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I am sure that there are fishermen's organizations on the coast which are doing just as good work, but they did not know of these grants. They were not as close to the government as the maritime fishermen and consequently they have had to carry on without any assistance.


Mr. SPENCER:: I appreciate that the
fishermen are going through very difficult

Supply-Fisheries

times, but I should like to know upon what basis these grants are made. Are they made upon the basis of membership, of locality, or of work done?


Alfred Duranleau: It is the importance
and needs of the association.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $6,000.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: Could the minister tell
us in what rivers this vote was expended last year?


Alfred Duranleau: I gave the information yesterday afternoon, and my hon. friend will find it in Hansard.


Thomas Reid: When applications are made for the clearing of streams on which salmon are moving does the application come to Ottawa or is it decided upon by the district supervisor? I made two applications last year in connection with streams in my own district and I was informed by the district engineer that there were no funds available. I should like to know definitely whether the applications have to come to Ottawa or whether the district supervisor has the right to decide.


Alfred Duranleau: Every application is supposed to come to Ottawa from the inspector.


Thomas Reid: I made two applications in connection with two streams in my district; one was the Salmon river and the other the Serpentine. Perhaps the minister will let me have the information privately.


Alfred Duranleau: I will find out and let the hon. member know.


William Duff: I asked yesterday for certain information with regard to applications received by the department for the clearing of fishways. Is the minister now in a position to say how many applications were received last year and not acted upon?


Alfred Duranleau: Not acted upon?


William Duff: Yes, received and not acted upon.


Alfred Duranleau: Last year the department received sixteen applications with regard to obstructions in the maritime provinces, and every one was investigated. I have the report here. It is very long but I could supply the hon. gentleman with a copy of it.


William Duff: I understood from the minister yesterday that although $18,000 was voted last year only $1,300 was spent, and

I inquired how many applications had been received and how many had not been acted upon. If there was $18,000 voted why was not the money spent when there were a number of applications from people interested in having fishways and rivers cleared?


Alfred Duranleau: The department acted upon every request for the removal of obstructions, but in some instances the report of the officials after investigating the conditions in the river or the creek was that the work was not necessary.


Peter John Veniot: Therefore the application was refused.


Alfred Duranleau: Well, that was the
report of the officials. Of course, we had to be guided by the report. Let me read the first one by way of illustration. At McLennan's Brook, River Dennis, Inverness county: (a) obstruction reported by guardian; (b) investigated by inspector, who reported that there was a sufficient channel for the passage of fish and that unless a greater accumulation gathered no work would be necessary.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Who was the inspector in that instance, was it Smith?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose it would be Mr. Smith's district. Take Mclnnis Brook No. 2, lake Ainslie, Inverness county: (a) obstruction of sand bar; (b) reported by supervisor of fisheries work involved opening a channel; (c) channel opened by day labour at a cost of $8.


Alan Webster Neill: Out of this vote of $18,000,
the minister told us yesterday that only $1,300 was spent. In view of that, I do not think it was correct to tell me in October last that there was practically no money to do anything with. I applied to have some work done and was told that there was very little money available this year to clear obstructions, and even to have an engineer sent to inspect the stream it was first necessary to get permission from Ottawa. There are two first class engineers in the department. I do not know what they do, but they are good men, and they cannot have much to do if the total amount spent was $1,300. We had $18,000 voted and in October I was informed that very little money was available, and even an engineer could not be sent to inspect the obstruction until he had got permission from Ottawa. Isn't that penny wise and pound foolish? At any rate I protest at being told that there is no money when there is $18,000.

Supply-Fisheries-Disbursements


Alfred Duranleau: We had to cut down that item by $12,000 in view of the reduction promised by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of last year, when he intimated that the estimates would be cut by $14,000,000.


Alan Webster Neill: By 10 per cent.


Alfred Duranleau: No, by $14,000,000.
We had to cut this item $12,000 to comply with that promise.


Alan Webster Neill: Still, there is a big difference between $6,000 and $1,300.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $892,000.
Thomas Reid: I wish to make a few remarks
with respect to a matter I discussed in the house on Tuesday, February 20. I believe it is so important, not only from the point of view of the fishermen but from the standpoint of the conservation of fish, that I am justified in taking up some of the time of the committee to deal with the remarks made by the minister as well as by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who replied on that occasion. Of course, under the rules of the house I was prohibited at that time from making any statement in reply, but under this item I wish to take the opportunity to reply to some of the statements made then, because I am firmly of the opinion that many of those statements should not pass without criticism. It is true I did not give the minister any warning that I would bring the matter up before the house went into committee of supply, but I noticed that he was well enough prepared for such a move being made because he had on his desk a report from the deputy minister and was able to produce it and therefore give some sort of answer.
As I have said, previously the whole matter affects over two thousand fishermen on the river, and .the dispute between the minister and myself on behalf of the fishermen relates to seines in the area at the mouth of the Fraser river. In that connection I am sorry that the map I have before me cannot appear in Hansard for the information of the committee, because hon. members would then see at a glance just what I was endeavouring to show the house, namely, that the area allotted to seines last year practically constituted a trap in the mouth of the Fraser river. The minister read from the report handed to him by his deputy that pink and sockeye salmon deteriorate quickly in fresh water. We are
74726-93J
agreed that probably they may deteriorate in fresh water, but the area allotted to the seines is not fresh but brackish water, and we should have that point cleared up. The report from the deputy minister states that the Fraser river follows a well defined channel right across the gulf of Georgia. If his statement is correct, and I say it is, it surely bears out the contention that I have been endeavouring to make, namely that the area allotted to the seine boats last year was right in the brackish water, that is the water of the Fraser river where it mixes with the sea water. He speaks in that report of the comparatively small area north of the boundary line; I shall not go into that because there may be something in his contention that the area just north of the boundary line may be well adapted to seines. But from the map which I hold in my hand-and I am sorry I cannot cross the floor to show it to the minister-I could quickly demonstrate to him that the new line allotted last year went right to the mouth of the Fraser river and with the seines operating there practically constituted a trap. It was not in deep water; it was in water half salt and half fresh. It was in the mouth of the Fraser river and as the deputy minister states in his report, the Fraser follows a well defined course clear across the gulf of Georgia. This line is not across the gulf of Georgia, because the gulf is miles further away.
He said also in that report that there was no demand for Fraser pinks since the canning inspection took place. I have to differ with him there. There was no difficulty experienced last year even with the seines operating, because the fishermen who did catch a few pink salmon had no difficulty except at one period when there was such a glut from the seines that the canneries could not handle the quantity of fish landed there in one day, and one fisherman who was offered one and a half cents apiece for his salmon, took them across the line and received four and a half and five cents for the same fish from the canneries on the other side.
Just at this point might I also criticize the inspectors because they bring in a report to the minister which he read into Hansard. It should be seriously noted that the three inspectors are also brokers. I think it is contrary to all business practice that men who are in the brokerage business and themselves buying fish should be inspectors appointed by the government. I do not think any other business would tolerate such a situation. I am not casting any blame upon the inspectors so far as their integrity is concerned, but it is
1466	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Disbursements
not a good principle to allow brokers who are in the business of buying to be also the inspectors who go out and inspect the fish they buy and have a right to condemn or to pass as they see fit. Human nature being what it is, this is a wrong principle. If that is going to be done, there should be at least two outside inspectors as well as the three permanent men who are brokers.
In the report made by the deputy I take strong exception to another statement where he says that the gill netters were not hurt by the seiners. I quoted the figures, and *1 am going to quote them again because I got them authentically from the fishermen themselves. They show that before the seines were allowed to operate the fishermen were getting anything from three hundred to five hundred fish a day, and last fall, after the seines started in the mouth of the gulf, their catches dropped, some getting only five, some ten a day, but not any more than fifty a day were picked up by any of the fishermen in the Fraser river. To substantiate my case further, I have in my hand a report from one of the cannery men who control to a considerable extent gill net fishermen and who have several boats operating from the canneries. The report I received from that cannery is that last year when the seines operated, they were picking up only two hundred to three hundred fish in an area as against seventeen hundred the year previously. The statement made by the deputy minister that the operation of seine boats in the mouth of the Fraser river has not hurt the fishermen, I say is not correct; it is not a statement of fact, because I am quoting the figures as given to me after a careful scrutiny and study of the situation right on the ground last fall.
I should like to ask the minister a question and to have him take serious note of it. Has he any figures showing the number of fish caught after September 14? Whether fish are caught out in the gulf or in the mouth of the Fraser river or up the Fraser, it is well known to us who have made a study of the matter that the fish begin to deteriorate after a certain date, and many of the can,nary men refuse to can fish caught after September 17. Even on September 14 it was noticed that the fish had begun to deteriorate a little. I wonder whether the minister has any record regarding fish canned or caught after September 14.
As regards the quantity of fish that was condemned, I do not think it is so alarming, and I am going to dispute the minister's statement that last season, out of 524,000 cases of pink salmon packed in British Columbia,

13,000 cases were classified by the inspection board as second quality. I wonder whether the inspection board really inspected 524,000 cases last year. Did those three inspectors go through all those 524,000 cases of salmon for inspection? But even if that were possible and they did so, the number rated as second quality is only about two per cent of the total and there was a leading letter sent out to the canneries asking them if those fish were caught by gill nets or seines. One cannery man stated to me-and I shall not give his name because it might affect him with the other cannery men-that in his opinion this letter from the department was certainly intended as a leading statement to find out if possible whether they could attribute the poorer quality of the fish to the fact that they had been caught by the gill netters after they had entered the Fraser river.
Regarding the board of inspection, their report says:
The ooening of waters off the Fraser to seining would appear to have led to a much improved quality in respect to a large portion of the pack at Fraser river canneries and canneries in the Vancouver area packing so called Fraser river pinks. The individual experience of each member of the board over a long period of years has been that the great bulk of the Fraser pink pack has been of such a character that under the inspection now in force it would have to be classed as second quality for lack of firmness.
I pointed out just a few minutes ago that it all depends on the time or the period the fish are taken out of the water. After September 16 last year I believe they did begin to deteriorate. The matter is not just one of the area in which the fish are picked up. Very often it depends to a large extent not on the area but on the time they are picked up. The minister has accused me of seeing only one side of the picture. That may be quite true; I see one side standing out all the time. In fact I see two; I see the cannery men who control and own the seine boats making an attempt in British Columbia to drive the gill net fishermen away, because if that could be brought about, the canners then would be virtually in a position to control the whole industry. They would own the seine boats going out; the ships and the payment of the crews would be in their hands and they would not have to take any notice of the gill net fishermen. I can. see on the other side over two thousand individual fishermen being driven off the area of the Fraser river and so deprived of their living. I appeal to the minister, because it is a serious matter not only to the fishermen but the point of view of conservation of the fish. It is true that

Supply-Fisheries-Disbursements
under the regulations opportunity is supposed to be given for the fish to go up the river during the week ends. But if the intent of the department is to conserve the fish why allow these seines like birds of prey to devastate schools of salmon? In some instances they are picking up eight to ten thousand fish at one time. If the purpose of the minister or his officials is to deplete the waters of the Fraser river, certainly they went the right way about it by allowing over sixty seine boats to operate in the mouth of that river last year.
Looking over the annual report of the department I notice that the pack of sockeye salmon, if not of all salmon, has been going down. I wonder if the minister has noted that, and if he can tell the reason why, in spite of the operations of the hatcheries and the fact that thousands of dollars are being spent in the effort to maintain the supply of fish artificially, the catch of sockeye salmon has been decreasing since 1925. This year, with the regulations put into force by order in council, if the seine boats are allowed to operate they will also pick up the late fall run of sockeye salmon. Yet we are told that fish must be conserved, and fishing must cease over the week end to allow a certain number of fish to escape. But there will be no escape if these seines are allowed to operate; with large nets picking up eight or ten thousand fish at a time we will very soon have no fish at all coming into the Fraser river.
Then the minister might tell the committee why the twenty-four hour rule was changed this year. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and myself protested last year against this order in council, the acting Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us at considerable length why it was necessary to put that twenty-four hour regulation into effect. But this year without a word they have cut it out. It will be interesting to hear why it has been cut out. It shows that we were right and that the whole matter should have been put before the marine and fisheries committee. I do not know how many changes have been made in the Fisheries Act since it was passed by this house; there must be dozens-


William Duff: More than that.


Thomas Reid: Yet we have the marine and
fisheries committee with nothing to do, while everything goes through by order in council, although the lives of hundreds or thousands of fishermen are affected. All these things should have been referred to that committee.
I would like to know why they were not, why the committee should not have a chance to deliberate on them. I would remind the minister that this is the only place where the fishermen have an opportunity to air their grievances. They cannot afford, like the canners, to send men to Ottawa to lobby on their behalf; they have to depend on the members of parliament to state their difficulties in the House of Commons. If these matters had been referred to the committee where we could have gone into them and called the officials of the department and asked them the why and wherefore of things and taken the time to see that all interests were being protected, it would have been far better for the industry as a whole.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke of the sockeye salmon treaty. I wonder if the minister has any information as to the possibility of that treaty passing in t'he United States. I was rather surprised that the minister mentioned that, because if my information is correct it is a pity it was not passed when it was first introduced in this house; the opposition which resulted in its delay for a year was, I believe, the cause of the United States not accepting it. In 1929 Mr. Tolmie, then premier of British Columbia, and his cabinet, agreed that the sockeye salmon treaty was one of the best things put forward on behalf of the fishing industry, but it was delayed here for a year. I am not sure whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce objected, but I know many hon. members on that side did, and the fact of the treaty not being passed in the United States was due to the opposition it met with here in 1929 and 1930.
I would also draw the minister's attention to some of the figures that have been quoted by the deputy minister in his report. They do not exactly correspond with the figures in the annual report. I find that for 1929-30 the report speaks of 158,290 cases, but in the inspector's report to the minister the figure is 161.529. In 1931 the inspector's report states that there were 20,000 but the annual report says 21,534. When they are giving figures to the minister they should see that they correspond with the official figures given by the department. I have spent some time looking them up and have endeavoured to quote them as correctly as I can from the information at hand.
I am earnestly appealing to the minister not to allow seines to operate in the mouth of the Fraser river. I appeal to him again to let the matter go before the marine and fisheries com-
1468	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries-Disbursements
mittee so that it can be dealt with there and maps and data produced, with the fishermen present. Surely that is not asking -too much, especially when, as I have stated, it affects the living of over two thousand fishermen. If the greatest good for the greatest number is the object, then the policy of keeping seines out of the mouth of the Fraser river should be followed. Permit them, if you 'like, in the small area next to the international boundary, but do not allow them in the waters of the Fraser river or anyway near the entrance to that river. I would like to have the minister answer some of the statements I have made.


Alfred Duranleau: With respect to the
question of purse seining and gill net fishing, I cannot add anything to what I said to the house some -time ago when I put on the record the statement of the officials of -the department. As minister I have to rely of course on the reports of our officials. The contention of my hon. friend may be right or it may be wrong, but we have to rely on the reports of our officials. According to the information received from those in the industry in general in the west, they are competent men and their reports as a rule are accurate.
As to the twenty-four hour regulation, my hon. friend say-s he opposed that regulation last year and; wants to know why it was repealed this year. The aim of the department was to prevent fish in bad condition being canned, and as some men were carrying fish a long way before it reached the canneries we tried the regulation with that object in view. It worked pretty well up until last	August. I	told	the house	lastyear that it was only a trial we were making. From August to the end of the fishing season we did not have officials in sufficient number to ensure	the proper	enforcement of	thisregulation,	and that is the	reason it	was
repealed. Furthermore, it was not necessary at the end of the season.
As to the inspectors my hon. friend was complaining about, he says it is a wrong principle that brokers should1 be appointed inspectors. I desire to say that these inspectors were recommended by the canners who were	interested.	We	never had	any
complaints about their work.
In addition my hon. friend very strongly urges that these questions of regulation and so on should be referred to the fisheries committee. I have no objection to that principle, and I can tell my hon. friend that when important questions are raised in this house I am prepared to recommend that such questions be referred to the committee.


Thomas Reid: What is more important than
the question we are now discussing? A commission was appointed in 1922, composed of members of this house some of whom are still here; they went to British Columbia and investigated conditions, and in their report they recommended that if at all- possible seines should be done away with entirely. There is no question more important than the one we are discussing at the moment, so why will the minister not refer the matter to the committee?
Mr. DURANLiEAU: I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with my colleagues and I will inform my hon. friend whether or not it is thought advisable to refer this question to the committee.


William Duff: There is a reduction of
$130,000 in this item. If the minister and the government are trying to do something for the fisheries I should like to know how they can afford to reduce this item by that large amount.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will
remember that in his budget speech last year the Minister of Finance promised that a further cut of $14,000,000 would be made in the appropriations. In carrying out that promise this reduction has been made. Last year we carried on with satisfaction, and this year we hope to be able to do the same.


William Duff: I must object when the minister tries to say that this reduction is made because the Minister of Finance asked him to be economical in his department. The Minister of Finance has troubles enough of his own without having the acting Minister of Fisheries try to blame him for a reduction in this vote which has to do with what I -consider to be a natural industry in this country that has the best opportunity for development.
The minister also stated that in spite of this reduction the department had been carrying on satisfactorily. I cannot agree with him in that; in fact if I were not a member of parliament I would put in a bill to the Department of Fisheries for work I performed myself. The minister cannot say that the work of his department in the matter of inspecting fish, for instance, and looking after the fisheries, has been done properly. I am a living example of proof to the contrary, because I had to do the work myself. The minister must know that because of the reduction in this item there were not enough inspectors during 1933 to examine and in-
MARCH 13, 1934	[DOT]
Supply-F isheries-Disbursements
spect properly the fish which the fishermen had to market. Before I proceed I should like to know whether or not the minister is aware of that fact.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt that at times we had some difficulty in having the inspections carried out at the proper times, and our inspectors had to work very hard, but we did our best with the money available.


William Duff: I do not say that the department did not do its best, but the fact remains that the inspection was not carried out properly. I have personal knowledge of the fact that thousands of barrels of pickled fish lay in the fishermen's sheds and on the wharves of the purchasers for days and weeks before the inspectors could get around to inspect them. Let me tell the minister why that was so. A few years ago we had what were known as overseers as well as inspectors. The department wanted to be smart and to show parliament and the country that they were trying to do something, so they amalgamated those branches and made the overseers inspectors. Nine out of ten of those overseers of fisheries did not know a kyack from an alewife, and I doubt whether the minister knows the difference. However, they amalgamated those two branches and deliberately made inspectors of those overseers, who were good men as overseers and who had been in the department for many years. They dismissed the men who had been inspecting fish for years, and the result has been that -these overseers did not have the qualifications properly to inspect pickled fish, mackerel and herring. The inspection last year was an absolute farce, and the exporters of fish had to suffer for it. Although the stamp of the department was on the barrels, when the fish reached the West Indies and were opened it was found that they were not up to the standard which was stated on the labels. It was not the department, the minister or the deputy who suffered; it was the man who bought the fish and shipped them to the foreign market, and I want to say to the minister that this policy was wrong. There should be special men to inspect fish, entirely apart from the overseers. The minister should go back to the old policy of having overseers do certain work in connection with the fisheries and properly appointed inspectors in the different districts to look after the inspection of fish.
Let me give an instance. In the county in which I live, a county wThich last year must have produced twenty thousand barrels
of pickled fish, there were only two inspectors. In the middle of the season, when there were ten or fifteen thousand barrels of fish to inspect, one of those inspectors resigned, and what did the department do? They appointed a hotelkeeper, not as an inspector but in order to get around the law. The department would not ask the civil service commission to call for applications for a properly qualified inspector, but the minister appointed a fishery guardian to take the place of the fish inspector. This particular fishery guardian, a personal friend of mine and a hotelkeeper, was appointed in place of a man who should have been the fish inspector. Of course a Tory government was in power, and they have a right to appoint their own friends; I am not complaining about that. I do want to say to the minister, however, that in the middle of the fishing season, when there were fish to be inspected, they allowed the retirement of the regular inspector and instead of calling for applications or appointing a temporary inspector who would know a codfish from a haddock, the minister appointed as fishery guardian a man who had practically never seen a codfish, except on his hotel dining room table. Why was that done?


Alfred Duranleau: Does the hon. member refer to Evans?


William Duff: I am referring to the retirement of Mr. Evans.


Alfred Duranleau: I am informed he
was not an inspector who inspected pickled fish; he was not qualified to do that, and never did qualify.


William Duff: Surely that is not an answer to my complaint. Mr. Evans was an official of the department for twenty-five years. During that time he certainly inspected fish.


Alfred Duranleau: Not according to my information; he was an inspector, grade 1, and was not required to inspect fish.


William Duff: Grade 1 is certainly the
highest grade in inspectorship.


Alfred Duranleau: It is the lowest.


William Duff: Mr. Evans certainly inspected
fish, because I have seen him doing it with my own eyes and to my own knowledge. I have been there at the time. Anyone who says Mr. Evans did not inspect fish does not know what he is talking about. But even if he did not inspect fish why did the min-
Supply-Pensions

ister, upon Mr. Evans' retirement, camouflage the situation and instead of appointing a fishery inspector appoint a guardian in order to give one of his friends a job?


Alfred Duranleau: That was only a
temporary appointment; we want a grade 2 inspector, and the civil service commission is at the present time filling the position.


William Duff: I am very glad that at last
my protest has received some notice from the minister. If I remember correctly it was last July I wrote the minister about it, after receiving protests against the appointment by fishermen at Blandford and Mill Cove. I wrote the minister, and received a number of letters from him in which he tried to excuse the department and excuse himself for appointing this hotelkeeper not as a fishery inspector but as a guardian. That was a time when the fishery inspector was needed. Why does the minister only now come along and say that he is going to have this position filled, when it should have been filled last year? I am glad to hear the position is to be filled, but surely there was no reason why this man should have been paid $1,000 per year to act as fishery guardian when men could be got to do the work for $75 a year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mrs. William MeDougall, $1,200.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What was the position of William MeDougall?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: He was one of the fathers of confederation. This is the only surviving widow of that interesting group.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dredging-Maritime provinces, $161,200; Ontario and Quebec, $215,500; Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $50,000; British Columbia, $140,000-Total, $566,700.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister give some details of the $215,500 for Ontario and Quebec?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, this information was asked for when the committee rose on a previous occasion. I promised to procure it, and now I have it before me. As it is a two page statement I could either hand it to my hon. friend or to Hansard. The figure of $116,539.45 shows the total expenditure up to February 28, of this year.
Dredging Quebec-Expenditure 1933-34 (up to February 28, 1934)
Plant Operating-
Place

Rimouski, P.Q Matane, P.Q..
Dredge No. 116
Cu. yds. removed
71.820
80.820
Dredge No. 127 Anse a Beaufils, P.Q	
2,448
Dredge Harricana No. 2
Amos, P.Q	 703
Lake de Montigny, P.Q	 8,937
Hava River, P.Q	 7,033
Lake Blouin, P.Q	 11,563
Plant laid up-
Dredge No.	4-Laid up Bathurst, N.B	
Dredge No. 110-Laid up Quebec, P.Q	
Dredge No. 121-Laid up Sorel, P.Q	
Dredge No. 123-Laid up Laehine, P.Q	
Dredge No. 126-Laid up Barachois, Allright island, M.I.,
P.Q	
Dredge No. 128-Laid up Gascons Ouest, P.Q	
Dredge No. 129-Laid up Portage du Cap, Amherst island,
M.I., P.Q	
Generally	
Cost
locality
$22,210	23
22,131	00
44,341	23
1,455	87
334	42
4,646	72
4,013	08
5,570	79
14,565	01
2,685	96
4,335	06
6.070	47
7,009	09
700	10
43	40
270	44
67	45
Total
cost

Supply-Public Works-Dredging
Dredging Quebec-Expenditure 1933-34 (up to February 28, 1934)-Concluded
Contract and Day Labour Works-	[DOT]
Baie des Sables-removing boulders	$
Barachois de Malbaie-re-blocking scows	
Bell River-dredging	
Desjardins-removal logs at wharf	
Grande Riviere-hand dredging	
Lake Tiblemont-removing boulders	
Little Discharge-removing rocks	
Matane-survey	
Nicolet river-dredging	
Rimouski-survey	
River St. Francois-dredging	
Riviere a la Marte-remove sand at entrance	
Riviere du Chene-dredging contract	
Riviere du Chene-inspection	
Riviere du Chene-release of drawback	
Riviere du Loup (En bas)-dredging at Yiel's wharf. . . . Riviere du Loup (En haut)-dredging channel to Louiseville wharf	
Riviere Noire-removal boulders	
Ruisseau a la Loutre-removal obstruction	
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-removal of boulders	
St. Etienne de Malbaie-levelling berths	
Ste. Luce-hand dredging	
Tadoussac-Imbeau slip dredging	
Cost locality 538 71 64 35 950 00 63 05 502 54 49 40 928 27 563 26 4,286 04 271 69 3,512 66 100 47 13.365 00 3.653 96 542 91 385 79
3,277 94 179 43 98 62 182 18 422 94 800 00 258 16
Total
cost

Total expenditure up to February 28, 1934


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the minister before
him the details of the dredging to be done in the province of Quebec during the coming summer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have that information in the form of a detailed statement and I suggest that I adopt the same course as I did with the other.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have no objection.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The following
are the places in Ontario and Quebec where work is to be carried on:
Ontario
Abram chutes, Bayfield, Bamford island, Jersey river, Little Current, Picton (Culliver and Huff's wharf). Penetang. Point Edward, Point Edward (Canadian National wharf), Port Elgin, Prescott (government elevator), Sydenham river. Thames river, Wolfe island, Waubaushene, Port Stanley, Port Burwell, Kingsville, Sarnia (Dominion Salt Company's channel), Sarnia (elevator slip).
Quebec
Beauharnois, Boudrias creek, Lac Nominingue (Grand), Lake Temiskaming (College island), Lanoraie (Colonie des Greves), Mattagami (Bourque's rapids). Port au Saumon, River du Prince, River du Chene, St. Eloi (Pointe a la Loup), Harrieana River (lake Blouin), Harricana River (lake De Montigny), Riviere du Loup, Quebec (Napoleon wharf), St. Irenee, St. Jean, I.O., Matane.
The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) inquired as to what proportion of
the amount of $245,500 devoted to Ontario and Quebec was to be spent in Ontario, and where the work was contemplated. The latest calculation is that about $93,000 will be spent in Ontario and about $105,000 in Quebec, the balance being still unalloted.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Could the minister tell
me what amount has been set aside for dredging in Campbellton and Dalhousie?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These allotments have not yet been made and it may be possible that there will be an item in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Has not the amount for
Campbellton been decided?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not finally.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Is any amount being
considered?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The engineers
are considering the matter.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: What amount is being
considered?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. friend. This matter may be provided for in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A newspaper report of
the proceedings of the Campbellton board of trade would seem to indicate that definite in-
Supply-Public Works

formation has been received from the minister. This report reads:
A letter from Hon. H. A. Stewart, Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, indicated that an appropriation of $32,000 was being considered for dredging on both sides of the deep water wharf pier, this work to provide a depth of 24 feet at low tide in the several berths on the north side of the wharf and to make the inside berths also usuable by ocean going boats.
It is very important that this work should be done early this year. As I have mentioned already, three ocean going steamers were grounded in this harbour and their cargoes bad to be jettisoned with almost a complete loss to the shippers. I ask the minister to adhere to this amount of 332,000 which he seems to have in mind, or, if possible, increase it so that the channel at the mouth of the Restigouche may be made safe for ocean going steamers. This port should be in such a condition that large shippers of lumber could feel free to invite foreign ships to come in and load. Otherwise, these people will suffer great loss.
I submit that some work should be done at Dalhousie. There is a large and well organized industry at this port, which is the second winter port in the maritimes. Last year it was open for sea going ships until the last day of December. A small expenditure on this port would make it more easily available to ocean going traffic. Incidentally it will help the Canadian National Railways if these ports are able to take care of large ships. We would be able to get much of the traffic which now goes to northern Maine and which is usually taken up by rail. Greater facilities should be provided in order that our railways can secure this heavy traffic of fertilizer, automobiles and potatoes which can be handled with only a one hundred mile rail haul.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $63,700.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, clerks, etc. of outside service, $366,000.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $10,000.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, $23,100.
National Gallery of Canada, $25,000.
National monument on Connaught Place,
[Stage Direction]
Surveys and' inspections, $55,000.
Balance of expenditure for works already authorized provided amount for any one does not exceed $200, $4,500.
Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, not more than $3,000 to be expended upon any one work, $50,000-Total, $697,300.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister tell
us if the national gallery has been enriched this year and what new pictures were purchased, the amounts paid and from whom they were purchased?
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 14, 1934