[Stage Direction]
. FIRST READING
Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Small Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Geary.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, 1
wish to put a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I received to-day a telegram from Mr. Heliodore Boudreault, mayor of Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence informing me that the vessel which carries on the service in that locality has not been able to land these last days and, that the population is short of food. Could the hon. minister dispatch an icebreaker to that locality in order to relieve the situa-
Intoxicating Liquors Act
[Stage Direction]
tion of those people? I am aware that this was done within the last years, under similar circumstances.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time that I have heard of the facts as stated by my hon. friend. We have, in the past, always endeavoured to give the best service possible to the people settled along the north shore, when they were in distress and, I Shall look into this matter, no later than this afternoon.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Mr. LUOIEN DUBOIS (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). On February 5, last, I asked for returns of documents correspondence and telegrams in connection with the breaking up of the ice bridge between St. Angile de Laval and Three Rivers. Documents were furnished to me; but, at page 19 of the report, it appears that the hon. Minister of Marine, received requests from the authorities of the city of Three Rivers, through their member, requesting the help of ice breakers to facilitate the service between St. Angile and Three Rivers. This document, however, is not included in the returns. Would the hon. minister lay on the table said document?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I laid on the table of the house all the documents supplied by the department. I can make inquiries, and if there exists further correspondence, I shall be pleased to either lay it on the table or communicate it to my hon. friend.



PETITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHARLES FERLAND (Jdiette) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay onthe table of the house petitions addressed to hon. members of the government and the house, on behalf of many ratepayers from the county of Joliette, protesting against the proposal emanating from certain interested people, requesting that an excise tax be levied on leaf tobacco. These petitions come from the following parishes, and are signed by 290 people in St. Thomas; 457 in St. Paul; 255 in St. Ambroise de Kildare; 55 in Ste Marcelline; 30 in Ste Melanie; 57 in Crabtree mills; 106 in Notre Dame de Lourdes. From St. C16o-phas, I have received resolutions only. I also wish to state that beside these petitions, I am forwarding to the government a large

number of resolutions from the county of Joliette and other counties in Quebec, which were adopted by municipal councils, protesting against such a tax.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6 to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish so much to participate in the proceedings as to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it was his intention to go on today with bills. I understood last evening that it was his intention to go into supply. I imagine that some hon. members who may wish to discuss certain bills may not even be prepared to do so.


Mr. BENNETT:: These were regarded as
purely formal matters, third readings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, but it is
only a formal amendment to the act as the minister explained when the bill was introduced. If there are any members who desire to participate in a discussion of this matter we will proceed with order number 3 and allow the bills to stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to going on. I was just speaking on behalf of others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not intend to leave the impression that the formal business would be left on the order paper but if there is any feeling that we should proceed with supply, we can do so and allow matters to stand as they are.
Motion stands.

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Reid



SUPPLY-B.C. SALMON FISHERY STATEMENT OF ME. REID ON MOTION FOR SUPPLY RESPECTING PURSE SEINE FISHING

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
["Very well.\nItem stands.\nAt six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.\n\nAfter Recess\nThe house resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair there is a matter I should like to lay before the house. This matter affects over two thousand men engaged in the fishing industry on the Fraser river. For the information of the house I might say that on February 10, 1933, an order in council was passed by the present government at a time when the house was in session. This order in council permitted seine boats to operate in the mouth of the Fraser river. I protested against this order in council as did the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), but in spite of our protests it was put into effect in the fall of 1033. I rise today to air the grievances of over two thousand fishermen on the Fraser river who are affected by this order in council. The order in council changed the boundaries which had hitherto precluded seine boats from operating in the mouth of the Fraser river and permitted them to go in and fish in that area. I also wrote to the minister last fall in connection with this matter and perhaps if I read my letter it would explain the whole situation very fully. This letter was dated September 23, 1933, and reads:	.
The Hon. Alfred Duranleau,
Acting Minister of Fisheries,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Duranleau:
I am writing you in connection with the matter of allowing seine boats to operate at the mouth of the Fraser river, which action, done by order in council, you will remember, was opposed by me at the time on the floor of the house.
The chief argument advanced by you and also by the deputy minister of fisheries was that it was desirable to use seines in order that only the best salmon be procured for canning purposes, so as to enable the canners to put up the best grade possible in order to enable them to compete with other countries on world markets, particularly the market in Great Britain.
As you will know, I was particularly interested in the effect of this drastic regulation, and what the effect would be on the individual gill net fishermen. I have made further investigations into this, and believe it might be of interest for you to know what has actually happened by allowing seine boats to operate right outside the mouth of the Fraser river.
I understand over 60 seine boats have been operating in the new area, and to the positive detriment of individual gill net fishermen. In fact, if seine boats are going to be allowed to operate permanently, then thousands of men
are going to be thrown out of employment and the government might as well face this serious responsibility right now.
In other years, and before the seiners were permitted there, the daily catch of individual fishermen ran all the way from 100 to 800 pinks, or humpbacks per day's operations. This year the seiners have scooped them up by the thousands with this result, the catch of the gill netters has dropped from 800 to next to nothing. Some seine boats scooped up eight or nine thousand pinks in one day's operations, whilst fishermen from the mouth of the river up, were only catching from 20 to 60, and in some instances only 10, and when you consider the low price offered, namely 3 cents for male, and 1 to 2 cents for each female humpback, you will realize just how serious the outlook is for the fishermen depending on this for a livelihood on the river.
I informed the house during the time of the debate that gill netters could operate in the area where seiners are now allowed to fish. In support of this, I will quote you one day's operations in the gulf of Georgia.
On the 19th of September, 80 gill netters landed 1,985 pink salmon, an average of 24 fish each, w'hilst 7 seine boats operating there landed between 7,000 and 8,000 pinks, an average of over 1,000 each seine boat. Both gill netters and seiners were paid the same price, the fish caught being of equal quality, so that j'ou will have to advance some other argument other than that of better fish coming from the seine boats.
It may be that seine boats operating far out in the gulf, and in clear sea water, catch pinks that have a somewhat better colour, but I would again draw your attention to the fact, that the area where seine boats have been operating at the entrance to the Fraser river, the waters there being brackish and muddy with silt. You must go a considerable distance out before the line of demarcation commences, and the point where the clear sea waters meet the fresh muddy waters of the Fraser river is plain to be seen by the naked eye, but let me again repeat, the new area allotted to seining is all brackish waters.
To sum up, hundreds of fishermen are being deprived of their legitimate livelihood and many will be forced on relief. I maintain this is a terrible state of affairs, and very bewildering indeed. Here is the government endeavouring on the one hand to give employment to the unemployed and the destitute, whilst on the other hand we have a department of the government helping to create by its own actions, more unemployment.
I again appeal to you to rescind the order in council for if it is not done, and further seining is allowed to continue, all individual gill net fishermen will be thrown out of employment, and in closing, I ask you to note carefully that according to the new regulations laid down, whilst the seiners are allowed to catch this year pinks of humpbacks, next year it will be the sockeye salmon.
I remain,
Yours respectfully,
I received an answer dated September 29, which reads as follows:
I am much obliged for your letter of the 23rd instant, with regard to purse-seining
Salmon Fishery:-Mr. Reid

operations in the lower portion of the gulf of Georgia, which were permitted this year for pink salmon.
The operations in this area have been carefully followed. The outcome was not far different from what was anticipated.
You urge that the quality of fish taken by the seiners was no better than that of the fish caught by the gill-netters, so that the regulation is not resulting in a better quality product, but, if persisted in, will have the effect of throwing thousands of men out of employment.
My information is that there were times when sets were by some of the seiners in the shallow water over the mud flats when the tide was high and that the fish caught in these nets were no better than those taken by the gill-netters, but that these catches totalled a very small portion of the fish caught. The one fact that for most of the fish taken by the seiners prices as high as seven, eight and nine cents were paid, while the catches of the gill-netters brought only four cents at the same time, and some as low as three, speaks for itself. While final figures are not before me, the information available indicates that between 75,000 and
100,000	cases of good pinks will have been put up this year in the Fraser river district, as a result of this regulation. Two years ago, when the last big run was on, and when there was no seining allowed, nor was the inspection of canned salmon in operation, only 21,534 cases of these fish were put up in the Fraser area. While the fish were passing through United States waters 705,580 cases were put up. This year the pack on the United States side was approximately 465,000 cases.
You are surely overlooking some facts regarding employment when you say that if this regulation operates permanently thousands of men are going to be thrown out of employment. As a matter of fact, up to the end of October of last year there were 760 white gill-net fishermen on the Fraser. These had twenty-four assistants, making 784 in all. I have not yet the figures for this year, but they would not likely be very different. Also, the pink fishery is by no means the main factor in the Fraser river gill-net fishermen's operations. On the other hand, the employment given the seiners must not be entirely overlooked'. On the sixty boats that operated in the district this year there would likely be an average of eight men each and these would all be whites.
As you will know, the time the pinks remain in the area south of the Fraser, after they have reached it. before they make for th* Fraser depends on weather conditions. This year m.v information is that the runs did not start until the 13th instant and shortly afterwards the pinks began to ascend the Fraser in large numbers, then reasonable catches could be made by the gill-netters. The regulation in no way prevented earlier fishing by the gill-netters, the fact being the fish were not in their area at that time. The inevitable happened when the fish struck the fresh water. Their quality rapidly deteriorated so that they no longer would' make a good quality pack and it obviously is in the best permanent interests of the salmon fishery of British Columbia as a whole, and consequently of the fishermen engagfMr. Reid.]
ing in it, that the quality of our pack should
be assured.
While the seining operations were very carefully patrolled this year, it may be that in the light of experience some additional marking of the seining area will be desirable. The whole matter will be gone into carefully.
I wish to point out some inaccuracies that occur in this letter in reply to mine. No doubt the minister received the information from his deputy or from the department; nevertheless I maintain that there are in that letter some inaccuracies of which he may not be aware. He mentions, I will not exactly say cunningly, but he mentions that there were 760 white gill netters. That is not the exact number and I wonder why he did not mention the whole of the gill net licences issued and in operation on the Fraser river, because my information is that some 1,707 gill net fishing licences had been issued for operation on the river, and that there was also a total of 348 boat pullers, making altogether 2,055 who were affected by this regulation. The minister says that the regulation in no way prevented fishing by gill netters, and) he states the fact that the fish were not in this area at that time. Well, how could the gill netters or anyone else catch fish there if the fish were not there? That is not a sound argument, because there were times when the fish were in that neighbourhood. He speaks of the fish striking fresh water. Well, I pointed out last year, and I point out again to-day, that the whole area allotted to seiners last year consists of brackish waters, and any of those who understand anything about these waters, those who are in the habit of passing between Victoria and Vancouver, must have seen in daylight at least the line of demarcation between the fresh waters and the brackish waters from the Fraser river. That line is many miles out from the mouth of the Fraser river, so that when he says that the fish struck fresh water and were picked up by the seines, I maintain that such is not the case, because the seines operated entirely in brackish water. The fresh waters of the Fraser river go for miles into the gulf before being completely absorbed by the salt water.
I wish to show that the fishermen have been deprived this year of their livelihood. I pointed out in my letter to the minister that 80 gill netters had picked up in one day's operation some 1,985 fish, or an average of about 26 fish for each individual boat, and I also pointed out that seven seines had taken between 7,000 and 8,000 fish on the same day, averaging 1,000 fish to the boat. That is only one day's operation, but there were

Salmon Fishery-Mr, Reid
days when the seine boats scooped up 8,000 and 9,000 fish; and I have it on the best authority that there was one day when the seine boats scooped up so many fish that the canneries could not use the fish and many were dumped overboard. That information I believe was given at a meeting of representatives held in New Westminster, and Mr. Found, the acting deputy, was present when that statement was made. However, the interesting and I think serious point is that in 1932 before the seine boats were allowed to operate the daily catch of the fishermen ran all the way from 100 to 500 fish per day. It is true that these fish caught in that period were low priced fish, but the fishermen have to take all that they can get as every little helps. But when the seines came in last fall and were allowed to operate in the mouth of the Fraser river the catch dropped to as low a figure as I have mentioned, about 10 fish per day. Not only so, but there were some varieties of fish that did not go up the reaches of the Fraser river-different varieties from the pink. There is a variety known as the white spring salmon which fetches a price of from 1 to 2 cents per pound, and in 1933 after the seines'started to operate not one white spring salmon went up the Fraser river. The seines scooped up not only the pink salmon but every other variety, and this helped in large measure to deplete the earnings that would otherwise have been gained by the individual gill net fishermen.
Let me now discuss prices for a moment; I will come to the question of quality afterwards. I am taking the different points in sequence so that a proper picture may be presented to the government. The minister is not correct when he states in his letter that the seine boats got a higher price for their fish than did the gill netters. If he had said that the seine boats got a higher price for their fish than the gill netters who were operating right up the Fraser river, I think he would have been accurate. But it is not true to say that the price was the same to all gill netters, because those gill netters who went out on the gulf to fish received exactly the same price as the seiners received. The price started at about 9 cents and dropped, as the season went on, to 4 cents, but all gill net fishboats that went out in that area to fish received exactly the same price from the canners as was given to the seiners. It is therefore not correct to state that the seine boats received a better price for their fish, the inference being, I suppose, that they received that better price because the fish
they caught were of better quality. On September 21 the price of salmon had dropped to 4 cents, and that was given to both the gill netters and the seine boats. The price dropped to two cents for the fish caught up the river.
But there is another variety of fish called cohoe salmon for which a price of four cents a pound was being paid, and that was paid ' to all boats irrespective of whether they were gill netters or seine boats and irrespective, of whether the fish were caught in the mouth of the Fraser river or up in the Fraser river itself.
At one period of the fishing season last year there was a glut of fish and when the canneries were offering our fishermen one and a half to two cents, not per pound but apiece, but for whole salmon weighing ten to fourteen pounds, the fishing interests just across the line in the United States were paying fifteen cents apiece for pinks, and some of our fishermen took their catches across the line and received from the canning interests in the state of Washington, in some instances, four times the price they were being offered in British Columbia and in particular prices in the Fraser river area.
Coming, now, to quality, I maintain that there is no difference in the fish caught in the mouth of the river whether by gill netters or by seiners. The mouth of the Fraser river is brackish water. If the fish were caught away out in the open, such as around the gulf islands, there might be some difference. In the gulf islands and the surrounding area the salmon would be caught in pure salt water, but in the area allotted to the seiners last year, the waters were very entirely brackish and the price paid as I have stated for fish caught by gill netters in that area was the same as that paid to the seine fishermen.
I should like now to quote prices paid in the United States and those paid in British Columbia, and I took note that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was quoting various commodities produced in this country by Canadians, for which we received more for, he omitted to mention the product of one of our greatest industries, that is fish, because the price given to the fishermen in the state of Washington just across the border from us was far greater than that given to the fishermen on the Fraser river. For instance, the price of spring salmon was six cents a pound; this year the price of sockeye salmon was fifty cents apiece, the first year I suppose that sockeye salmon have been just a little lower in the United States. In other years United
Salmon Fishery-Mr. Reid

at least to those of us who know the situation out there, that this meant, " Well, we hope that these fish that were turned down were caught by gill netters, so that we can circumvent the arguments that probably will be used by the hon. member for New Westminster against the order in council which we passed allowing seine boats to operate in the mouth of the river."
To get down to it, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the order in council be rescinded. I am asking that seine boats be not allowed in the mouth of the Fraser river, that they be entirely removed. Seine boats I might say move from one area to another; they are just like birds of prey, if one could use that expression in connection with fish, because immediately they fish out one area they move to another, and when that is scooped out they are off to still another. If this is allowed to go on they will not only destroy all the fish in the Fraser river but also will throw over 2,000 men out of employment.
Now let us consider the question of quality. If it is a question of quality why not allow the men on the Fraser river to put up a pack and call it the Fraser river pack? Above the Fraser river bridge we have some 228 fishermen operating, many of whom put up small smokehouses this year, gutted and smoked these pink salmon and peddled them around the country, thereby picking up quite a few dollars. If the seiners are allowed to operate these 228 fishermen will have no pink salmon in future and, as I said before, if they are allowed to go on there will be no sockeye salmon either, because the late run of the sockeye salmon is going to be picked up this year by the 50 or 60 seine boats operating in British Columbia waters.
If it is a question of catching the fish a little more cheaply I would ask the minister why not allow the gill net fishermen to have a longer net. That could be allowed out in the mouth of the Fraser river, if not in the river itself. In Puget sound the gill net fishermen are allowed nets up to 1,800 feet in length, but in this country they are limited to 900 feet. Why not allow the fishermen nets as long as they care to use? Let them go out in the gulf with the longer nets, if it is a case of trying to lower the cost of getting the fish.
There is another point. The fishermen should be allowed to sell their fish in the highest market. I think earnest attention should be paid to the fact that last fall some of our cannerymen went to the United States and brought in one hundred thousand sockeye salmon. When prices are a little lower

apparently it is all right for the cannery men to go across the line and bring in the somewhat cheaper fish in order to hammer down the Canadian fishermen, but when prices are higher-and in fact every year- our fishermen are precluded by our laws and regulations from exporting fresh sockeye salmon. The whole concern seems to be for the cannerymen and not for the fishermen. We are paying out money for relief; we are endeavouring to encourage employment, but at the same time this government is passing regulations which put hundreds of men out of employment. If it is a case of the greatest good for the greatest number look at the figures I have quoted. Even allowing eight men to a boat the seine boats will employ at most 500 men, as against 2,058 individual fishermen who are endeavouring to earn their livelihood on the Fraser river. If Canada cannot compete with the United States interests-and I say this frankly-it is because the cannery interests in British Columbia have too much overhead; the industry is overloaded or over capitalized, if I may use that word. The result, as I have endeavoured to show, is the lowest possible price they can give the fishermen.
I am appealing to the government and to the minister to repeal this order in council. I appeal to him also, especially when the house is in session, to have the committee deal with any further regulations that may be proposed. All matters affecting agriculture are referred to the agriculture committee, but when it comes to our fisheries, one of our most important industries, these regulations are approved and passed by order in council. Yet we have the committee on fisheries which would be only too glad to be given an opportunity to discuss these matters. I appeal to the house on behalf of more than
2,000	men whose living has been interfered with by the action of this government, and I trust that my appeal will not be in vain. If some remedy is not applied I am sure the reults will be very disastrous indeed. Not only will they deplete our fisheries but all these men will be thrown out of employment and will have their means of livelihood taken away from them. Having made these representations I ask that the government give serious consideration to the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) did not give notice that he intended to bring this matter before the house; had he done so I might have been in a

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Duranleau
position to give the house more details and information.
My hon. friend has brought up this matter almost every session since we have been in power, and I was particularly interested last year when he raised this question. I then promised my hon. friend then that I would study the matter and would direct my deputy and my officials on the west coast to do the same, in order that no injury might be done the gill net fishermen of the Fraser river. I can tell my hon. friend that when my deputy started west last fall, I think it was in November, I gave special instructions that he should inquire into the matter from all angles and should ascertain from interested parties whether or not the fishermen of the Fraser river were really affected by the regulation which allows purse seining in the gulf of Georgia. My deputy went west gathered all the information possible, and met the fishermen of the Fraser river; my hon. friend has said that he was present at one or two meetings.


Thomas Reid: One.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the best answer I can give my hon. friend at the moment is the report which was made by my deputy upon his return. I have also a letter from the board of inspection for British Columbia canned salmon, which gives an entirely different view from that expressed to-day by my hon. friend as to the quality of the fish caught after they leave the sea and enter the Fraser river. These reports state very clearly that the fish caught in the river has lost its quality and become of second or third grade, and if the regulation had not been adopted there would have been a real loss to the country, because the purse seining in the gulf of Georgia has shown the best results for the industry in general. I think the report of my deputy minister should be placed before the house:
Purse-Seining for Pink and Late Run Sockeye Salmon in the Gulf of Georgia
Two species of salmon-pinks and late run sockeye-deteriorate in quality speedily as soon as they come into contact with fresh-water. Every second year there is a large run of pinks and every fourth year of late run sockeyes to the Fraser river. These fish come in mainly through the United States waters of Juan de Fuea strait and the gulf of Georgia. They are in prime condition when there and there is a large fishery for them on the United States side.
The Fraser river waters follow a well-defined course almost across the gulf of Georgia and the fish begin to go off quality as soon as they enter these waters and become speedily worse as they ascend the river. The Fraser river gill-net fishermen operate not only in the river, but out into the gulf in the Fraser river waters there.
There is a comparatively small area south of these waters and north of the boundary line in which there has been practically no gillnetting, and in which these salmon are still in prime condition.
Particularly since the canned salmon inspection regulations became effective two years ago there has been little demand for these fish for canning purposes after they enter the Fraser. Hence the position was that if they were not allowed to be taken in seines in the small area north of the boundary line and south of the Fraser river waters, they would not be caught on the Canadian side to any large extent and so we would be giving additional protection to a run of fish that was being utilized mainly by the United States. Hence, last year it was decided to allow purse-seining in this small area. This did not prevent gill-netting where it was previously conducted, and only interfered with it to the extent that the fisli would be caught before entering that area. The regulation has worked pretty much as we expected as is evidenced by the attached copy of a report of November 2, 1933, by the Canned Salmon Inspection Board, on the subject.
Last fall, when the undersigned was in British Columbia, he met a large delegation representing the Fraser river fishermen. He read to them the attached report and stated the case as frankly and clearly as he could. He explained that there was really no departure from the department's policy of encouraging gill-nets where that method of fishing was practicable, but we were faced here with the fact that if fishing were restricted to gill-nets we would get little advantage from it. Hence the Fraser river gill-netters could not be hurt so much by the regulation owing to the small demand for this fish when taken in the river, and they might fish for them, if they rvished, as they did in the past.
The undersigned did use the figures that were given to him at the time as to the total pack of seine caught fish from this area that was put up, which he stated w-as approximately
100,000	cases. It has since been developed that these figures included the whole pack put up in district No. 1, no matter where the fish were caught. The figures were, therefore, too large. This does not change the validity of the argument itself as to the propriety in the public interest of this regulation. The fact that last season there vrere 524,369 cases of pink salmon packed in British Columbia, that of these 13,930 were classed by the inspection board as "Second Quality" and that 11,142 of these "Second Quality" fish were from Fraser river gill-net caught pinks, while only 185 cases of fish taken in purse-seines in the southern area were so classed, speaks for itself.
1933 Canned Pink Salmon Pack
District No. 1
Cases
From seine caught fish	 60,404
From gill-net caught fish	 32,432
Total Fraser fish	 92,746
Brought from other areas for canning
in district No. 1	 50,289
Total district No. 1 pack of pinks. 143,035

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Duranleau
I should like also to put on record the report made by the board of inspection for British Columbia canned salmon. It is dated November 2, 1933, and is contained in a letter addressed to Mr. Motherwell, chief supervisor of fisheries, at Vancouver:
Dear Sir,
Replying to your letter of the 28th ultimo regarding pinks in the Fraser river district.
The opening 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 tanneries 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. It was only the very early portion of the pack that would have been approved. This season it has been evident that a large part of the catch came from outside waters having firmness and colour never evident in pinks gill-netted in the fresh [DOT] water of the river.
The board had no information regarding each parcel as to whether packed from seined or gill-netted pinks and so can deal with the question in only a general way but is of opinion that the regulations for inspection acted as a deterrent on the packing of gill-netted pinks, and that in the case of those that were packed there was more care in most cases to cull out males and other defective fish, so that while the parcels which failed' of approval were soft, there was not much of the "soupy" fish that will pour out of a can which has been much in evidence in previous pink packs on the Fraser.
The published figures of the pack of pinks in the Fraser river area at time of writing are 142,948 cases. While these have not yet all been submitted for inspection and include some fish brought in from Johnston straits which may or may not have been heading for the Fraser, there have been of those examined only 11,000 cases relegated to second quality.
The pack of Fraser pinks in 1929 which was the last year when they were packed in quantity consisted of 161,529 cases. The result of the packing of that fish was a demoralization of the market and a loss of prestige for British Columbia pink salmon, one of the results being that in 1931, which was the next cycle year when pinks come into the Fraser, there were packed only 20.000. If the pack of 1929, consisting of 161,529 cases had been submitted to the inspection system now in vogue the board considers it safe to say there would have been at least 100,000 cases degraded to second quality.
The board considers that seining the fish in the gulf before they suffer from contact with the brackish water, has resulted in the production of at least 100,000 cases of creditable fish which if not caught in the gulf but allowed to enter the river would, if taken, have been unfit to pack or have resulted in the same quantity of a low grade product.
The bulk of the pinks packed in British Columbia this season has already been sold,

there being a good market demand, and what is being delivered instead of besmirching the reputation of Canadian salmon as did the Fraser pack of 1929, will raise it and the consuming centres will be in a receptive mood for subsequent packs.
Yours truly,
Board of Inspection for British Columbia Canned Salmon,
E. O. Cornish,
Chairman.
I do not think I need add very much to the statement of my deputy minister and the one made by this board. All I can say is that this government desires, just as much as my hon. friend does, to help the fishermen of the Fraser river, providing no harm is done to the industry in general. I think the regulation which was passed has proved itself to be beneficial to the industry on the Pacific coast without injuring the interests of the fishermen on the Fraser river. As is proved by these reports, the fish taken is of second quality. The catches in the river fell down considerably from 1929 to 1931. My hon. friend is representing the fishermen and I understand the position he takes in this house. But he sees only one side of the question while the government has to look to the best interests of the industry as a whole. We consider that what has been done is in the best interests of the industry.


Thomas Reid: Is the minister aware that the fish caught in the upper reaches of the Fraser river and which were refused, were taken across the line and sold to the canneries in Washington at four times the price?


Alfred Duranleau: I am aware of the
facts brought to my attention by the officials, and that fact was not brought to my attention.


Thomas Reid: I am stating it now.


Alfred Duranleau: I assure my hon.
friend that this regulation was put in force only after the question had been thoroughly studied. In view of the report and letters we have received from the Pacific coast, it is not at the moment the intention of the government to modify or repeal this regulation.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate but the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) has referred to the report of the inspection board. My suggestion is that he should tear up that report or put it in the fire. When writing to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) the hon. minister made the statement that the results of the investigation were not far different

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Neill
from what was anticipated. Of course they were not far different, they were made to fit the circumstances. What does the report of this board of inspection amount to? It is simply if and when and perhaps and maybe; it is simply an attempt to justify the policy laid down by the department. They admit that they cannot distinguish between fish caught in the one place and those caught in another; the whole thing is an ex parte statement of the most ridiculous character. They refer to the last big catch in 1929 and suggest that it was the quality of the catch that demoralized the whole market. Was it the quality of that local catch that demoralized the world trade in salmon? We all know that such a thing is ridiculous and such a statement is unworthy of being included in a report of that kind. In 1929 there was a demand for fish of any kind, as long as it had a fin on it it was good enough to go into a can. But then the world debacle took place and you could not sell salmon of any quality at any price. The following year there was a very small catch, practically no chums. But had that anything to do with the quality? I did not catch the whole of the report, but as I understood it it was simply made on request and intended merely to support an announced and agreed on policy. The figures collected by the board and furnished to Major Motherwell and passed on by him to Doctor Found were not the same as Doctor Found presented to the meeting at New Westminster. Yet he should have had the report before him.
I think the minister would have been well advised not to have said that the policy of the department is to curtail seining wherever possible. I know that has been the announced policy of the department but the department has given little indication of carrying it out of late years. It is very unfortunate that this particular local policy should be adopted in these days of unemployment. Wrap it up, go around it, evade the issue as you like, there is no question that it has resulted in a very serious curtailment of employment of fishermen. That result will continue in the future.
We do not seem to be able to agree as to whether there was 100,000 or 500,000 cases put up, but the board of inspection says that they were of real good quality. If that is the case, why is it that there have been so many pinks condemned in the last few months? Let the minister go and check up the reports which have been made recently. If he does that. I think he will receive quite a surprise.



[Stage Direction]
This board of inspection made an ex parte statement in the month of October, but how many salmon had been inspected at that time? They seemed to have the whole thing cut and dried and knew just what the quality was going to be. I think I am safe in suggesting that they had not inspected a third of the catch at that time.
The statement made quite frequently by the hon. member for New Westminster would seem to be the crux of the whole matter. He stated that seiners were allowed to fish right in the mouth of the Fraser river. The minister has said that a small area had been set aside right down on the boundary line where the gill-netters do not penetrate and where the water was not muddy. He stated that the seiners could operate there quite successfully.
I believe there is a certain amount of truth in that, but this area is small and right down on the American fishing borderline. Had the seining been confined to that area there might have been some justification for the argument advanced by the department that a better quality of fish could be caught by being taken earlier in seines, but they made a mistake when they threw open the whole mouth of the river to the seiners. This is the area of muddy water and the gill-netters operate there and as far out as the muddy water extends. I do not suppose they went down as far as this small area, but the mistake was in not confining the seiners to that small area. The minister refers to this existing district as a small area but it is not small and the seiners were given access to a territory contiguous or belonging to the gill-netters, so to speak. The minister has suggested in his letter to the hon. member that there is a possibility of changing the area boundary this year, but why should not this have been done in the beginning? It is just like the 24-hour rule which was found to be impracticable. If our advice had been listened to last year this matter would have been brought before the fishing committee where representations could have been made. The mistake made in this instance was in giving the seiners certain territory which came within the jurisdiction of the gill-netters. The minister has said that the gill-netters could go down there and operate but if he were one he would know What kind of a chance he would have operating among seiners.
I wish to endorse the representations made by the hon. member for New Westminster as regards the deputy minister not having meetings out there. That policy was inaugurated nearly ten years ago; I never heard anyone complain about it, except those who wanted to protect special interests. It was a fair thing and there were no objections. The
[Stage Direction]
Salmon Fishery-Mr. Neill
[Stage Direction]
present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) went out there, and there was a sort of understanding that he should hear the representations of one class only; it was understood that he would be dined by the canners and would hear their side of the matter. But very much to his credit he insisted on staying over a couple of days in order to hear the point of view of the fishermen themselves. He did so and listened to them as attentively as he had listened to the other side, and he got a very much better perspective of the situation by hearing both sides than he would have got if he had listened to the representations of the canners alone, listening to what they had to say and then going home and acting upon it. And when the deputy came out from year to year he also gave a fair hearing to all sides. A better arrangement could not be conceived. Of course, big interests can always send delegations here, just as they did last January when the twenty-four hour rule was put into effect overnight. But the fishermen cannot do this. We can voice their grievance after it has become a grievance, or we can voice their views privately to the deputy. But that is a very different thing from the deputy going out and getting the consensus of opinion from all concerned. I do not know why the deputy was instructed not to have meetings this year. I venture to suggest that he was ashamed to have any meetings. I suggest that these meetings should be continued in the future.
There is another thing I might suggest. It is beside the point, but I have been thinking somewhat of it of late. Perhaps with the good offices of the minister, whose name would go down in history so far as the fishing industry in British Columbia is concerned, would it not be a good thing, would not this be the appropriate time, to inaugurate in connection with that industry a policy such as has been adopted in the United States and which is indicated by the letters N.I.R.A. Instead of the canners believing that the only way they can achieve success is to put something over the fishermen, by cutting down their prices unfairly, by compelling them to deal with local interests, and so on, and instead of the fishermen having a determined prejudice against anything that the cannery men might suggest, merely because it comes from them, would this not be a favourable moment, with the assistance of the minister, if he were impartial in the matter, to try to get together rather than to have the different parties concerned pulling in opposite directions? Why not have a proper basis of prices? The United States has a wage code. Suppose we could arrange a code with regard 
to the price of fish and then cooperate along these lines. Above all, let the cannery men do what they are best fitted for, what is essentially their business, namely, the canning of fish, and let the fishermen attend to their business, let them do what they are best fitted for, which is the catching of the fish. That arrangement was carried out a number of years ago in connection with halibut. I have only a vague understanding of it, but I believe that at one time the buying interests, those who buy halibut and ship it to the New York market, were in the business of fishing, and their boats were competing with what I would call the independent fishermen. This led to all kinds of trouble, jealousy and ill will, until finally the practice was abandoned and the buyers confined themselves to their legitimate business of buying and selling halibut, leaving the fishermen to do the fishing. That system has worked well, neither side having tried to hold up the other. If we could adopt something like N.I.RA. in connection with the fishing industry on the Pacific coast it would be a monument to the minister and to everyone connected with it, and it would be very much to the benefit of all classes. No one class would benefit unduly and there would be a fair deal all round. The fishermen would realize the troubles of the cannery men and the cannery men would understand that it was in the best interests of the industry to deal fairly with the fishermen, so that it would not be a question of cutting each other's throats. The minister might seriously consider this proposal, and anything I can do to assist him I should be glad to do. I shall be happy to devote my time and energies to helping him to carry out something of this sort on the coast, if he will give it his endorsement and see to it that some active measures are adopted to have it inaugurated.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I would not intervene but
for the fact that, in the first place, I come from British Columbia and have a fairly good knowledge of the situation and secondly because as Minister of Trade and Commerce I am interested in this matter, which in a measure affects the work of the department over which I preside.
The two hon. members opposite who have spoken on the subject have quite earnestly, and certainly very vigorously, advanced what they believe to be the interests of the fishermen. I submit however that there has been rather a disregard of certain facts which are beyond the control of government or of man, for that matter. Let me say at once that as

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens
far as I am concerned-and I know the view of the Acting Minister of Fisheries and of the government generally-we are just as much interested in the welfare and prosperity of the fishermen on the Fraser river or in any other section of Canada as are the hon. gentlemen opposite. But the government, in the administration of this matter, like their predecessors in office, both the preceding government and other governments for the last thirty years, have always been confronted with certain stubborn facts, which I will refer to in the course of my remarks.
The hon. member for New Westminster made certain comparisons indicating a diminution of catch by fishermen on the Fraser river. That the house may be better seized of the tremendous changes that have taken place on the Fraser river, let me give some of my own recollections. I can recall when, long before the hon. member for New Westminster came to that district, one could go out to Steveston on a Sunday evening after the weekend holiday-the fishermen laid up for twenty-four hours in those days-and see from 6,000 to 7,000 fishing boats leaving Steveston alone, going to the sand flats at the mouth of the river to fish. Furthermore, in those days, especially in every fourth year when the large run occurred, most of these fishermen would make a very profitable catch. I think I am correct in saying that for many years in the early stages of the industry the canneries in the Fraser river area put up by long odds the largest portion of the catch.


Mr. HANBURY:: In British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Gradually that pack diminished and the northern areas, which are of a different character, became the predominant locality in which salmon was packed. Now, what brought about the change? I think we ought to get this clearly before the house, and if hon, members will bear with me I will make one or two references to some of the facts relating to this matter.
In the first place, it must be remembered that the Fraser river is one of the large rivers flowing into the Pacific, on the upper reaches of which salmon are spawned. I suppose the Fraser river, the Columbia river, the Stikine, and some of the northern rivers as well as some of the smaller streams, the Skagit river and others, are the sources which maintain the supply of salmon. Salmon on the Fraser river are peculiar in this respect that the sockeyes usually have what is known as the heavy run once every four years. One of the phenomena of the world is the way in 7472ft-48|
which the sockeye salmon have an extraordinary run every four years; that is a much larger number come up the river to spawn. Then of course the spawn goes out to sea and it is a peculiar characteristic of our salmon that they go out, nobody knows where, remain there for a certain time and then return to the stream where they were spawned Nature in a most extraordinary manner provides the instinct which brings this about. It has been one of the duties and cares of all governments to maintain the spawning grounds in as good shape as possible, very frequently, by the installation of hatcheries, taking eggs where available from the fish when in proper condition and depositing them in hatcheries, supplementing the efforts of nature in maintaining the run of salmon in the Fraser river.
During the construction of the Canadian National a huge blast was set off in the Fraser canyon throwing into the river, I suppose, millions of tons of rock from the side of the mountain. This for several years caused an interference with the run of the fish up the river. It was soon discovered and not this particular government, but preceding governments spent very large sums of money, I have forgotten the amount, in clearing away this barrier in the Fraser so that the fish might run up. It did, however, have the most damaging effect upon the fishing industry in the Fraser river, as became apparent in the recurring four-year periods by the fact that there was a rapid diminution owing, experts said, to a sufficient number of fish not being able to get up the river to spawn during a certain period. That difficulty was overcome and then efforts were made to obtain spawn and thus maintain the fisheries, but there was a serious falling off in the supply of salmon on the Fraser. So much for nature.
But another factor entered into the situation. It must be borne in mind that when the salmon go out to sea to their habitat wherever that may be, and return to the place where they were spawned, in this case the Fraser river, they come round the gulf of Georgia, round the southern end of Vancouver island-a number go north-through the strait of Juan de Fuca; then they strike the mainland coast and come up the coast from the state of Washington into the area of British Columbia and up the Fraser. The Fraser is a huge river, over a thousand miles in length; it constantly pours into the gulf of Georgia a muddy water that carries in suspension a fine silt. When the river empties into the gulf of Georgia, the working of tides up and down the gulf carries the fresh water to a certain extent up the coast, but chiefly

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens
down, so I would suppose-and I am speaking just from memory-for probably forty miles down the coast will be found silt deposits of the Fraser. This in centuries and millenniums has built up wide flats, what we call tidal flats or shallow areas. I am informed that the fish go out into very deep sea and when they come in they are hard, firm and of very fine quality, but again obeying the dictates of nature, they hover around river mouths in that brackish water of which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has spoken. There they remain for a certain period until their physical condition is suitable, shall I sa3', to the necessities of spawning. After hovering there for a certain period, they go up the river to the spawning beds, very many of them going long distances up the main river and its tributaries. I can recall in the early days when the Fraser river would be almost choked with the numbers of salmon ascending, and they may still be seen in large numbers going up the river and its tributaries. But during the period, which may be a few days or longer, they are lying in the brackish ^waters, they gradually softem; their flesh becomes soft and they deteriorate from the standpoint of edibility. Therefore the sooner the fish can be caught after they arrive from the deep sea water in the shallow areas along the coast, the better their condition will be.


Thomas Reid: The statement was made at a meeting that the fish caught long ago, that is when there were six or seven thousand millions at the mouth of the Fraser, were just as good as they are to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am coming to an explanation of that point. In part my hon. friend is correct, but not wholly so. The point I am making for the moment is that the sooner the fish are caught after they come into shallow water, the better, and the longer they remain there, the softer they become. No one will dispute that fact.
Another factor enters into the matter. During the years our United States friends-and in saying what I am about to say, I am not criticizing them; that is their business-knowing these fish come right by their door to enter the Fraser and not having very much interest in that river, simply set themselves to catch as many salmon as they could while they were in waters adjacent to their own territory. I think I am correct in saying that 90 per cent of the fish that run up the Canadian waters of the Fraser would for many miles pass United States territory contiguous to British Columbia. What is the result? Huge canneries developed at Belling-

ham, Blaine and other places just south of the boundary and the United States authorize not only gill net fishing, which is done in a comparatively small way, but the installation of fish traps and) seines. A fish trap is one of the most murderous contrivances ever invented so far as catching fish is concerned. It consists of long reaches of piling with nets stretched along. My hon. friends will correct me if I am stating this inaccurately. I think in some cases a mile or perhaps more of this will be stretched out crossing the known pathway of the fish. As the fish sweep up the coast and strike one of these barriers which are placed at an angle across the pathway they are following, they are guided into what is known as a trap, a trap being quite a huge area of piling with nets down quite deep so that there is no possibility of the fish escaping once they are in it. When they are in the trap, they are lifted out of it by machinery and literally hundreds of tons of fish are taken out of traps in that way. I have seen this and have no doubt hon. members have seen pictures of it. It is a most murderous system of fishing, but it is followed quite commonly and has been to my knowledge for the last ten years.
That is as far as trap fishing is concerned. Then they have another system of fishing with purse seines, a huge net, the dimensions of which are obtainable from the department,- I do not carry them in my mind. This net is thrown out in deep water. When they sight a shoal or when they know that fish are running,-and the men become very skilful at that,-they throw out one of these nets. It is very long, a boat will run in a circle and when a large section of this net is out it is gradually drawn together and pulled tight at the bottom and the whole net drawn into the boat; and fish are taken out by the ton, not individual fish as in gill net and similar forms of fishing. This purse seine fishing is carried on very extensively by our American friends. That again is not a point I am criticizing, it is just a statement of fact. It is done by them before the fish reach Canadian waters at all, before they get near the Fraser river.
A few years ago the government of Canada, largely at the instigation of the government of British Columbia and the fishing interests generally there, worked out what is known as the Sockeye Salmon treaty. This treaty has been discussed pro and con. In any case it was signed and passed this parliament, but it has never been ratified by the United States congress, and therefore is not in effect. The object of the treaty was to deal with this situation, which in British Columbia was felt

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens
to be unfair, because we were spending thousands of dollars to maintain the quantity of fish spawned in the Fraser by supplementing nature with hatcheries, we were restricting our own fishermen so that a certain number of fish could escape up the river for spawning, but while we were doing that our American friends by a system of trap and 'purse seine fishing were taking unlimited quantities of fish. Had the Sockeye Salmon treaty become effective it would to a substantial degree have rectified this condition, but it has not been ratified and we are faced with the stubborn facts. The catch on the Fraser river fell off year by year until in 1931 it was, I think, only 20,000 cases. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) knows these figures probably more accurately than I. At any rate the catch had fallen to a lamentable degree.
Then the suggestion was made that, inasmuch as there was apparently no possibility of a modus vivendi with the United States, this treaty which we had passed in good faith not having been ratified by the American senate, why should not Canadian interests be permitted to seine in the parallel area on the Canadian side? I admit very frankly that it is a matter for debate whether purse seining should or should not be allowed. I ask my hon. friends to accept that as a fair statement, but not an admission that the whole thing is wrong, I do not want to be so interpreted. However I can see their side of the question. I submit that if the facts as I have stated them are accurate-and I think no one will question them-then it stands to reason that the Canadians might just as well catch a certain amount of fish with seines in the same manner as the Americans do and thus increase the quantity of fish that we can put up. That is on the one hand. On the other hand I think it is demonstrated beyond any question that the fish so caught are of a superior quality to those caught in the river. I will admit with my hon. friend from New Westminster that such gill net boats or individual fishermen as go out of the mouth of the river and fish on the sand heads may catch fish practically equal in quality to those caught by the seiners, but I think generally speaking those caught by the seiners are superior. As my hon. friend knows, you will see fishermen fishing with their gill nets above the Fraser river bridge, twenty miles from the mouth of the river, but in that area from the mouth of the river to as high as the gill net fishermen operate, there will be a larger proportion of soft or inferior fish than would be caught outside the mouth of the river. Therefore I think it cannot be questioned that the fish caught by the seine fishermen in the area referred to in
this order in council are of a firmer and superior quality.
Another thing I want to say-and which to my mind is of greater importance than almost any other point-is that we have in British Columbia salmon fisheries a very fine industry. Perhaps I should say we had, because it was better years ago than it is to-day. But we still have in the salmon fisheries an important industry. However, the competition that we are now confronted with is much keener than it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago. Some years ago our only competition came from the Americans, and at first they competed with us only on Puget Sound. I remember very well when there were very few American canneries in the north. But gradually the American interests extended their canneries in Alaska, where they catch a very fine type of sockeye as well as other kinds of salmon, sockeye being the most attractive for the market. One of my hon. friends said a moment ago that he could not see why Canadian packers could not compete successfully with the American, but my hon. friend must at least do the Canadian packers this justice, that the salmon packed in Alaska, as well as in northern British Columbia, are generally speaking in better condition when caught, owing to the water being colder and clearer, than those caught at the mouth of the Fraser or of the Columbia. Inasmuch as the American pack is largely an Alaska pack we are therefore faced with keener competition from Americans to-day than we were twenty or twenty-five years ago. That is one point. Then in the last ten years the Japanese have come on the world market, they now catch salmon on the Siberian coast and the Asiatic coast quite similar, and quite as good, I am told by those competent to judge, as the Alaska and northern British Columbia salmon. In fact they are the same general type of fish.


Wilfred Hanbury: By what method do they kill them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think methods very
similar to ours.


Wilfred Hanbury: By traps or purse
seines?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They use the traps the
same as we do, I do not know whether they are precisely the same, but I think in effect they are the same. I omitted to say that traps are used very freely in Alaska, and they are used in British Columbia waters in one or two cases. The Japanese came on the market, and they have been our keenest competitors in the European markets. Then

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens
within the last five years the Russians have come into the picture, with very extensive government owned and established canneries, and to-day they are amongst our keenest factors in the world market for salmon.


Thomas Reid: If I might interrupt, my contention was that price is the predominant factor in Great Britain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I am glad my
hon. friend mentioned that. I was saying that the Japanese and Russians being now in the picture are tremendously keen competitors not only in respect of quality but of quantity. The price competition is accentuated by the presence of these two additional competitors, particularly the Russians. They have made it extremely difficult to sell our fish in the world markets. These facts are inescapable, they are factors beyond our control, and they cannot be lightly brushed aside. We must face them; we must recognize them. What the government of the day are trying to do is this: We are tlying to maintain the high standard of Canadian salmon, and we dare not allow the conditions that obtained in 1930 or 1931 to return. In those years quite a substantial quantity of very inferior fish were packed and placed on the market, and I know that as Minister of Trade and Commerce I received some very very strong protests. Speaking from memory I recall one large distributor who said that he would never take any more British Columbia salmon. In any case we know that it did injure our reputation, and it is with the desire to win back and maintain the excellent reputation we have had on the world market in years gone by that these regulations were brought into force.
Let me say first-and I say this to my hon. friend from New Westminster very courteously-that I do not think any further diminution of the catch by gill net fishermen has resulted from the use of purse seines in the area to which the order in council refers than would have obtained if we had done nothing and simply allowed matters to take their course. I would go further. If there has been a slight diminution-and I do not think there has been very much-we are making up for it in the better condition of the fish and in being able to meet the keener competition I have just mentioned.
Then I was going to say a further word with reference to the other order in council which was passed and later repealed. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) spoke in rather scathing terms of that order in council. I recall that he protested at the time, but I want to say that it was an effort

to meet a condition which I think is inimical to the best interests of the canned salmon industry. I will give an illustration of that. A certain individual had a cannery in the harbour of Vancouvex-, which obviously is not the place for a cannery except to take fish locally. Not being able to get fish locally, he encouraged men to go away into the north-and we had abundant evidence that they went for several hundred miles- and there buy up fish and bring them down to Vancouver to this cannery, so that when the fish reached the cannery they were several days old. I am sure that neither of my hon. friends will assert for a moment that fish handled under those conditions are calculated to give the best results in our canning operations; indeed, sir, it is a menace to the canning industry. I do not want to say that the man who builds a cannery in the harbour of Vancouver should not be given a chance to live, but there is reason in all these things. A man who will build his cannery there and expect to get his fish from around Rivers inlet or the Skeena river, is foolish. He should not be encouraged, and it is obvious that he has no claim on any government for protection or assistance. If he were getting his fish at his pier certainly he should be entitled to every consideration, but the effort should be to get the fish to the cannery as quickly as possible after they arc caught.
Let me remind my hon. friend of another matter, and I do not refer to this because I am a Conservative and the government to which I am going to refer was Liberal, but rather in order to give the point of view that was taken by a government in which undoubtedly he would have confidence, and in order to disabuse his mind of any thought that the action was taken by a government whose whole outlook was out of sympathy with his own. During the entire period Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power there was a very strict boat rating system in operation in British Columbia, and what was the boat rating system? It was a most ai'bitrary system. In the light of all that has passed I am not prepared to say that it was not the best system, although I fought it when I first came to parliament nearly twenty-three years ago. Under that system the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as it was then, without any particular rule but in an arbitrary fashion allocated to each cannery a certain number of boats. I think it ran from about twenty-five boats to fifty or sixty, and the average would be about forty. The cannery secured the allocation of boats, and then it allowed certain individual fishermen to take

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens
the cannery boats and fish, but no one could fish in the area contiguous to that cannery and allocated to it but the boats of the cannery itself. In other words, under the regulations that obtained for about a score of years, the cannery had an absolute monopoly of the fishing in the area in which the cannery was located. I am not prepared to say that this was wrong; after seeing free fishing in operation all over the coast, with the grief, the trials, the tribulations and losses that have occurred, I am inclined to think that some such system in operation to-day might have a better result. For instance, a moment ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked why the acting minister did not adopt something along the line of the N.R.A. in the United States. That is precisely what the N.R.A. is doing to-day; they are simply restricting the competition in business, shall I say, insisting upon an arrangement between business and workers, and arbitrarily controlling it.


Alan Webster Neill: But not on one end only; on both ends.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course, but the N.R.A., applied to the canning industry on the Pacific coast, would result substantially in something such as I have mentioned. I must say, however, that looking back over the years I am not now' prepared wholly to condemn that system, but certainly that system was condemned by those who held the view now held! by my hon. friend. I condemned it; I argued) for open fishing along the Pacific coast long before my hon. friend came to the house. We achieved that change, but the intricacies of the business and the factors entering into it, which I mentioned a moment ago-^the competition from the United States the use by United States fishermen of traps and purse seines, the fact that they had the first chance at the fish before they get into Canadian waters, the fact that competition from Russia and Japan must be faced in the world market, the gradual diminution due to heavy fishing on the Fraser river and so on-all have tended to make the industry less profitable than it was twenty-five, thirty or thirty-five years ago, as I saw it in the early days when I first went to British Columbia.
I think the only quarrel I would have with the two hon. members who have spoken is with regard to their attack upon the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) because they allege that he is not interested in the fishermen and is disregarding their interests. Speaking for the government I think I can ajay that we are just as keenly interested in
the welfare of the fishermen as my hon. friends are, but we cannot ignore those factors to which I have referred, which undoubtedly play an important part in connection with the industry as a whole.
I have just one word in conclusion. My hon. friend from New Westminster rather taunted me, I thought. It was rather cleverly done and nicely placed upon Hansardi, so that he can read it to his friends on the Fraser river and say how he told the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on the floor of the house, that he was the friend of the big interests and the packers and therefore was not a friend of the fishermen. I would like to ask my hon. friend, as a good sportsman, whether he thinks that is quite fair.


Wilfred Hanbury: May I point out that he did not say anything about the miners of East Kootenay.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not quite see what the miners of East Kootenay have to dlo with the fishermen. I appeal to my hon. friend at least to give those of us who may differ with him credit for honestly differing. I want to tell him very candidly that I have not the slightest interest in any way-I am not talking financially but sympathetically-with the canners of British Columbia other than my interest in them as ordinary business men of the community. Here in this house, in our efforts to meet this difficult problem, and while extremely anxious to assist, in this instance, the fishermen, we must not simply escape by saying to the fishermen that the fellow who does not succeed in helping to solve their problems is failing because he is a friend of the employer or the packer or the business man. As a matter of fact, everyone from British Columbia knows perfectly well that the canning industry has had an exceedingly difficult time during the last ten years. I question if there has been any profit, or very much profit, of any kind made out of the canning industry, and certainly there has been a great deal of money lost in it.


Mr. MUNN:: Too much watered stock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is. I say to my hon. friend very frankly that I have not an atom of sympathy with watered stock, for instance, in Canadian Canneries, and I would not have a bit of hesitancy if he brought the matter forward, to help him wring it out. While the operations of many canneries may not be paying, there are some operators in British Columbia I can assure my hon. friend who are just as honest as he is or myself, or at least as we think we. are.

Salmon Fishery-Mr. Stevens


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The lad} doth protest too much.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, you will acquit me of that. We cannot make rascals out of everybody unheard, and I am not going to be a party to it. If my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) really takes any comfort out of these insinuations I shall not quarrel with him a particle, but I say that a government must take cognizance of all the facts of the case, and while we are just as anxious as he is to protect the interests of the fishermen on the Fraser river, we cannot interfere with the American operations south of the line to which I have referred, and which undoubtedly get the major portion of the fish originating in the Fraser river. Nor can we combat with nature or overcome the depletion of the fisheries due to man's operations and the falling off of production, except to the extent that we impose regulations that will protect the fish.
My hon. friend asked a moment ago why we did not allow longer gill nets, and he suggested very skilfully that these should be allowed only outside. He knows very well that with the drift net system-he knows, as well as a few others who have had the experience-that you could send half a dozen or a dozen or fifty fishermen out of Steveston with a net twice as long as the present regulations allow. They go out into the gulf, and with the ordinary drift of the incoming tide it would not be long before the nets would be across the mouth of the river, and they would block the river.


Thomas Reid: But if the tide was going out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am pointing out what could happen, and my hon. friend knows that the fishermen are just cute enough to do that, and I would not blame them for trying. But my hon. friend knows, and I as a member of the government and the minister, must remember that there must be permitted a certain amount of escape up the river.


Wilfred Hanbury: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) recognizes that. How do we give that escape? By saying that the mesh shall be of a certain size so that the smaller fish can get through. We also give them a way of escape by limiting the size of the gill net so that it will not block the river, and also by saying that they shall fish only six days in the week. We have always reserved Sunday.


Thomas Reid: What about seine fishing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am talking about gill
nets. I say there must be a way of escape. The seine fishing is out in the open waters. I am not saying that there is not room for dispute regarding seine fishing but the seine fishermen are operating in open waters, and not across the mouth of a river. Take the dragnet system, for instance, which used to be used in my hon. friend's territory. He knows as I know, or as I did up to a few years ago when I was more closely acquainted with it, that we had constantly to watch against a man stretching his dragnet clean across the entrance to a river. It was a common trick if they could get away with it. The officers of the department are constantly on the watch for these little evasions of the regulations. Now the duty of this government, as it has been the duty of the government that preceded us and of governments in this country for the last thirty years, during which this question has come up constantly, is to see that there is a reasonable escape of fish, a reasonable chance for the fish to get into the spawning ground, and secondly to see that as far as possible there is a fair opportunity given to those in the industry to fish. Our further duty, of course, is to do everything we can to maintain our market abroad so that the standard of our fish may be such that it will compete with the catch of other countries. I submit to the hon. gentleman that, joining with my colleague the minister, we will do everything we can to protect the interests of the industry as a whole. It is a difficult question.
My hon. friend says that the fisheries committee has not been called together. I know of no reason why a few members of the fisheries committee should not call it together and discuss these matters. I am not a member of that committee; I used to be years ago, but I do not know of any reason why it could not be called, and certainly there will be no desire to put anything in the way of any useful and intelligent discussion of the industry for the benefit of all those affected.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If I may ask the
minister a question before he sits down, I understood him to say that the canneries, or many of them, were not paying the cost of their operations. Does he mean the actual cost of operating the individual cannery or does he take into account that a large number of the canneries have many branches which are not actually operating at the moment but on which they have to pay dividends?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean both. My hon.
friend will not ask me to demonstrate with actual cases, but I am speaking from pretty

Supply-Secretary of State
general knowledge when I say that there have been seasons in the last ten years, and particularly in the last seven years, when many canneries did not pay the cost of their operations. Individual canneries and canneries which were part of a larger system of canneries did not in many cases pay the cost of their operations, and many firms actually lost on the season's operations, apart altogether from paying anything on capital investment. There has been a very serious and a very unhealthy condition in the business. Personally I think an industry that is healthy is more likely to pay better rewards to those who are working for it than an industry that is crowded and cramped even in meeting its operating expenses.


Alan Webster Neill: The same is true of the fishermen. Is not that an argument for some scheme like the N.R.A.?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a good deal in
the suggestion of my hon. friend, and it would be interesting if he and a few others would work out a suggested scheme.


Alan Webster Neill: It is up to the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps that is right too.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Public archives-salaries and to provide for the continuance in office of J. B. Noble, senior bookbinder, from April 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935, |84,312; contingencies, $9,200.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: In this vote for the public archives there is a reduction as compared with last year of $3,564 in salaries and $2,800 in contingencies. The reduction in salaries is due to the death of two employees-Miss M. Casey, a librarian, who died on April 16, 1933, and Mr. W. J. Webber, who died on August 20, 1933. Those positions have not been filled up to the present time in view of the financial stringency. No permanent appointments have been made in the department of public archives since 1930, although a number of vacancies have been caused by death. The reduction of $2,000 in the contingency vote is merely a net reduction.


Charles A. Stewart: In connection with the two vacancies to which the minister has referred, I assume that under easier financial circumstances they will be filled, as I understand there is a need of these services.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If our revenues should increase to the standard of a few years ago I believe this parliament should give every reasonable financial support to the maintenance of the public archives. I believe we are laying there a foundation for the future which should not be undermined or weakened.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What is covered by the vote for contingencies?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We receive many bequests
from time to time. We received a very valuable one from the estate of the late William Molson Macpherson, of Quebec. In connection with this bequest I am glad to state that the premier of that province has undertaken to relieve us of the payment of the succession duties. This bequest has added very materially to the value of the archives. If I remember correctly the cost of transportation from Quebec was something like $200. During the past year we have made some most valuable additions to the archives. If I may use his name, Doctor Webster was speaking to me yesterday after having gone through the archives and he stated that he considered a recent acquisition as being one of the most valuable ever made. This particular lot happened to be in the market at a very low price and we bought it. This vote is for such purchases and other incidental expenses as I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $372,636; contingencies, $32,500. Inspector general of banks1-
Salaries and contingencies, $22,000.
Charles A. Stewart: I suppose
the minister does not contemplate any change in the inspection of private banks due to the setting up of a central bank?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member will realize that the banks will be in existence until the central bank is established and even afterwards. The same amount of inspectorial work will be required.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certain items appear in the bank statements with regard to certain amounts being transferred from or to hidden reserves. Are such reserves brought to the attention of the inspector general of banks?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I am quite correct in stating that the inspector general has full cognizance of all reserves held by the banks.


Mr. COOTE:: I notice in the details of civil government which appear on page 70 an
Supply-Finance-Salaries

item of tariff adviser, $12,000. Is this a new officer in the department?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He has been there for a number of years.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is it a new office?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was there not a new office created in the department?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I had Mr. McKinnon in mine. This is a transfer of Mr. Breadner, the former commissioner of customs.


Charles A. Stewart: What has he to do with the banks?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He has nothing to do with the banks.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon, this is finance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: His experience will be available for the benefit of not only the Department of Finance but all other departments of government. Through the years he has accumulated a remarkable knowledge of tariff structures and his services are being made available to the government. I regret that I did not anticipate the details of the discussion under this item and I have not full information before me. This item was called merely for the purpose of qualifying the Department of Finance to go into supply on Thursday and Friday. I might state that Mr. Breadner is qualified for full pension which would amount to between one and two thousand dollars less than the salary he now receives. In other words, he could retire tomorrow and we would be obligated to pay his full pension.
ivii . STEWART (Edmonton): May I say that we over here would not mourn his retirement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe that the experience of Mr. Breadner is worth the difference between what he is receiving as salary and what he would receive as superannuation. While there appears to be an increase in the estimates, it is really a transfer..


Edward James Young: May I ask who has been advising the government in the past in these matters?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Breadner's services have always been available to the government.


Edward James Young: He is doing the same work he was doing?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He was in an administrative capacity in the Department of National Revenue.


Edward James Young: He was also advising.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: His experience with respect to tariff matters will be made available to a 1 departments of government.


Edward James Young: Is it not a fact that this gentleman has been acting for many years as an adviser on tariff matters and has been responsible for many of the blunders the government has made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not propose to accept the statement of my hon. friend just as he has made it. In his estimation everything that this government does is a blunder. I am willing to go as far as saying that no doubt the government will make mistakes.


Edward James Young: With certain advisers they are bound to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think there ever will be a perfect government. Mr. Breadner was previously the commissioner of customs and we have in the department Mr. McKinnon, who has been acting as adviser in matters of tariff and taxation. But Mr. Breadner's ripe experience has always been drawn upon by this government and I think by preceding governments.


Charles A. Stewart: What is Mr. Breadner's age?


Mr. POULIOT:: He is rejuvenated.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think he is between
seventy and seventy-one.


Charles A. Stewart: He will be in receipt of a very fine pension, having enjoyed a fairly large salary in the past number of years, upon which of course he will be retired. I ask this question because I am rather curious. The government have been retiring men of sixty-five, and have been doing so pretty generally throughout the country. I have no complaint to offer in that regard, but I am curious to know why this gentleman has been transferred from the position he is in to that of adviser to the Department of Finance. With all due respect to Mr. Breadner, I submit that his qualifications must have related largely to matters affecting the tariff in the department from which he has been transferred. Just why Mr. Breadner, who is long past the age of retirement, should be transferred to another department is to me rather curious. I am going to say very frankly that Mr. Breadner and I never agreed very much on the question of tariffs. I am not complaining about that, though I should not be at all disappointed if he were removed from any connection with

Supply-Finance-Salaries
the tariff. I fail to see however where he will be of great value to my hon. friend in the finance department. When so many civil servants are being retired for the purpose of effecting greater economy, it seems to me only reasonable that this gentleman should receive the same treatment. I cannot see that he will be of very much service to the Department of Finance in the capacity of adviser.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As regards those who have been retired: at the age of sixty-five, my hon. friend must bear in mind that those only have been retired whose services can be entirely dispensed with and whose positions need not be filled again. There have been hundreds of such oases, where men have been retired at the age of sixty-five and their positions abolished.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not the case here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am coming to that. Mr. .Breadner is not standing in the way of anyone's promotion in the civil service. He might have gone out with his superannuation, but -'Wether my hon. friend agrees with Mr. Breadner's point of view regarding the incidence of the tariff is beside the point; the fact is that Mr. Breadner has accumulated through the years a vast knowledge not only of the operation of indivdual tariff items but of their repercussion upon numerous other items. The tariff structure, whether one agrees with the policy of tariffs or not, has been in existence for yeaTs and will continue for many years longer. Certainly if one is to judge "by the world trend, whether it be higher or lower tariffs, we shall continue to have a tariff structure; and when you touch a tariff item, though it may look perfectly innocent, and attempt either a reduction or an increase, it is amazing to find the ramifications, in the effect on numerous other tariff items, which a slight change in one item may bring about. It is therefore to make available to the government the knowledge which Mr. Breadner has in that respect that his services can be of peculiar value, especially when it is borne in mind that his services cost the country a very small sum. We thought it in the public interest that it was far wiser, considering the trifling sum involved, t.o make his experience available to the government.


Charles A. Stewart: Then my
hon. friend must admit, if that argument is correct, that Mr. Breadner's successor has not the necessary qualifications and cannot be as -valuable as Mr. Breadner. Would it not
have been better, if that is so, to keep him where he was if he was so valuable in that regard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is unconsciously confusing two things. The Commissioner of Customs is an administrative officer. Assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Breadner was the best man on earth for the position-


Charles A. Stewart: We shall
have a difference of opinion on that point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so; but assuming
that he was the best man on earth for the position, eventually he must be replaced. It is therefore far better that he should be replaced by a younger man who can have the benefit of the advice and experience of Mr. Breadner while Mr. Breadner is in a position to give such advice, even though he is not in the Department of National Revenue. So that to that extent it is wise to effect the change. That was the opinion of the government, and I think that their decision was wise in the circumstances. I think it is just such action as my hon. friend would have taken, notwithstanding that his views may differ from Mr Breadner's.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Perhaps I do not hold all the views that Mr. Breadner holds with regard to the tariff, though I may say that in all my dealings with him he was always fair and I was always satisfied with him. What I cannot understand however is why he should have been transferred to his present position. Did the Minister of Finance ask to have him transferred? Who recommended that he should be put in the position he now occupies?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The committee will appreciate the fact that it would be unfair to his successor to have Mr. Breadner remain in the department where he was-


Charles A. Stewart: Agreed at
once.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -and the only logical place for him was the Department of Finance. I would not say that any one individual I could name was responsible for his transfer, but the minister is prepared to assume the responsibility for it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do you approve of it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that on the whole it was a wise decision; I believe it was the proper course under the circumstances.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As a member of the
government the minister had to accept it.
,	COMMONS
Supply-Finance-Salaries


Edward James Young: As I understand the situation, Mr. Breadner in the past has been administering a certain department-the Department of Customs-and we know that during his administration he demonstrated a wonderful capacity for interfering with business in this country; there is no calculating how much damage he has done to the trade of the country in that position. Now he is transferred from the position, not of administering the act, but to the finance department where he will make the tariff.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Edward James Young: Is he not to be consulted
in framing the tariff, when the budget is drawn up?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not necessarily.


Edward James Young: Will the minister give an
example of some of the questions that will be submitted to him for advice?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is his work?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can give an example
that has no reference at all 'to the finance department. In drawing up a treaty-


Edward James Young: A treaty; precisely. He will be making the tariff.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -the Department of External Affairs can call in Mr. Breadner and ask him, " What effect will the lowering or the raising of duties, or a change in the duties on a certain commodity or list of commodities have on trade in Canada?" And he can be asked to prepare a memorandum for the guidance of the government.
Mr. 10UNG:	He will always give you
the same answer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend must not
get into a discussion of the relative merits of protection and free trade and that sort of thing. That is not the point. It matters not what Mr. Breadner's views or those of the government of the day may be; the information which is asked from Mr. Breadner is what the result will be if a certain action is taken. His advice whether the tariff should be raised or lowered is not sought at all. That is beside the point. So far as the budget is concerned, I may say to my hon. friend that I am prepared to assume full responsibility for any changes which I may introduce. I would not for one moment try to hide behind Mr. Breadner or anybody else, but I will consult him from time to time as to what effect certain proposed changes in the tariff may have.


Edward James Young: Is that not the work of
the tariff board?

Mr. RHODEiS:	The tariff board will not
be called into conference with respect to the carpentry work of preparing the budget. Certainly we shall have to deal with recommendations that may come from them, but it by no means follows that the minister will not have to have assistance in his office; that will alwas^s be the case.


Edward James Young: Is this not the position,
that the tariff board will make recommendations, but before the government puts them mto effect, they will call in Mr. Breadner and get his advice?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is not a necessary
condition at all. Mr. Breadner may or may not be called in on a given occasion.


Mr. EULER:: I happen to have known
Mr. Breadner pretty well for a number of years and it is not necessary for me to pay any particular tribute to his qualifications for the office he held. That he had a knowledge of the tariff and of the work of the customs department greater probably than that of any other man in Canada, is entirely without question. I do not think it is quite fair to criticize him in the way he has been criticized. If he has enforced a law which was perhaps wrongly made by the present government, the government and not Mr. Breadner ought to be held responsible. If he has interpreted the Customs Act and the tariff in such a way as to give offence to the hon. member for Weyburn and some others, they should hold not him but the government responsible. As to his appointment to his present position, I have not a great deal to say, although it is probably quite true that out of the wealth of his experience he can be of material assistance by way of giving advice in the technical effects that any changes in the tariff may bring about.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the situation.


William Daum Euler: I do not think the government would be doing the right thing if they called Mr. Breadner in now any more than they did before to function in the matter of framing policy with regard to the tariff. When I happened to be in charge of the Department of National Revenue and he was commissioner of customs-and I think he was appointed by the government of which I was then a member-his salary was $10,000 and his superannuation, had he cared to resign, would have been something like $7,000. In the last two years his salary has been $12,000. I question whether the sum given by the minister, I believe quite sincerely, of $2,000 as the differ-

Supply-Finance-Salaries
ence between his superannuation and salary, is correct; I think it would probably be nearer $3,000 or $-1,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At a later stage in the committee I shall give the exact figure, but I can assure my hon. friend that from memory I am fairly well satisfied it is less than $2,000.


William Daum Euler: I am not in any case particularly quarrelling with that; it is quite possible Mr. Breadner could be worth at least $3,000 or $4,000, to put the situation mildly, in the way of giving advice to the government with regard to tariff matters, what effect a change in one item may have upon others. Those who have had some experience with the customs department know that a very real factor in the situation is that one who is not familiar with tariffs and the way in which 'the department is conducted does not realize how, by making one change, you may upset several schedules and cause a great deal of trouble. Mr. Breadner's advice .in that respect may be very valuable. But I say again that I do not think it should be the duty of an administrator to enunciate and put into force policies. That is the duty of the government and of no one else, and the government should take the responsibility as the minister says he is quite willing to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: I strongly protest against the first part of the remarks of the Minister of Finance about Mr. Breadner. The reason is this, that he spoke in the tone of one delivering a funeral oration in regard to a man who is alive, who is only seventy-one years old and who is still very active. I know Mr. Breadner personally and I admit he is a very clever, active man and one always well disposed to give information when he is asked for it. But on the other hand it is most curious that this government is asking for an adviser in financial matters after all changes are made in them. All the changes were made without advice; they were all made in 1930 and the former tariff board was thrown out at that time. The same thing applies to 1931 and 1932. Then we come to 1933 when a tariff board is established after all the changes have been made and the government asks for advice-advice after the milk is spilled. That is the situation. I have nothing to say against Mr. Breadner; I would not offend him; I believe he is a good civil servant who may hold wrong views in certain respects, but his views can be discussed in the house only after they have been accepted by the government and therefore I do not see the necessity of the government having an
adviser in financial matters after all the wrong has been done. If he drafts a treaty, I wonder why he does not draft one between the hon. member for Weyburn and the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Or the tariff board.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. He would show his skill by drafting such instruments of peace and he could also submit them to the League of Nations. I admit that Mr. Breadner is a very clever man and has rendered good service to the state, but I do not understand why the Minister of Finance and the government should have an adviser in financial matters when they refuse the very sound advice which is offered by all the members of the opposition. Our advice is not so expensive; we give it free and we give it in all candour for the benefit of the government. My point is this: We give them sound advice; it is free to them and they can accept or reject it. They reject it all the time. The hon. member for Weyburn at times gives very sound advice to the government and if the government followed it, Canadian trade would be much better. I understood the Minister of Finance to say that he does not always ask for Mr. Breadner's advice. The minister has a button on his desk. Sometimes he presses it and says "I need Mr. Breadner." Sometimes he does not. But when Mr. Breadner gives his advice, does the minister follow it? If he does not follow it, why? Is he free to accept or reject Mr. Breadner's advice? I believe not. I think, if my hon. friend were free to accept or reject Mr. Breadner's views, this would be much better, but probably, as all of us understand, it is not the views of Mr. Breadner, who knows something, that are imposed upon the government; it is the views of one who knows nothing and decides, with blind eyes and without asking for sound information from anyone, all questions that are submitted to the government.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I understand that while this discussion is taking place, down at the Connaught building a presentation is being made to Mr. Breadner. The words that are being said here and the presentation being made to him there scarcely blend. But I suppose it is the way of the world-sic transit gloria mundi. As to the wisdom of the appointment of Mr. Breadner, opinions may differ. Mr. Breadner has been many years in the service. He is a civil servant and must serve under the law, and if he has made errors in interpretation of the law he has nevertheless given long years of faithful service. This is an-
Supply-Finance-Salaries

other instance where it is fearfully hard for a large proportion of those in the service of the government to reconcile certain attitudes taken and certain situations created in the last year or two by the dismissal of employees, the abolition of positions, by superannuation and by many other means of a similar nature. It is extremely hard for some who have laboured hard for many years, just as industriously as Mr. Breadner has, but who have not reached a standard of salary comparable to Mr. Breadner's and that of a few others yet in the public service, to understand why they should be let out and others taken on at salaries four or five times as great, and this is done under the guise-I do not use the word in any unkind way-of economy. People hardly understand that. When the government wants to practise economy it effects a sort of right-and-left, hit-and-miss decrease in the number of employees; some who might well be retired under superannuation, thus saving by their salaries the present salaries of three or four other clerks, are maintained in their positions. These are just suggestions that I want to place before the minister. If he would kindly let the people understand why these things are done it might alleviate the sentiment of, shall I say, hostility that exists towards the retention in the service of certain employees while others are retired.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no fault to find with the remarks of my hon. friend, and I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that the question he raises is an age old question. I have no doubt in the world that the section-man labouring on the Canadian National Railways at the lowest wage rate, exposed to all weathers and to hazardous conditions, might find it difficult to understand why he should work for $1,000 a year or less, when the president of the railway who rides by in his private car receives a salary of $75,000 a year.


Wilfred Hanbury: Or more.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Or more. But there you
are. My hon. friend may think that Mr. Breadner is worth the sum he is receiving, or he may not; that is a debatable question. The fact is that that is the salary he receives and has received for a number of years. Furthermore I think in fairness to Mr. Breadner I should say that it is not out of line with the salary which he received and which he could have continued to receive had he stayed n private employment. The only point I wish to make which I did not make before is that we are not establishing a position here. When in the natural course of events Mr. Breadner is no longer with us the post ceases.

We are merely trying to make available to the state, at the small sum involved, representing the difference between his superannuation and the salary which is given, his accumulated wisdom and experience which can be of service to the various departments of the government.


Edward James Young: Since this government took office certain changes have been made in the customs tariff, which comes under the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. Certain changes also have been made in the Customs Act, which comes under the Department of National Revenue. Everyone who has had anything to do with the importation of goods knows that those changes in the customs act have had a more mischievous effect on the trade of the country than even the changes in the tariff. And those changes in the Customs Act were made when the same Mr. Breadner was adviser to the Minister of Customs. After those changes were made and the disastrous effects on our trade were seen, in accordance with promises made at the time of the Ottawa agreements a tariff board was to be set up, and was set up by the government. They chose as chairman of the board a very capable and fair-mindied man, and that man said to the commissioner of customs: "Some of the things you are doing are against the law, the law you yourself have made; and you must stop it." What answer does the government make? They take that same man and put him into an advisory position in a department where he oan pass judgment on the decisions of the tariff board. I think it is a shameful thing to do.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear; that is what has been done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the heat engendered by my hon. friend from Weybum will not unduly affect his system.
I assure him it is quite unwarranted by the circumstances. I am quite prepared to discuss tariff matters and the iniquities of this government when we come to deal with tariff items, as we shall at a later stage.


Edward James Young: This is one of them now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this is not a tariff item.
I can say to my hon. friend that the governments which he has supported and which I have opposed have taken certain action in regard to tariffs to which I have strenuously objected. That may seem strange to him, yet it is so. But I never for one moment thought of attributing the blame for those things to

Supply-Finance-Salaries
one of the officials of the department. May I say to my hon. friend that I would be equally just in blaming Mr. Breadner for the tariff attitude of preceding administrations as he is now in blaming him for any action we may have taken because Mr. Breadner, if I mistake not, was an employee of the government during the whole -time it was headed by -my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I know my hon. friend's opinion of this government is not very high-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, it is not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -but he should realize that we are at least capable of making our own mistakes. I may say to my hon. friend, if it is any comfort to him, -that the mistakes of this government are made by the government.


Ernest Lapointe: Decidedly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We assume full responsibility for them, and do not think it is fair that any official, of whom there are many hundreds serving this country loyally, should be blamed for the decisions of the government.


Mr. HOWARD:: A question was put a minute ago to the Minister of Finance to which he gave an answer. I should like to repeat the question. It is this: does the inspector general of banks know the hidden reserves of the banks and how they are handled?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can only answer as I did before. I have discussed this matter with the inspector general of banks on different occasions and my information is that he has full cognizance of all the reserves of all the banks. I do not think I can make my answer any more complete.
Mr. -COOTE:	Before the item carries, in
regard to the transfer of Mr. Breadner from the Department of Customs to the Department of Finance, I think it is fair to say that the administrative record of the Department of Customs for the last couple of years certainly justifies the retirement of Mr. Breadner. If it is necessary to keep him in the service I think it is far better to have him in the Department of Finance than administering the Department of Customs. To put the matter briefly, I think Mr. Breadner has influenced the tariff policy of Canada long enough, and for my part I should like to see him superannuated.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to ask the
minister whether under this item we may discuss the salary deduction or reduction in regard to the civil servants?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will be ample opportunity to discuss that matter at a later stage. If my hon. friend would do so I would prefer that he defer his discussion, because I may say to him that the matter has not .been discussed as yet.


Mr. JACOBS:: I should like to point out
to this committee that if Mr. Breadner was the sinner that he is said to have been, we on this side of the house must share part of that sin. It was the Liberal party that appointed Mr. Breadner, and from the discussion to-day I cannot find that any complaint was made against him during the time he was in charge of the department under the Liberal regime. I think it is unfair, now that he is passing out of the picture, to have criticisms made as to the work which he did. It is quite true, as the Minister of Finance says, that the government is at least capable of making its own mistakes. We all agree with that, but we must never forget that an official is acting under the instructions of the government. The voice is always the voice of Jacob but the hands may be the hands of Esau. In that respect I would say that the hands of Mr. Breadner, under both the Liberal and Conservative regimes always have been the willing hands of Esau.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I have had relations with Mr. Breadner for very many years, and as an administrator I have always found him efficient, and an affable gentleman as well. He was able to establish very pleasant contacts with the public. I do not think any man ever left his presence without feeling that he had been treated in a most gentlemanly way, not that he got by any means what he wanted, but at least he felt t-hat he was getting a square deal and fair play. I think that is the general consensus of opinion, and I would say that Mr. Breadner, with all his experience covering a period of thirty-five or forty years, is worth the couple of thousand dollars he is now receiving from the department and the government. In fact I feel that if the union found that he was getting a mere pittance of $2,000 the government might be brought before the proper tribunal for employing people at what we might call Chinese cheap wages. Either he is worth what he ought to get or he should be retired altogether. For $2,000 you cannot expect a man to give you $12,000 worth of work. I am rather against the principle of employing a man at less than a decent salary; either he is worth $10,000 or $12,000, as the case may be, or he should be retired. I think it may be generally said, however, that everyone will think of Mr. Breadner in the most pleasant
76S

Immigration Act-Mr. Heaps
way. I do not say that I agree with his policies, if they can be called policies, because after all he was merely carrying out the wishes of the administrations which employed him. I think it would have come with better grace from those on this side of the house who have criticized him if they had criticized him also for the period during which he was employed under the Liberal regime.


An hon. MEMBER:: We held him down.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think we held
him down. Those of us who know Mr. Breadner will admit that he could not be held down; he had strong views to express and he expressed them to all and sundry. During his term of office it is well known that he organized the income tax department as well as the excise department, with everything which that entailed during the wild liquor orgies which were going on across the border during the so called prohibition days, and there was no man who was busier with his duties than Mr. Breadner was. There has not been a word of complaint with regard to Mr. Breadner during the time the Liberal regime employed him, so he could not have become such a terrible person immediately he was taken over by the Conservative administration. Either he is a good man now or he was not a good man then. I do not like to see these distinctions made between parties when it comes to the retirement of an official who has been in the employ of the government for well nigh forty years.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: Shall the
item carry?


George Gibson Coote: I was just going to ask the
minister whether there will be another item under which we can secure some further information, because I wanted to ask about the gold that has been exported by the banks in the last year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, there are a number of other items, and there will be the supplemen-taries as well. I do not press the item if the committee does not wish to pass it.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the item should stand, because I have some remarks to make.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Very well.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: I have just a word or two to add to the remarks I made yesterday on the introduction of this bill. As I then stated, the main purpose of this amendment is to make it optional, instead of obligatory as it is at present, for the local authorities to notify the federal government when a person becomes a public charge. The proposed change does not seek to amend in any way the definition of a "public charge." As a result of the unusual conditions and the amount of unemployment prevalent throughout this country there has arisen a situation which I do not think was anticipated at the time the act was drafted. There is a vast number of men at the present time who are compelled to seek public relief, and, who thereby become a public charge absolutely through no fault of their own but mainly because of economic conditions. It appears from what I understand of the situation that many of the municipalities do not seem to be anxious to notify the federal government of such persons who have become a public charge by being in receipt of unemployment relief, but they claim that in view of the present wording of the act they are compelled to notify the federal authorities. I also understand that in most cases in which they have been so notified that persons have become a public charge by the acceptance of unemployment relief, the federal government has taken no action. There is no doubt that great hardship may be inflicted on many of these individuals, many of whom have come to this country in good faith in the hope of obtaining work, but who unfortunately now find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed. Some of them have come here with fairly large sums of money, and now that their own savings have vanished they are compelled to seek assistance from the public authorities, and in many cases the threat has been held over them that if they accept unemployment relief they will be subject to deportation by the federal authorities. I think one of the most cruel things in connection with these cases is that this threat

Immigration Act-Mr. Gordon
of deportation is held over the heads of many persons who are really of excellent character. The change which I am proposing and asking the house to accept would make it optional for the local authorities to notify the federal authorities as to a person becoming a public charge.
I think that this change is desirable for another reason, and that is that our local authorities are the best judges of who should be subject to deportation. They are in a much better position to understand the local situation than the federal authorities at Ottawa, and if the change I am proposing is accepted it would relieve the local authorities of a great deal of the trouble to which they are now put in notifying the federal government, and relieve also the federal government from taking action in the matter. I think that the minister will realize that it is a very reasonable request I am making at this time, and he must also be aware of the vast amount of trouble that is caused by making it obligatory upon the local authority to notify the federal Department of Immigration of these cases. I therefore trust that the minister and the house will accept the amendment I am proposing to section 40 of the Immigration Act.
Mr. BRADETTE:: How is it proposed to
deal with persons in the unorganized districts such as in our part of the country?


Mr. HEAPS:: The recipient of public relief in an unorganized district will be in exactly the same position under this amendment as he is now.
Hon. IV. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :	Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to
amend section 40 of the Immigration Act by striking from the section the words "public charge or" in order to remove from the operation of the section those who now are liable to be returned to their country of origin by reason of becoming public charges.
It must be borne in mind that every country in the western world, because those are the countries where migrants in any numbers go, has laws very similar to the laws of this country, bringing within what are called the [DOT]undesirable classes the same sort of persons as are described in section 40 of our Immigration Act. Under that section as it stands at present, when a person who has been in this country less than five years, becomes a public charge, that is, when he has to be kept by his fellow taxpayer, it becomes the duty "of any officer cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person 74726-49
may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister, giving full particulars." Then upon the minister receiving the complaint the situation is reviewed, and if it appears in the judgment of the minister that the alien who is here, let us say, on probation, because that is really what it means, is undesirable by reason of his being a public charge, deportation may be ordered. I have some sympathy with the hon. member who sponsors this resolution (Mr. Heaps), perhaps because of the local situation in the city which he represents, but the change that is sought would remove a person who becomes a public charge from the operation of this section, and it would then no longer become the duty, under the statute, of the clerk of the municipality or other officer cognizant of the facts to report the situation to the federal department. It would be left to the discretion of the clerk of the municipality or other official whether to do it or not. In other words, a different sort of law might prevail in every municipality in Canada because I think no one will disagree with me when I say that the clerks of the municipalities throughout Canada are not likely to adopt a uniformity of view. It is left to their discretion, perhaps on the assumption that they are discreet. The exercise of discretion placed in the hands of municipal officials in the various municipalities throughout Canada in a matter of this kind, I greatly fear would take away any possibility of uniform application of the provisions of the Immigration Act.
The hon. member said that the threat of deportation is held over the heads of those who are public charges. That statement has been made before and on a number of occasions I have investigated to see whether it is a fact. My investigations did not reveal that that position has been established.
I appreciate that there may be desirable people from other lands who have not yet acquired Canadian domicile and who may be at present unemployed through misadventure or other causes. It is possible that such people may have to seek relief but I can assure hon. members that if on review of the facts-it is my duty to review the facts in such cases, and I do it-it is found that there is even a possibility of the alien being absorbed into gainful occupation, this section will not be invoked. I recognize the difficulty which certain people have in procuring employment in certain sections and at times I have had our officers endeavour to find employment for those who are unable to take advantage of opportunities which might present themselves to others more active. It is possible that a

Immigration Act-Mr. Neill

clerk of a municipality, exercising the discretion with which he is invested under the terms of this proposed measure, might come to the conclusion that for certain reasons an alien should not be reported. He might even go further and make it known that his particular viewpoint was that none of these people should be reported, not even the malingerers. It must be remembered that the discretion would lie solely in the clerk of the municipality. Even his own council would not be able to advise or point out the direction in which his discretion should go. If it became known that there was a municipality with a clerk of that turn of mind and the clerk in an adjoining municipality was of a different turn of mind, the whole purpose of the act could be defeated by merely moving to the favourable locality.


Alan Webster Neill: How long would a man last as clerk if he did not carry out the wishes of the council?


Mr. GORDON:: I do not know. I can only answer the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that there would be confusion. I have no doubt that mistakes have been made; I am as liable as any hon. member to make mistakes, probably more so, but I would be glad to have any injustices drawn to my attention. Under the present law when an alien who has been legally admitted has been in this country for a period of five years he is beyond the reach of this section of the act.


Mr. FACTOR:: After he is naturalized?


George Gordon: Not at all, after he has acquired Canadian domicile. If I pursue the course which I hope to be able to pursue for a considerable time, this situation will correct itself. In another year those who have not been returned to the land of their nativity will have been here long enough to acquire Canadian domicile. I am against this measure as it would remove from federal authority all control over those aliens who are at present a burden upon the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer. I am sure there are many municipalities which would not welcome a departure from the act as it is now framed. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre):
That this bill be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has taken the stand he has in connection with this bill, as it means its end. I cannot agree that it would have all the ill effects which he claims it would. The
[Mr. Gordon.!
fact that the reporting of these men is optional would, under ordinary circumstances, suffice. We must remember that men who are on relief are on relief at the expense of the municipality. I have never heard yet of a municipality that was anxious to pay relief. If a clerk in defiance o.f his council insisted upon not reporting these men, the council would have authority to deal with him. It is not as if it were suggested that there should be no reporting, because it would be found that whenever necessary and advisable cases would be reported. But the fact that it is .made compulsory leads to unfair conditions. The minister speaks about the alien and rather plays on that word, and we have the picture of someone perhaps from Jugoslavia. But we must remember that people born in Britain come under the section, and they are alien in the sense that they have not been here five }"ears.
The minister defies anyone to cite an instance of injustice having been done as a result of the act being invoked. I think he used the wrong word; if he had said being enforced, I think he would have been right. His discretion has been admirable, and I have no complaint in that regard. I have in mind a particular case where I myself brought the circumstances to his attention and his officials acted with promptitude and fairness. It is true that he will use his discretion wisely, but the point is that the clerk is compelled to denounce this man, so to speak, and this leads to a great deal- of trouble and anxiety. I have in mind an instance in my own district of a very decent man and his family who were going to be deported because he had received relief to a trivial extent-it did not exceed S20. He had been four and a half years in -Canada and was therefore liable to deportation. He was a mechanic and a good mechanic, and had worked at his trade, but owing to the depression he had lost his job, and he was doing his utmost, as I was able to verify, to make a living somehow. He was not insisting upon working at nothing but his trade, because he was anxious to get a job of any sort; he showed a disposition to take anything, however small the wage, in order to help matters along. There was no dispose tion on the part of the clerk of the council or of his neighbours or of anyone else to have the man- deported; yet according to the law which it is now sought to amend he had to be denounced to the government. He was not familiar with the law; he did not know that if he appealed to the minister he would eventually be dealt with fairly. The result was a great deal of anxiety for him and his

Immigration Act-Mr. Factor
family. There were special circumstances that rendered deportation very harsh and not only the man himself but other people as well were put to a great deal of trouble bringing the real, circumstances to the attention of the minister, whose action then was all that could be desired. There was no suggestion of complaint in that regard, but the fact remains that there was a good deal of unnecessary trouble, inconvenience and anxiety. The danger which the minister seems to apprehend is that habitual loafers and undesirable people generally will not be reported. But as I said at the beginning there is no danger of that, because the people out of whose pockets the money comes to keep such men on relief will see to it that if the clerk does not report the circumstances he will be made to do so. I am simply expressing my regret that the minister takes the view he does. I do not think that the hon. member responsible for the bill before us suggests that there was any harsh dealing on the part of the minister, but it does create a lot of trouble for people when a man is denounced, so to speak, although no one has any wish or desire to deport him.


Samuel Factor: The difficulty about the present act is that the term "public charge" is not defined, and the result is that a newcomer to the country, whether from foreign lands or from the British Isles, if he has not acquired domicile, and receives unemployment relief, is subject to be reported by the officer of the municipality to the Minister of Immigration. Now, no one quarrels with the minister's administration of this law; indeed, I want to commend him for the humane way in which he has administered it. But why should it be incumbent on the clerk or officer of the municipality to report every case in which a man is receiving relief by reason of the present economic conditions, thus burdening the minister with the review of all these cases? The bill suggested by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) relieves the minister of a certain burden. It places the burden on the municipality, which is more thoroughly acquainted with each individual case, to see whether a man who is in receipt of relief is a law-abiding citizen, conscious of his duties and responsibilities; and if his only sin is the receipt of unemployment relief, surely the municipality, the clerk or the officer, is in a better position to judge whether or not he should be reported. It leaves this discretion with the municipality.
74726-49J
In my humble opinion, it is our duty even under present conditions not to decrease the population of the country. On the contrary, I think the time is coming when some constructive policy of immigration will have to be put forward. If we expect ever to carry the tremendous burden of taxation which we have in this country, and to solve the railway problem, we must see that Canada has a greater population than at present. I think that the bill is a move in the right direction. It will not help the malingerer; it will not help the man who runs counter to the laws of the country, but will meet the legitimate case of either the Britisher who has not acquired domicile or the foreigner who under present abnormal conditions is in receipt of unemployment relief, and who will be given an opportunity to be judged by an officer of the municipality, a man thoroughly acquainted with the conditions in the place, and who knows whether the person affected should be reported to the minister. I am really surprised that the government are opposing the bill, and I trust that the matter will receive their very careful consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me very regrettable that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) is apparently determined to keep this law in its present form, for there is not the slightest doubt that it is a harsh piece of legislation. It may be true that the minister is now called upon to undo some of the blunders of an earlier administration. We remember that for a great many years this country spent millions of dollars in inducing immigrants to come here. Millions of people came, and generally the policy of the wide-open door was accepted b3>- our people. Immigrants came in very large numbers from the British Isles and the continent of Europe. Only those of us who have been closely in contact with individual immigrants can form any idea of what it meant even for one family to break up home in the old land, to sever the ties that had bound them to their home for so many years, and to migrate to this country where they thought they would have an opportunity of earning a Irving. Fifteen years ago, even ten years ago, large numbers of them believed that this was the land of hope and that there was every opportunity here for a man at least to earn a livelihood, if not to make a fortune. But times have changed. To-day we have 1,220,000 persons on relief in Canada. We all recognize the seriousness of that situation. This large number includes many who are comparatively newcomers; indeed, the proportion of new-

Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth
comers on relief is greater than that of oldtime residents. This is not to be wondered at because the newcomer finds it more difficult to establish himself. In hard times he has not the reserves that the older Canadians have acquired, and so among this huge number of persons on relief are many who have come here in comparatively recent years and who have not been able to establish themselves.
The minister perhaps was not quite fair when he used the term "alien." As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has suggested, that word carries with it certain implications that are not very generally acceptable. It may be that within this group there are some from continental Europe, but I would remind the house that those people came here on our solicitation; they came with our full consent and they ought not now to be treated unfairly when they, together with many others in the country, are suffering. But in addition to those who have come from continental Europe, there are very large numbers of our own flesh and blood who have come from the British Isles; indeed, the larger proportion of those who have been deported have been British bom. It may be true that they ought never to have come to this country, but we asked and permitted them to come. They are here, and now, with the depression, they are suffering and suffering more keenly than the rest of the population.
Last year, in an effort to reach some sort of justice in this situation I introduced a bill. My bill provided for a definition of the term "public charge." It may be all very well that people who have come to this country who are paralytic or insane and in some way have managed to get by the immigration officials ought not to be permitted to become a permanent charge upon our public institutions. In my bill of last year I made an effort to define "public charge" in such a way that those who would come under public assistance merely on account of lack of employment would not be regarded as public charges andJ so would not come under the provisions of this act. My bill was not acceptable to the minister. I know there are difficulties in the way of defining the term "public charge." This year my colleague has sought to obtain some redress, not by defining "public charge," but rather by a little change, what we thought was a very slight one, by which the initial responsibility for action that might lead to deportation would rest with the municipality in which the man resided. Surely the officials of the municipality are in the best position

to know whether a man is likely to become a good citizen; they know the whole of the circumstances connected with his having to receive assistance, and so this bill would provide simply that report would be optional.
Again let me say that the minister was hardly fair when he insisted so much upon the officials of the municipality doing all this, and upon the discretion of the officials. It is really the discretion of the municipality, and when, in the judgment of the municipality itself, it is thought that the man should be carried by the municipality and would ultimately make good, then it is not necessary that he be reported. I would point out to the minister that when the municipality is not satisfied or cannot any longer carry the man, the final decision as to deportation still rests with the minister. But the whole question is this: Is the man likely to make good? The minister, if I caught him aright, has said that nobody is deported simply because he has come on relief. The minister may be of that opinion, but I doubt veiy much if that is in accord with the fact. If I recall aright, only a few weeks ago, from our own city of Winnipeg there was a case where there was a reversal of the opinion of the department with regard to certain people slated for deportation. I think representations were made by the mayor of the city; I know there was a good deal of public indignation as to the law as it exists to-day and both of our daily papers urged very strongly that some changes along the line that we suggest should be made in the law.
If the minister says his general policy is that a man is not to be deported solely on the ground of his receiving relief, the question is: Who is and) how is anyone to determine whether the man can be reabsorbed in our industrial life? Such absorption might be comparatively easy under normal circumstances, but it is not easy to-diay when we have tens of thousands of our young people going out of our schools and universities unable to find a place in our industrial and commercial life. How can anyone say that men now liable to deportation would not under normal circumstances be capable of being absorbed into our industrial life? I can understand, in the case of men having criminal records or being malingerers, it might be a good thing to get rid of them, but there are thousands of others who, if we had normal times, would) become as good citizens as any of us in the house, and under such circumstances it is not fair to deny to those whom we have invited to come here, an opportunity of making good. It is not generous or fair for us as Canadians, as

Immigration Act-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
soon as we get into a jam, to throw back those people who have come to us in all good faith. I hope the minister will see his .way to reconsider his position in the matter.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, as I read Bill No. 14
introduced by the hoe. member for North Winnipeg (Air. Heaps), it contains two provisions, tire first being section 40, subsection (1), which eliminates the words "public charge of", and the second being subsection (2) where specific provision is made, as I understand the matter, for discretion being given to the municipality to notify the Minister of Immigration in regard to those who are public charges. I quite agree with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the situation is that the term "public charge" is not defined. I recall very well a year ago when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mir. Woodswonth) endeavoured to define "public charge", it was not exactly a successful experiment. Personally, I am entirely in favour of the bill as introduced. I do not wish to make the slightest criticism of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon), but I suggest that the municipality, the officers of the township or community in which the man who is on relief resides should be in the best position to judge as to his character, ability and qualifications generally for Canadian citizenship. I think this house should endorse with unanimity the proposal that humanitarian discretion may be exercised by the municipality, as against the possible arbitrary action of the Minister. I am not suggesting the slightest condemnation of the minister, but I happen to know personally of certain cases of men who just by accident were on relief in Vancouver, though having very good prospects of gainful occupations in the not distant future; but when under the mandatory nature of the existing legislation complaint is made by the municipality to the minister he or his departmental officials immediately act, as the present law requires them to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does not the municipality thereby exercise the very discretion that this bill seeks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My suggestion is this, and I shall be glad to be corrected by my right hon. friend if I am wrong; that under the act as it now stands it
is mandatory under section 40 as long as you put the words "public charge" or "under section 40" that the municipal officials shall report. Thousands of my own compatriots from the highlands of Scotland have been deported under the phraseology of this most iniquitous statute.


Ernest Lapointe: Shame.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Look
at the figures of last year and you will find that what I say is true. I agree for once in my life with my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. Give these men a chance and they will become some of the finest citizens-


Edward James Young: Give them a change of government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
change of government will come anyhow.
Mr, GOTT: Your time in the government will not be long.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wonder if the house really appreciates the significance of this amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. I
suppose many over there do not want to. But my right hon. friend said, and I believe in perfect good faith, that under the present legislation the municipal officers have the discretion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not what I said. The fact that they report the matter is in itself an exercise of discretion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no man in this house knows better than the right hon. Prime Minister, because he is a very distinguished legal gentleman, the difference between the words "shall" and "may." The municipality has no discretion. They report to my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, that so-and-so, whether he comes from the highlands of Scotland or Lancashire or wherever it be, is an alien, that he is a public charge, is on temporary relief. What does the minister do? His officials immediately act and examination of that man is ordered. Sometimes for weeks and weeks on end these deportation proceedings are held over his head; the man is kept in suspense-I know this of my own knowledge; he does not know what his fate is going to be, whether he is to be privileged to live in this dominion or is to be sent back to Scotland or England or any country in Europe. All that the mover of this resolution asks, and wisely asks is: Why not give this discretion to the city of Van-
Immigration Act-Division

couver, or the city of Regina, or the city of Winnipeg? They know the man and his character through their community organizations, through the Red Cross or the charitable institutions; give them the discretion to report if they see fit that this man may be a permanent public charge on the Canadian people, and then let the minister and his myrmidons carry out the decrees of the Immigration Act. But I say, sir, that the bill proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg is a humanitarian amendment to the present immigration law, and I trust that all who want to see good decent citizens from Scotland or Ireland or England or Europe allowed to stay to build up this Canada of ours will support the bill of my hon. friend.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a sessional pair
with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I voted without noticing that this was a motion on which the pairs counted, but through the courtesy of my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who refrained from voting and paired his vote with that of the leader of the opposition, there has been no change in the vote.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BAKER:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted to give the bill the six month's hoist.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke ((Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr.	BRADETTE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr.	FONTAINE	(Translation):	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr.	LAFLECIIE	(Translation) :	I	was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Athabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Momt-morency (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (N.B.) (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
77G
Supply-M isccllaneous


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hackett in the chair.
External Affairs-publications of league of nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the league of nations society in Canada, $3,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is merely one item in order that the estimates of the department may be before the committee. It is an incontrovertible item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $2,700.
Paul Mercier: Why is there a reduction in this item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the fee that we
pay to the international bureau. It varies slightly but is approximately the same from year to year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners-mainten-nace and operation, $232,172.
Charles A. Stewart: Would the
minister explain the reduction of $17,000 odd?


Mr. MANION:: We asked that the board of railway commissioners carry out, if possible, economies, just as different departments of the government were trying to bring about a general reduction in expenses, and the board has been successful in cutting down its expenses by about $17,000.


William Daum Euler: Is the board subject to the
deduction of ten per cent of salaries?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. GARDINER:: May I make inquiry,
Mr. Chairman, how many departments we have entered already?


John Thomas Hackett: Three.


Robert Gardiner: More than that, I
think.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think so.


Robert Gardiner: Might I have an
answer before you proceed further, Mr. Chairman?
fM. Dupuis.]


John Thomas Hackett: Secretary of State, Finance, External Affairs, Justice, Public Works, Trade and Commerce.


Robert Gardiner: That is six departments. I think that is enough for one day. May I suggest that the Prime Minister be satisfied?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We said that we were
going to take supply to-day. We can take an item in one department and then continue to the next.
National Revenue-salaries, $820,395; contingencies, $50,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think we are taking
too many departments to-night. I would like to know where we are going and where we are at, Mr. Chairman. We hear one department called after another, and pretty soon all the departments will have been in to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intimated, Mr. Chairman, last evening, that we would commence at the extreme left and take the various departments until we had exhausted them. We have now taken the Secretary of State, Finance, External Affairs, Justice, Trade and Commerce, Public Works, National Revenue, and presently we will take one or two more.


Charles A. Stewart: WTas it
agreed to go into all the departments tonight?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said was that we would proceed from the extreme left down to the end. It may well be that we shall not finish them all, but we will discuss them.


Charles A. Stewart: This is certainly unusual, to select a non-contentious item in each department and put all the departments into supply to-night. It means that on any future day any department can be discussed on any day of the week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
particular objection, but I do want to call attention to the fact that the method which is being pursued to-night is quite unusual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not. I think
on a moment's reflection my hon. friend will see that this is quite in order. We cannot go into supply except od Thursdays and Fridays without a motion being made. Therefore the opposition is deprived of no right to move any amendment they desire to move on the motion being made to go into supply. Any grievance can be discussed on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into supply. What we are doing

Supply-M iscellaneous
to-night is merely to prevent' the possibility of there being any difficulties in connection with the transaction of public business. I think if the hon. gentleman will look at it he will agree that that is the proper course to take, for no effort is being made to pass highly controversial items. An item is being selected in each department about which there should be no controversy, and taking the departments in this way, if it should be more convenient for the opposition on any day in the future to have one department called rather than another, it will enable us to suit their convenience as well as our own in taking that particular department.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
agree, but it is entirely departing from the usual custom. I have never known it to be done before in all the thirteen years I have been here. I have known four or five different departments being put into supply on the one evening, but not all the departments. I do not say that there is anything particularly wrong about it, but I do maintain that it is quite unusual, and it is giving the government the opportunity to take any department in the future on any day in the week. That is the difference. So far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing not to be too critical about the departments being entered, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that it has never been done before to my knowledge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I,
with the permission of the house, recall what the Prime Minister said last evening? Questioned by my right hon. leader he said:
Mr. Bennett: For the purpose of getting several of the departments into supply, while an item may not be passed it was concluded that we would discuss two or three or four departments if possible, so that the business of the house might be expedited. We will start at the extreme left, take the Department of State, the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, Public Works now being before the committee, for the purpose of getting sufficient before the house to expedite the business.
I think aill those departments have been taken now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all we are doing
now, taking up the business of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Seven departments
have been taken now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What difference does that make? We have items to be discussed, and if hon. gentlemen desire they can discuss them from now until eleven o'clock. The remedy is in hon. gentlemen's hands.


Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask the Prime Minister this question? Suppose all the departments are gone into to-night, and next Tuesday you do not choose to take up supply. On Thursdays and Fridays you can go into supply without a motion, and we would be prevented from moving an amendment. If we go into supply only on the days when no motion is necessary those who have a grievance to present are prevented from doing so. The government may choose to have no supply on Tuesdays during the whole session, and members who have a grievance would be deprived of bringing it before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot conceive of that happening.


Peter John Veniot: It may happen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It always might have happened.


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly
not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I put it this way? Perhaps the committee will accept the view of so eminent an authority as Mr. Gladstone, who said that you must never take an extreme case as a test of what might be done. You must look upon it reasonably. No one has suggested that we go into supply on the Post Office Department to-night, or Agriculture or National Defence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that we were going to take up two or three more departments to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the rules were
changed to permit the house to go into committee of supply on Thursdays and Fridays without motion put, there has never been any dispute. If all the departments have previously been considered by the committee, the government can deal with them all on Thursdays and Fridays. That has always been the case. There is nothing new in what my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) says. The rule has been there always since we had the new rules, but no one has suggested that because the rule might be used in that way, that it therefore would be. Hon. gentlemen opposite can prevent it; all they have to do is talk, and from what I have seen, there should be no difficulty on that score. All they have to do is to follow their usual tactics and all will be well. The situation at the moment is that we are going on with an item in one of the departments already in; the item has been called and the committee proceeds with it.
Supply-M iscellaneous


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
the minister explain the details of the increase and decrease in this vote?


Robert Gardiner: Before the minister replies, would he mind telling us just what item we are considering so we will know what we are talking about?


John Thomas Hackett: It is item 18, page 8, and the details will be found on page 85.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: The hon. member will observe that there is a decrease in salaries of $46,593 and an increase in contingencies of


Charles A. Stewart: As this is the first item submitted in which civil service salaries are concerned, may I inquire if it is the intention of the government to continue the ten per cent deduction?


Robert Charles Matthews: I think I can say that no decision has been arrived at.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question of the deduction of ten per cent is involved in this particular vote.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Inasmuch as the estimates had to be prepared prior to an opportunity being afforded for the consideration of salary deductions, it was understood that they would be set up on the basis of the ten per cent deduction being effective. But that does not preclude consideration of the restoration of the ten per cent deduction at a later stage in the session if that should be so determined. I think that is generally understood.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The ten per cent deduction is made in the case of the estimates now submitted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are set up on the basis of a ten per cent deduction.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It is still open for consideration?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Edward James Young: Could the minister tell us what reduction there has been in receipts from customs duties and whether the cost of collecting those duties has been correspondingly reduced?


Robert Charles Matthews: I am sorry but I have not the information before me.


Edward James Young: WTill the minister get it for
us?


Peter John Veniot: I notice that the commmis-sioner of customs is now receiving $9,000 whereas the salary last year was $12,000. Is that reduction made on the grounds of econ-

omy or the ability and efficiency to fill the position?


Robert Charles Matthews: The commissioner generally starts at a lower salary.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think the minister gets my point. The former commissioner received $12,000 while the present one is receiving only $9,000. Is that reduction being made on the grounds of economy or on the ground of ability to do the work?


Robert Charles Matthews: A new commissioner
always starts at a lower salary.


Peter John Veniot: No, he does not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When we had the various items involving a ten per cent salary reduction under consideration last year the government was askedl to postpone all such items until their resolution with regard to the deduction was before the house. I think the Minister of Finance wall agree with me when I say that the discussion on all such items was held up until the government's policy in connection with the ten per cent dieduction was declared. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has any pronouncement to make this evening with regard to the intention of the government as to salary deductions? I think we should know that before we vote this item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The matter is under consideration, but it will be some little time before it will be determined as to what action will be taken with respect to salary deductions. I am sorry I cannot go beyond that and give my hon. friend the information he desires.


Peter Heenan: The minister will appreciate that if we pass one of these items we are practically voting a ten per cent deduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not agree with my hon. friend. He can protect himself by stating that he is voting without prejudice to his right to object to the salary deductions.


Peter Heenan: There would be no use in having made a reservation when all the items bad been passed before the government announced its decision.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think the point raised by the hon. members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) is a good one. The committee will recall that last year the discussion of similar items was held up until the government made known its decision in the matter. As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River points out, it would be no use reserving our rights after we had passed these items. Items

Supply-M iscellaneous
will be coming up to-night, to-morrow and on Friday and before passing any items involving salaries we should have a statement from the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. We should know where we stand. It is all right for the minister to say that the matter is undier consideration and he will tell ua later on, but it may be two or three weeks before we know. In the meantime we will be called upon to pass a number of items and when we object the same answer will be given, that we can reserve our rights. I do not think it is fair to put hon. members in that position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are being asked to support in theory the principle of a salary deduction for the civil service. Before we do that I think we should be given an opportunity of saying whether we approve or disapprove of such a principle. Once the house supports such a policy, then we can go on to vote these items. I recall that last year all the items involving a deduction from civil service salaries were held up until the resolution was brought down by the administration. I think we would be on safe ground in advocating that the same course be pursued this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman forgets that last year the deduction of ten per cent was provided at the end of each item while in this instance the committee is being asked to pass an item based upon a ten per cent deduction. Last year the estimates were not so based and the 'ten per cent was deducted afterwards. In this instance, the committee is dealing with the granting of supply on the basis of a ten per cent deduction. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
makes my point even stronger. Last year, if I correctly interpret the remarks of the Prime Minister, there was left a discretion as to whether the ten per cent deduction should be made or not. This year there is no discretion left to the committee. The ten per cent deduction is embraced in the amount we are voting, so that if we pass this item we are supporting the principle of the ten per cent deduction.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am obliged to those who have started this discussion. I do not think we should be called upon to vote any amount of money for salaries unless and until the government makes some declaration as to what its policy will be. I regret that the Prime Minister has taken the stand that he has. Last year, by making it clear in the estimates that the items were subject to a
ten per cent deduction, there was no difficulty. I cannot construe these estimates otherwise than that, in voting for any one of these items in the form in which it is submitted, we are endorsing the principle of the ten per cent deduction. I think the government would be well advised to recede from its present position and allow the matter of salaries to stand until there has been some definite declaration of policy on its part.


Charles A. Stewart: I fail to see that the estimates are brought down in any different shape from the estimates of last year. The full salaries are voted, as last year, less ten per cent. That is a partial intimation by the government that as soon as they can do so they intend to restore the salary list, and that being so I do not see that any hardship will be incurred by allowing the salary list to stand, taking up some other item in this department in order to get it in. We did that last year until the government made up its mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The estimates this year are framed on the basis of the ten per cent being taken before they are presented, and as regards the government's mind being made Up, it is made up, qua the estimates, on the basis of the ten per cent deduction. That is clear, but the Minister of Finance has already said that there might be conditions that might warrant the restoration of the ten per cent, which of course would be done by appropriate measures.


Charles A. Stewart: These estimates are based on the full salaries less ten per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: But we vote ten per cent off every one of the salaries at the end.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has pointed out, that was so last year. In order that there might be no misunderstanding on this occasion, the estimates are the statutory salary list less ten per cent, and the vote is for ninety per cent of the statutory salaries, in the vote itself, not at the end of the vote.


Charles A. Stewart: Not at the end of the vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it is right in the vote.


Charles A. Stewart: And it was last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; last year it was at the end.
Supply-M iscellaneous


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
inclined to agree with the Prime Minister's construction of the estimates. On page 85, the second item is commissioner of excise, $8,000. That was last year's vote with the ten per cent deduction, repeated this year. There is no specific ten per cent deduction in the general vote, but I suggest that the principle is the same; if we vote for these items this year we are still supporting the principle of the ten per cent deduction, before the administration introduces legislation, or has intimated whether it wants to revise these estimates or not.


Paul Mercier: If the Prime Minister will look at page 84, giving the details of civil government, he will find at the bottom of the page the words "less ten per cent.''


Sir EUGENE FISET:: On page 85 provision is made for the salary of the commissioner of customs at $9,000, compared with $12,000 last year, but the commissioner of excise receives $8,000 this year and last year his salary was $8,000. Therefore there is no deduction of ten per cent, and the same applies all along the line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
West Edmonton is correct in saying that with respect to those items to which he has directed attention the deduction of ten per cent is at the end. The estimates as passed, if they are passed, are framed on the basis of ten per cent less than the statutory rate. The year before last, when the suggestion of the ten per cent cut was made, the hon. gentleman from Ottawa said, "We must have a vote on the question whether or not there shall be a deduction of ten per cent"; and it will be recalled that on going into supply- that at any rate is my memory-the matter was raised and a vote was taken, and the statutory provisions were reduced by ten per cent when the estimates were passed. Now, so far as what is taking place to-night is concerned, it is the passing of estimates which are reduced by ten per cent at the end of the salary list, as stated.- But the basis of the estimates, as the Minister of Finance has said, is the ten per cent deduction.


Vincent Dupuis: But the law reducing salaries by ten per cent is not yet passed. How can you deduct ten per cent from the estimates before knowing whether that law will be passed by the House of Commons? The government is going ahead of its power. Of course, in the light of what we have seen in the past three years, we on this side are not surprised that none of our friends opposite

are with us, although I have no doubt that at heart they think we are right. We do not expect that they will come with us, though they would like very much to be with us, seeing what is coming. At any rate, the law has not been passed reducing the salaries ten per cent, and before that law is passed I do not see how we can reduce the estimates by ten per cent.


Peter Heenan: Will the Minister of
Finance look at page 85? The second item is for commissioner of excise, $8,000, and last year the salary for this position was $8,000, including the ten per cent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend will look at the bottom of the next page, he will note that the total of those salaries is subject to a deduction of ten per cent.


Peter Heenan: I am afraid when my hon. friend answered before the Prime Minister spoke, he gave us a wrong steer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I did, I did not do so
intentionally. Last year it is true that items affecting salaries, which were subject to a deduction of ten per cent, were held up by hon. gentlemen opposite. That is their privilege; they may do so now if they wish. That is for them to determine and the government will have to bow to their will. I have nothing to add to the statement which I made previously, namely, that if we were to have the estimates prepared for parliament in time for the work of the session to be conducted in an orderly fashion, we had to set them up on a basis similar to the one we used last year. I have only to repeat that the question whether the ten per cent deduction will, in the final analysis, be made, will have to be determined subsequently.
While I am on my feet, may I say to my hon. friend that I can only repeat what I said so many times last session and the session before, that nobody will be more delighted than I when the country is m a position to let salaries return to their normal basis.


Peter Heenan: I think we shall all be
delighted when that time arrives.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It will not be under this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure, it will.


Peter Heenan: I assure the Minister of Finance that the matter is not one of holding up the item, but of knowing what we are voting. The minister himself says that the question has not yet been determined by the government; that it is under consideration. If I

Supply-M iscellaneous
did not misunderstand the Prime Minister, he said that the government had already determined it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, only on the basis of the estimates. It is determined only so far as the estimates are concerned. The Prime Minister's statement coincides with mine except as to a difference in language. He said that qua estimates it was determined, but the question whether, in the final analysis, the ten per cent deduction will actually be made, will have to be determined subsequently.


Peter Heenan: Then my contention holds
good that if we pass these estimates, we are voting for a ten per cent deduction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no question as to that except that it is understood, if my hon. friend does so without prejudice to his right to object so far as he is concerned to the ten per cent deduction, he is absolved. The government has not yet finally determined whether the ten per cent deduction will be made.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The total estimate for salaries for 1934-35 is $911,550 and for 1933-34 it was $963,320. The former amount less ten per cent or $91,155 comes to $820,395, and the latter less ten per cent, or $96,332, comes to $866,988. Therefore we are called upon now to vote $820,395 which is the result of a deduction of ten per cent. I certainly shall not vote for that, because I am not going to admit that the ten per cent deduction ought to be made again this year. If I vote this amount for salaries, not only implicitly but by the brutal fact I am condemned; I cannot go back; I am estopped, because I have voted for the total amount of salaries required this year less ten per cent. That I certainly do not want to do because I am not in favour of the deduction and therefore I hope the matter of salaries will be left over for the present.


Paul Mercier: I do not see any use for a bill being introduced to restore the amount taken off by the ten per cent deduction.


Peter John Veniot: If the minister will look at the estimates for 1933-34, he will find that the same situation prevailed then as does now. The estimates were submitted in the same way and we took then the same objection as we are taking now. I understood the Prime Minister this evening to say that the situation this year was different from that of last. It is not. Last year we voted and we deducted ten per cent from the aggregate vote. We are doing the same thing this year. Last year we objected to the deduction and it was held over until such time as the government made their decision. The situation is the same this year. Why ask us to accept the principle this year when the government acquiesced in our objection last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the salary deduction bill not expire on March 31?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
my hon. friend will agree that last year we raised the question that we could not do anything by voting for items and the government introduced legislation to cover the general principle. This year they are asking us to endorse, by voting for items, the principle of a salary deduction, but the only way in which they can do this is by introducing legislation. The point raised a few minutes ago is quite correct; we should not be forced into the position of supporting a general principle on a detailed item until we have an opportunity of voting as to the general policy of the government as indicated by its legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can see that we are not
going to make much progress because hon. gentlemen opposite have made up their minds that these items are not going to go through in their present form until the question of deduction has been disposed of. Therefore I think we are simply wasting time. The senior member for Ottawa has taken the responsibility of saying that because civil servants are not securing one hundred per cent of their salaries, they shall not receive the ninety per cent. I move therefore that the consideration of this item be deferred, and for the remainder of the evening we shall take up items having no reference to salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: After the
remarks of the Minister of Finance, I think it would be well to ask whether the information we get from the government is authentic. Until I secured last year's estimates I was not quite sure whether the estimates of this year were identical with those of last. The Prime Minister said that they were not and in saying so had the support of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Now I find that they are identical. We are not seeking to prevent the civil servants from getting their salaries, but rather we want to have the same procedure followed as was followed last year. If the civil servants are denied their salaries, it will be because the government has not made up its mind whether it intends to revoke the ten per cent deduction.

Supply-M iscellaneous


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion to postpone discussion is not subject to debate, but as my hon. friend has spoken, I may be permitted to say that the Prime Minister, is quite competent to discuss his attitude with the hon. member for West Edmonton, and unless I am required to do so, I do not propose to take up the cudgels in his behalf. But I maintain that a reference to Hansard to-morrow will sustain me in the position I have taken with respect to the set-up of the estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a
question of privilege I disagree entirely with the Minister of Finance in regard to the observations he made in connection with the hon. member for Ottawa. After all is said and done, the government is making a deduction from a statutory salary and the only way in which this can be done properly is by an act of parliament. The senior member for Ottawa is quite correct in the position he has taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure that the hon. the senior member for Ottawa will appreciate that my remarks were a mere pleasantry. I am sure he quite understands and the civil service, which is a highly intelligent body, will not be deceived by anything said by my hon. friend or by me. They know full well the character and tenor of my remarks.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am pleased with the
remarks of the minister. I know he did not mean them in the way they could be taken. The government has until the first of April to decide upon its policy. There is ample time between now and then for the government to make up its mind what it is going to do, and if by that time it has not made up its mind whether the services are to be deprived of ten per cent or not, the responsibility will be upon the administration. But until the government declares its policy, I refuse to let these items go as they are. I do not think it is fair for the minister to put it up to us in that way. There is no reason why the civil service should suffer simply because the government has not made up its mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item stands.
Railways and Canals-miscellaneous services -including salaries of experts employed temporarily, $33,500.
Eugène Fiset: Are those salaries
subject to the ten per cent reduction?


John Thomas Hackett: No, they are not in the civil service.


Vincent Dupuis: The members of parliament are not in the civil sendee but they are subject to the ten per cent cut.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Do these experts include
those who have been retained to study the question of deepening to forty feet the channel below the city of Montreal?


Robert James Manion: No, that is under the
Department of Marine.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Who aTe those experts?


Robert James Manion: This is miscellaneous services. This vote is in continuance of the annual vote formerly provided under the title "services and inspection of railways". It is provided in order that funds may be available for any special surveys, investigations or examinations that may be required in connection with railway matters or matters related thereto, to pay the salaries of official car porters, and repairs and incidental expenses in connection with the maintenance of official cars under the jurisdiction of the department, including the Governor General's cars.


Paul Mercier: Is their pay
less the ten per cent?


Robert James Manion: That is true at the present time of all civil servants. We are not dealing here with civil government salaries; this is the ordinary staff. Of course all of them are being paid at the present time less ten per cent, including my hon. friend and myself.


Vincent Dupuis: I was told a moment ago
that there was no ten per cent reduction in this item.


John Thomas Hackett: There is not.
'Mr. MANION:	No, we were speaking of
another item. I am not dealing with the civil government item of my department at present. All of these votes include a certain amount of salaries, so if my hon. friends insist on holding up everything that includes salaries they should have held up everything to-night, because every item passed to-night includes a certain amount of salaries. For instance the item for the Board of Railway Commissioners included salaries, and they are all cut ten per cent.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many experts are included under this item?


Vincent Dupuis: Who are these experts
anyhow?


Robert James Manion: In this item there are no
experts included. This merely deals with the miscellaneous items involved in carrying on the administration. I can give the details if my hon. friend wants them.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Vincent Dupuis: No, but in all good faith
I would like to know why the government before presenting all these items which the Minister of Railways said a moment ago were all concerning salaries-


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say that.


Vincent Dupuis: -why they did not pass the general legislation reducing by ten per cent all these salaries, so that we would know what the position is. It is surprising to me to see the government playing the role of the squirrel, jumping from one item and one department to another. I suggest that it is not a proper thing for the government to do; some time they might find themselves short of a tree.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They might fall in the
ditch.


Vincent Dupuis: I think in all good faith they should pass that general legislation before asking this committee to vote all these items relating to salaries.
Mr. MANIO'N:	My hon. friend is wrong.
These items do not relate specially to salaries. Let me explain. The Minister of National Revenue did bring in an item dealing entirely with salaries, that item of civil government. The Minister of Finance, after listening to the discussion for the last half hour or so in which my hon. friend-quite legitimately- opposed the carrying of that item, suggested that it stand over. Now I am dealing with another item, which of course includes a certain amount of salaries but is not civil government. I have the civil government item in my department also, but am not dealing with that. The item now in question deals with a lot of miscellaneous things; for example, telephone and telegraph tolls and things of that sort. It is not all salaries, but I repeat that there are few items that do not contain something in the shape of salaries, because they all have officers administering at any rate. So without doubt salaries are involved in all the items that have passed and to which my hon. friends had no objection until the Minister of National Revenue took up the question of civil government, and then they rightly protested. That is the item, my friends will remember, that was held up last year. But this item has nothing to do with salaries except as incidental salaries are comprised in it, as in almost every item.


Frederick George Sanderson: The item is quite
clear. It says:
Miscellaneous services-including salaries of experts employed temporarily.
I would like to ask the minister to give us some detail in regard to that vote.


Robert James Manion: I had not noticed that
wording; I was looking at my notes. The only expert employed under that vote, if he qan be called an expert-I had not thought of him as such-is Mr. Lazier, the engineer in my department who checks up the Beauhar-nois work, representing the government, and sees that the Beauharnois company keeps within the regulations of the agreement with the government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is his salary?


Robert James Manion: $0,000 a year.


Frederick George Sanderson: What services does
this expert perform?


Robert James Manion: I have just explained.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not very clearly.


Robert James Manion: It may not be clear to
my hon. friend. I will repeat. Mr. Lazier is the representative of the government, or of my department acting for the government, checking up Beauharnois on their plans and the execution of their works to see that they do nothing outside of the agreement with the government.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that the only one who
receives salary under that item?


Robert James Manion: No, there are others.


Vincent Dupuis: We want to know about
them.
Mr. MANIO'N: My hon. friend who asked the former question was dealing with experts.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister has mentioned only one.


Robert James Manion: He is the only one I
know under that item.


Vincent Dupuis: It says "experts."


Robert James Manion: That is bad grammar;
that is all.


Frederick George Sanderson: As a rule the minister is very clear in his explanation, but to-night he is not clear. I should like some further particulars with regard to this vote, which reads:
Miscellaneous services-including salaries of experts employed temporarily, $33,500.
This speaks of experts employed temporarily, not of an expert, and with all due respect to the minister his explanation has not been very clear.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry, but I have
given the explanation. I am not responsible because the word is plural where it should have been singular; I think that must have been a slip on the part of the man who made up the item, because according to the in-
Supply-Railways and Canals

formation I have here, and I am quite sure it is correct because I have all the details of the item, the only person to whom the word expert might be applied-and I had overlooked it when my hon. friend asked his question at first-is Mr. Lazier, who as I have already said, is our engineer on the Beauhar-nois works. He is an expert engineer, though I do not know that the word expert should be applied to him. The rest of the salaries are for the men who work on the different cars of the Governor General and the government. Outside of those there are no other salaries in this item, and Mr. Lazier is the only one to whom the word "expert" could be applied. So I am quite sincere, and I am endeavouring to give the information to my hon. friend as well as I can.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not doubt that
the minister is endeavouring to give all the information he has, but as yet he has not made it very clear to me. Apparently there is one expert. What salary is he getting?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Lazier? $6,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: Where does the
balance come in?


Robert James Manion: I offered to give my hon. friend the balance if he wanted it.


Frederick George Sanderson: We would like the
names.


Robert James Manion: I will give the information. The first item is general office expenses, including telegraph, telephone, express, travelling expenses, printing and stationery, $1,000. Miscellaneous unforeseen, $1,500; that would be such things as I have just read, if our telegraph or telephone accounts ran a little higher, perhaps. Government official cars, operation and maintenance, $15,978.50. I have the names of the porters, but as they are exactly the same gentlemen who were in charge of the cars under my hon. friends, so far as I know, I suppose there is no need to give them, although I have no objection if my hon. friend wants me to do so.


Frederick George Sanderson: Please.


Robert James Manion: There is a Mr. Perryman, in charge of car 100; he receives $1,740. Then there is H. Giles, also with car 100; he receives $1,215. Mr. W. R. Brown, in charge of car 101, receives $1,740, and Mr. W. I. Nevin, also with car 101, receives $1,215. Mr. R. E. Warwick, in charge of car 104, receives $1,740 and Mr. K. Dawson, also with car 104, receives $1,215. Those salaries total $8,865. Then there is an item for repairs and alterations to the Governor General's cars, of which

I think there are three, and that item amounts to $3,500. There is an item for repairs and maintenance of the government cars; they are all old cars which I think have been in service since the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Frederick George Sanderson: How many official cars are included?


Robert James Manion: There are three. The item for repairs and maintenance amounts to $8,000. Then the Beauharnois surveys and inspections amount to $10,000, which includes the salary of $6,000 to Mr. Lazier. In addition we provide him with board and quarters, which cost $800. The company have a camp there, and we pay this amount to the company. There is an item of $1,600 for flow measurements carried out by the head office, including casual labour, and an item of $1,600 for general expenses. The last item amounts to $1,521.50, and it is to cover unforeseen expenses. These different items give a total of $33,500, so my hon. friend will see that there are no experts hidden anywhere in this vote. I have given every detail, which is more than I have ever been asked to do before, though I have no objection to doing so.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I understood the minister to say that these employees were not subject to the ten per cent deduction; is that correct?


Robert James Manion: No, I said they were. My hon. friend and myself, he as a member and I as a member and a minister, are subject to the ten per cent deduction, and every employee in the civil service is subject to the same deduction so far as I know. The only point of difference, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has explained to the committee, is that the question of our future policy has not been definitely decided. My hon. friends question the propriety of dealing with the civil government, which was the item brought up by the Minister of National Revenue, before that policy has been decided upon. These items do not deal particularly with salaries, but practically each item contains some salaries.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the salary of Mr. Lazier?


Robert James Manion: He receives $6,000, and I had overlooked the item which followed, of $S0O for board.


Humphrey Mitchell: Less ten per cent?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I think so. It does not give the details here, but that is my understanding. I would have no objection to giv-

Supply-Railways and Canals
ing all that information even on another item, if my hon. friend will remind me. I did not know I was going on with my estimates tonight, and my deputy is not here. I am rather filling in, so I may not be able to give all the details my hon. friends may desire, but I will give everything I have. I have nothing to hide.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps it would clarify
matters if the minister would distinguish between the civil service as we understand it and government employees outside of the service. If that were done it might be easier to understand these items. The items to which we have objected were those dealing exclusively with statutory, fixed salaries paid the civil service. I do not think we would object to salaries such as those now mentioned by the minister.


Robert James Manion: I may be wrong; I have not had the question brought up in just that way, but this is how I would make the distinction. The item brought up by the Minister of National Revenue dealt with what we call the civil government item, which covered his staff in the city of Ottawa. In addition there is, as no one knows better than the hon. gentleman, a staff throughout the country which is not ordinarily included in the civil vote.


Peter John Veniot: We are not objecting to those salaries on the ten per cent basis.


Robert James Manion: That is the difference; civil government takes in the whole civil service in the city of Ottawa whereas the other parts of the service are dealt with in these other items such as the one now before the committee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that
they are not subject to the deduction of ten per cent?
Mr. MANION; I say that so far as I know, and I think I am correct, everyone has had that deduction imposed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Not according to this item; it does not say that these people are subject to a ten per cent deduction. I should like to know from the minister if Mr. Lazier, who is an engineer of repute, has the ten per cent deducted from his salary?


Robert James Manion: I cannot give my hon. friend any further information than I gave the hon. member for East Hamilton. It does not show in the details before me, but I believe the ten per cent applies in his case also. Possibly I may be mistaken, due to the fact that Mr. Lazier is only a temporary 74726-50
employee, and as I speak it comes back to me that when Mr. Lazier was employed, which I believe was only about a year ago, an exception was made. Mr. Lazier is a very well known engineer who I think was doing some work on the Welland canal, not for us but for a private corporation. As my hon. friend will remember, the whole Beau-harnois deal was in the hands of the Department of Public Works for quite a long time. Then it was transferred to the Department of Railways, and we felt that we must have an engineer of outstanding ability who would check up the Beauharnois company in all their engineering works. I am not saying that as any criticism of Beauharnois, but Mr. Lazier was hired on that basis. I have told my hon. friend that I will give definite information on some other item that comes up after to-night, but I have it hazily in my mind that when Mr. Lazier was hired it may be that we did not insist upon his taking the ten per cent deduction or he may have refused to take it because he is only temporary, and is a good engineer. A salary of $6,000 is not excessive for an outstanding engineer of his type. But in general the whole civil service is subject to the ten per cent deduction. There may be an occasional exception, and Mr. Lazier may be one. I cannot say at the moment, but I will give definite information on that point on any other item when I have my deputy here at some future time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any other private cars covered by this item besides those the minister has mentioned?


Robert James Manion: No, I have given every private car which the government has. It is the same number as were operated by the late government and by the government before that. The number of cars has been exactly the same for twenty or more years, and I think the cars are the same with the exception of one or two.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was there not one rebuilt some time ago? Is that covered by this item?


Robert James Manion: There were two rebuilt some time ago, and I can give my hon. friend the details if he wishes. The cars are covered by this item. One car was rebuilt under the late government and one under this.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are the cars known by numbers?


Robert James Manion: Yes, most of them, 100, 101, 104-

Supply-Railways and Canals


Paul Mercier: Why the jump in numbers? Were some of the cars abolished?


Robert James Manion: Maybe some of my hon. friends stole some of them when they were in power. But seriously, so far as I know these are the only ones that we took over.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is a particular car placed at the disposal of a particular minister? Who has the choice of these cars?


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of Railways has one.


Robert James Manion: My modesty forbids me to tell my hon. friends much about that except that the Minister of Railways by virtue of his position, has the right to one car. May I add that I often lend it to my colleagues? It is 104, the highest number. Then there is one for the Prime Minister, and he often lends it to his colleagues.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the number?


Robert James Manion: The number is 100, and car 101 is used when they cannot get the Prime Minister's or the Minister of Railways' car.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a car for the National Defence department.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but that is not under my department.


Mr. RALSTON:: That is lent more than any of the others.


Robert James Manion: I think that is true.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Have the cars names as well as numbers?


Robert James Manion: I do not know anything about the names.


Peter Heenan: I think the Minister of Railways was quite right when he said that in voting these items we are passing on the principle of the ten per cent deduction. That is the reason I rose, to ask where we are heading, and I still think I got more of an explanation from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. We are trying to help the government out by passing items in the different departments so that the government can go into supply on other days, and because we are doing that we have the Minister of Railways telling us that we did not object to any items that have already been passed. That is just an indication of how under this government, when we try to facilitate the business of the house, the first thing we know we are jockeyed into a position from which we can hardly recede. This item does pro-

vide for salaries, and while it is true they may be salaries for the outside service, there are many of us on this side of the house-I do not know if we are all of the same opinion, but I for one am certainly much more against a deduction in the salaries of the outside service, the low paid men on the canals, than I am against a deduction in the salaries of the higher paid civil servants. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I do not see how we can pass any of these items until the government brings in a measure announcing its policy.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to get into a dispute because I feel goodnatured and I am sure my hon. friends opposite are, but my hon. friend is not quite right when he says that I said we were dealing with the principle of the ten per cent cut. I did not say anything of the sort. We are not, in dealing with any of these items, dealing with the principle of the ten per cent cut. We are dealing with the ordinary items of government. The principle of the ten per cent cut, I think it was decided last year, should be dealt with in connection with the civil government estimates, and the mistake, if mistake there was, was in going into civil government items at all. That happened quite unintentionally just because the Minister of National Revenue probably called the first item under his hand. I repeat., we are not dealing with the principle of the ten per cent cut in any of these items. We are simply taking a noncomtentious item in each of the departments, Further I do not think it is fair to make the statement that the government attempted to put anything over, because we have done exactly what the Prime Minister said we were going to do. He said that we were going to go into a few of the departments so that the business of the country would not be held up. In other words, if we are through with ordinary government business on Thursday or Friday we shall have something with which to deal once these items have been called. It has always been the custom for us to take up estimates about Friday, when many hon. gentlemen want to get away to Toronto or Montreal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have taken up two more departments than the Prime Minister mentioned last night.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection to this item being held up, but I think after all the discussion we have had upon it, a good deal more than we usually have, with all due respect my hon. friends might allow the item to pass on the understanding that the one piece of information I have not given them.

Supply-Montreal Harbour Commission
that is the full details of Mr. Lazier's salary,
I shall gladly give as I promised my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), and my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), on some other item. There is nothing to hide in connection with this item, and after all the discussion we have had upon it, perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite will be as courteous to me as I have attempted to be to them and allow the item to go through.


Peter Heenan: The minister is very nice and I believe he will give us all the information we want, but I want to make it clear that we are voting on a principle. We have held up an item for a man with a salary of 19,000 a year because we refused to vote on the principle of the ten per cent deduction, and here we have an item covering the salary of a man getting about $1,200 or $1,500 a year, and we are asked to vote a ten per cent reduction for that man after we have refused to vote a similar reduction for the $9,000 man. I do not think we can possibly let the item pass, although I would have been the first to accommodate the minister, especially when he is in such a nice humour.


Robert James Manion: I am quite agreeable to having this item stand.
Item stands.
Miscellaneous-loan to harbour commissioners of Montreal with interest at a rate to 'be fixed by the governor in council, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits resulting from the operations of the Montreal harbour bridge, $497,000.


Vincent Dupuis: As this is a large amount,
we will pass it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is to implement an
undertaking made by the government some years ago, in fact before we came into power.
It is a guarantee of the interest upon the issue of bonds for the construction of the Montreal harbour bridge, the issue outstanding being $19,000,000.


Charles A. Stewart: How much
was paid last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Last year we paid $488,825.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was that paid from the
federal exchequer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the portion that
came from the federal exchequer; both the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec pay a portion.


Thomas Reid: What is the total paid out by the dominion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In 1930-31 it was $170,000; in 1931-32, $533,850, and in 1932-33, $395,000. I have a note that in those years no charge was made for the cost of furnishing money in New York which at prevailing rates amounted to $60,973.


Charles A. Stewart: Exchange?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Exchange. In 1933-34 and in the estimates for this year provision is made for the New York exchange. The total amount paid out including the sum to be voted is $2,084,675.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice the first year was much lower than the others; was that a full year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That was only a portion
of a year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give us
a resume of the annual operations of this bridge, say for last year? This would give us some idea of the loss and profit account on the structure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Here is the statement of
operations for the year 1933:
Revenue	
Operating expenses	
Fixed charges	
Replacement reserve	
Bond discount	
Premium on bond interest.. .. Interest on government advances Depreciation


[Stage Direction]
Loss for year
[Stage Direction]
788	COMMONS
Supply-Montreal Harbour Commission
Frederick George Sanderson: What proportions do the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal pay?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: One-third each, but the
amounts payable by the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal are limited to $150,000 each per year. Whatever the deficit may be, the difference between that sum and the deficit has to be met out of the federal treasury.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All over $150,000 would be a federal obligation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My understanding is that both the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec have taken care of their obligations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am trying to find out what is really the obligation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought I had explained that, but I will try to use the best and simplest English I know. The loss is divided three ways. The obligation of the province is limited to a maximum of $150,000 per year, and that same limit is placed upon the amount to be paid by the city. If those two sums do not equal two-thirds of the total deficit, whatever the excess may be it must be met from the dominion treasury.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the deficit is over $450,000 a year, the whole of the deficit is borne by the federal exchequer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: All above S300.000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That makes it still worse. I wonder what the prospects of the bridge are for the immediate future.


Vincent Dupuis: Let us settle the present; the future will take care of itself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to look ahead a little and see what is to be done. It appears that the deficit is something in the neighbourhood of a million dollars on one year's operation, of which deficit the federal government pay $700,000, according to the figures just given by the minister. How long will the government be called upon to meet such deficits?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have to be a seer to answer that question. With improving conditions and with the growth of the great city of Montreal, I am in hopes that eventually the bridge will become self-sustaining. Whether it does or not, we have an obligation which we must meet. It is idle for us to speculate now as we have committed ourselves to the bargain.


Mr. SPENCER:: The minister will remember that last year considerable discussion took place on this item because it was first estimated that the cost of this bridge would be about $6,000,000 when in fact it eventually cost about $19,000,000. The minister excused himself by stating that he was new to his post and did not have the details at his finger tips. I am sure by now he knows every detail and I should like to have some information on why a bridge which was supposed to cost $6,000,000 should cost $19,000,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My recollection is that I gave all the information I had last year. If what I gave was not ample I can assure my hon. friend it was all that was available in the department. So far as the Department of Finance is concerned, our sole association with this bridge is to implement a contract which was entered into by the government. That is all we know about it; we have no further information. If there is any detail of the information which hon. gentlemen wish I will endeavour to secure it from the harbour commissioners in Montreal, but so far as this department is concerned, we have no other information than that which was given last year.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the Minister of Finance satisfied with the enhanced expense in connection with this bridge, considering that the Dominion government has to carry such a liability on account of the increase?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that it would be proper for me to give an expression of opinion on that point. I know there is a popular assumption that the bridge cost a great deal more than it should have, and certainly it cost a great deal more than was estimated, but I cannot accept street gossip and current suspicion with respect to a bridge of this kind; I can only give such information as I have. The fact is that the obligation exists.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
complete audit.


Mr. CARDIN:: There was never any real
complete estimate at the time the bridge was under consideration. The amount ranging from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000 which was mentioned was merely a guess, because the plans were not all drawn. The government decided that a bridge should be built between the south shore and the island of Montreal and it was declared in the House of Commons at that time that the plans were not ready and that no accurate estimate had been made. The whole matter was then explained by the

Supply-Unforeseen Expenses
minister and other members to the house, and during the course of construction the plans have been altered very materially by the engineers who had discovered in the bed of the river certain conditions that had not been suspected when it was decided to build a bridge. But no definite amount. was ever mentioned, based on any final estimate made by the engineers as to the cost of the bridge.


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
Charles A. Stewart: Has the hon. member not had an opportunity of examining the auditor's report which was ordered by this government after they took office? That report is available and it gives the details of the expenditure.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The bridge might cost a
a good deal more than it should cost and yet the auditor's report might be perfectly in order. Everyone knows that.


Charles A. Stewart: Then the
question is one of engineering opinion; that is all. I recall a speech covering the whole construction of the bridge, delivered by the Secretary of State, in which he pointed out that very material changes had been made in the construction. I refer to the auditor's report because it gives a detailed statement of the expenditure.


Vincent Dupuis: I wish to say a few words in answer to our good friend from Battle River. I want to be broadminded in discussing questions of this sort, without any prejudices. I agree with the hon. member when he says that it is regrettable that a construction of this kind should exceed by two or three times the amount which it was originally expected it would cost. But in his studies of Canadian history has he not come across many other undertakings which were on the same footing?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Grand Trunk Pacific.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway, or, getting nearer to my good friend's province, take the Hudson Bay railway.


John Thomas Hackett: I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the item.
Mr, DUPUIS: I am merely making a comparison, and I think the chairman will be good enough to allow me to express my views on this question. No doubt the bridge has been expensive, but I think that my hon. friend should be generous in his view of the matter and not be scandalized by the fact that the cost has exceeded expectations.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman's statement to pass without refuting it. I do not criticize the expense of building this bridge on the ground that it has been built in Montreal, because I should be just as critical if it were in Alberta. I am not criticizing the undertaking from the point of view of locality; not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be subject to the approval of the treasury board, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within fifteen days of next session, $80,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May we have an explanation of this?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is an item that has been in the estimates since confederation. I will not give all the years, but in 1927-28 the expenditure was, in round figures, $131,000; in 1928-29 it was only $7,000; in 1929-30 it was $52,000.


James Layton Ralston: The items in connection with the Prince of Wales and the Baldwin trip were in 1927-28.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not criticizing the amount; it varies from year to year. In 1930-31 it was $57,000; in 1931-32, $73,000; in 1932-33, $62,000, and to January 24 of this year, $58,000. I will mention one or two individual items to indicate how the expenditures are made up. For example, the first item is 83,178.42, which we paid for the taxes on the British legation in Ottawa. That is an arrangement that exists between countries. For instance, on our legation in Washington the taxes are paid by the United States government, and the same is true of our legation in Paris. The next item is for taxes on the French legation, $2,498.49, and the next is city taxes on the United States legation, $11,770. Then there are such items as, for instance, a gratuity paid to the widow of Judge Richard D. Ponton, $833.33. There are a number of these gratuities, two months' pay of the retiring judge. There is one large item, payment of loss due to exchange to employees in the Department of External Affairs outside Can-
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

ada in countries where the Canadian dollar is at a premium, $22,606.17. That is to make up the shrinkage in the Canadian dollar in terms of the currencies of the countries in which these public servants happen to be stationed. Then there is an item to the Windsor District Trades and Labour Council to assist in defraying expenses in connection with the annual convention of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, $500. This vote comprises a miscellaneous collection of items which could not possibly have been foreseen.


Humphrey Mitchell: With regard to the item for compensation of currencies, does that work both ways?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are some instances where the civil servant gets the benefit of the premium.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Public works-chargeable to income-
Harbours and' rivers-New Brunswick

Under contract-
Chatham-extension to railway wharf, $9,000. Essential undertakings-
Campbellton-eribwork block, $2,500.
Harshman's Brook-continuation of harbour improvements, $4,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $75,000.
Mr. MICHAUD:: I notice that the Minister of Public Works has been very modest in preparing his public works estimates in relation to the item of $2,500 for Campbellton. Possibly the minister does not know the town, but it is no small one; it is indeed a large town and besides it is a big shipping point in the maritimes. As a matter of fact last summer I believe more than forty-one ships loaded and cleared from that port with lumber for export. I understand that very strong representations have been made to the department regarding necessary material improvements at the port of Campbellton, because it is the home of one of the largest industries of the maritimes, a subsidiary or branch of the Fraser Pulp company, called Restigouclie Pulp. It is also a shipping point for lumber for not only the northern part of New Brunswick, but also a considerable part of Quebec in the Matapedia valley. It is admitted that for some years repairs have been greatly needed and demanded. The public wharf is absolutely out of order and I am informed by engineers that the paltry sum of $2,500 will be sufficient only to keep together what is left there. I understand the board of trade and all those interested are asking for a larger amount in order to put

that port into proper condition. If their demands are heeded and their plans carried out, I am informed that the estimated cost is between $30,000 and $35,000. Not only would this enable that port to be placed in a first class condition and encourage the traffic which is sadly needed in that part of the country, but it woidd indirectly relieve the unemployment situation in that district, not only through the employment of labour, and those lumbering towns are places where unemployment is prevalent in these days, but through the purchase of the timber required, which can be cut right on the spot, and the steelwork, which can be manufactured about a hundred feet from the wharf, where there are good steel works and where good friends of the government could provide what was needed. It is the government's own friends who are insisting that this work should proceed; all the material necessary for making the repairs can be secured locally.
This work would be in the interests of economy, because last summer difficulties were encountered on account of the bad state of those wharves and their inability to be used as they should have been. This summer there will be great need for the use of that port, because during the winter there has been an increasei in lumbering operations, and While this may not be known generally, 'Campbellton is to-day the centre of lumbering operations on a large scale in the maritimes. Outside Saint John, which is a national port, this is one of the local ports where a great deal of shipping is carried on for export overseas and to the United States. 'With the high rates of rail transportation the reason for these demands for repairs can be readily understood, because lumber exporters and manufacturers in that district cannot at present successfully compete with other exporters centrally located who have a short rail haul. I submit that the cost of not only ordinary repairs but material improvements at the wharf at Cambellton would be a wise expenditure. The unemployment situation in that district would be relieved by the provision of work early in the spring, and also by the manufacture right on the spot of the special dimension lumber that would be required as well as the work for the steel fabricated locally at Campbellton. I hope the minister will take not only my recommendation but the recommendations of the boards of trade and the captains of industry of that district who have made insistent demands for such repairs. Notwithstanding that it may appear as a demand on the treasury in times when economy and retrenchment

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
are being preached, I repeat that it would be practical economy, because it is economy to spend money to preserve what is there and to make the facilities meet the needs of the case.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: The representations that have been made by my hon. friend in connection with this wharf are quite in keeping with those made by boards of trade and chambers of commerce in other directions. Unfortunately we have thought that the revenues at this time do not justify the expenditure, although perhaps the business there would justify it if conditions were better. This vote of $2,500 is just to make some repairs to facilitate ferry traffic, and does not in any way touch the larger question which my hon. friend has mentioned. Unemployment relief works, as my hon. friend knows, have been conducted in cooperation with the province and the municipality; these estimates are not framed for the purpose of unemployment relief, although of course any work carried on does help to relieve unemployment. I can only say that in connection with any program of public works that may be determined upon, my hon. friend's representations will be taken into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Under contract-
Matane-repairs to harbour works, $19,800.
New Carlisle-wharf reconstruction, $17,000.
Petit Cap-breakwater reinforcement, $34,000.
Essential undertakings-
Anse au Griffons (river)-improvements to jetties, $12,000.
Anse aux Griffons - to complete wharf improvements, $1,400.
Baie Ste. Catherine-wharf improvement,
[Stage Direction]
Bonaventure-widening wharf, $4,600.
Grande Anse-wharf, $5,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance, of services, no new works to be undertaken, $300,000>.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is a very large item. I would like to ask a few questions about it, and I think other members of the opposition will also wish to speak on it. One particular item that interests me is the item concerning the Baie Ste. Catherine wharf improvement, $10,200. I would like the minister to give the details of that work. It is under the heading of essential undertakings. Is it going to be given under contract, or not? I understood last year that the work was to be proceeded with, that an arrangement had been made with Price Brothers whereby
the government would get control of the wharf. Some minor or temporary repairs were made, but it never came to my knowledge that the government had purchased the wharf. Therefore I ask how the government can spend $10,200 on a wharf that is not public property. I do not object to works being done in my county, but I myself when I was on the government side, and also since I have been in the opposition, have tried many times to have the government come to a decision on the matter, but always the stumbling block apparently was that no arrangement had been arrived at or satisfactory conclusion come to with this company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is quite right; the transfer from Price Brothers has not been completed. As he knows, there is some complication in connection with their financial affairs. It is not proposed to spend this money until the transfer is complete. The money is required to repair the head block, which was damaged by ice in March, 1933, and was repaired temporarily in April, 1933. The only effective way to repair this structure is to straighten the outer end by widening the head block. The traffic involved is the ferry service for passengers and the royal mail.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What repairs were made last year on that wharf? The repairs then made were supposed to be what was necessary under the circumstances; why is this big amount being asked for; especially for a wharf that is not as yet a public wharf?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the particulars, but my official tells me it was simply repairing the flooring of the wharf.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was there not a staircase or something additional next to the wharf to help the people embark or disembark?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A movable slip.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was this work done under contract? If not, who was the supervisor, and who did the work?
M. STEWART (Leeds): I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the information, but I shall get it. The item will stand.


Eugène Fiset: Before we leave
this would the minister inform me if the repair work undertaken on the Rimouski wharf has been completed, and if it is intended to carry on further repairs on the wharf itself out of the general vote?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That information also is not available, but it will be procured and given at the same time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Do I understand that
item 109 stands, the whole item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
Under contract-
Blind River-dredging, $27,700.
Essential undertakings-
Byng inlet-dredging. $40,000.
Cloud bay-wharf, $5,000.
Fort William-dredging, $28,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $13,000.
Port Hope-harbour improvements, $9,000.
Toronto-harbour improvements, $12,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $100,000.
Mr. GOLDING:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has taken into consideration my request in regard to the situation at Bayfield, Ontario. The pier and the dock there are in veTy bad shape, and two lives were almost lost last fall as a result of the condition. I am not asking the department to spend any money unnecessarily, but I would be grateful if the minister would take that into consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
has made representations. I do not know exactly the extent of the repairs required or whether the work oan be done out of this general vote. If it can be done in that way it will be done, but there is no special provision for it here.


William Henry Golding: I want to thank the minister; I know he will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories - harbours and rivers generally - for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $10,000.
Mr. GERSHAW:: I should like to direct
the attention of the minister to the fact that a bridge is very badly needed across a river near the town of Empress at the junction of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The people of that district have had three or four bad crops, and the construction of this bridge and the building of the approaches would provide work for many farmers with their teams and many day labourers as well. This bridge is on a main highway; it would be of great service to tourists and would be of particular help to the' farmers in that district. The river is crossed by a ferry at that 
point, which is very unsatisfactory. This matter has been before the various departments for two or three years, and I should be very glad if the minister could give some indication as to whether such a work could be considered and the steps that should be taken in order to have the department undertake it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A bridge wholly within a province-


Frederick William Gershaw: This is between two
provinces.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -or between two provinces is not in the first instance a dominion matter. The only contribution the dominion ever makes is when the two provinces get together and agree as to the necessity for the construction of the bridge. They agree to contribute to the cost; they approach the dominion and in some instances, where the traffic is heavy and circumstances warrant, some contribution is made by the dominion. This is never done on the initiative of the dominion; it must be started by the provinces concerned, who must agree as to the need for the work and as to their contribution to the cost, and in some instances the dominion makes a contribution.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 21, 1934