[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved that the second and final report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, presented to the house on Wednesday, May 24, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Has the wheat board during the present crop year issued instructions to shippers in the prairie provinces to send wheat east instead of west if the freight differential in favour of the west did not exceed 3 to 5 cents a bushel?
2.	On what basis are freight charges deducted from the 80 cent guaranteed price in the case of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively?
3.	Does the farmer in Alberta have deducted from his returns the freight to Vancouver even though his wheat is shipped to Fort William, and, if so, how much per bushel does he gain thereby?
4.	Is the same policy applied in regard to
deducting only freight charges to Fort Churchill even though the grain is shipped from Saskatchewan to Fort William?	_
5.	Is any wheat stored in the Churchill elevator at present, and, if so, was this wheat shipped from Saskatchewan, and on what basis was deduction for freight made in the case of such wheat?
6.	Can the wheat stored in Churchill be sold for a greater or lesser price than the grain in store at Vancouver or Fort William?
COST OF CANADIAN EXHIBIT AT NEW YORK world's FAIR


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	What is the total cost to the government of the Canada exhibit at the New York world fair?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who will be in attendance at this exhibit?
3.	What percentage of Canadian materials and labour were used in construction of this exhibit?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. McIVOR



EXTENDED SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE-SPEAKER'S ST.AFF AND PAGE BOYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I rise to a question of privilege. It is well known that the Speaker's staff and the page boys are working overtime. I suggest that their cheques be increased or that they be allowed to work in relays.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) moved the third reading of Bill No. 142, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932 (as amended) -Mr. Michaud-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Bill further considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday. May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Michaud for the second reading of Bill No. 130, to provide for the constitution of a salt fish board.
Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: In my remarks yesterday when
discussing the principle of this bill I tried to show the trend in the dried fish industry in particular and its effect on my constituency.
I referred to reasons for the decline in the industry in years gone by, and stated 'hat
Salt Fish Board

the effectiveness of competition from the salt cod industry of foreign countries was the major factor in the decline in our market. This was brought about in two ways: first, by subsidies and assistance given by foreign governments to the industry generally, and, second, by government regulation to improve quality and marketability. These factors have been particularly effective since 1920.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), in introducing the bill, referred to the trend since the days of the war or the year I have just mentioned. It was at that time that the vicious circle in which we now find ourselves started, and we are still confined within its bounds. During the period of the war, owing to disturbances in Europe interfering both with the fishing grounds and European fishing operations, there was in Canada a favourable reaction upon our fishing industry. There was increased demand and prices went up. After the war, however, European fish-producing countries reorganized their industry, and since that time they seem constantly to have gained ground to our disadvantage.
The government of Norway voted 83,000,000 as bounties for the three year period beginning in 1920. The sum of $600,000 was spent in securing the Havana market alone. We saw the fish of Norway quoted at extremely low prices in competition with us in markets where we thought we were firmly entrenched. Iceland made serious inroads in the markets of Spain and Italy particularly, offering more or less high grade salt fish at very low prices. Foreign countries not only helped by 'bonuses and Dounties; they also made regulations for inspection, and brought about much improvement in fish curing.
Norway, besides the help I have indicated, continued for a number of years to help by way of regulation and inspection, and was paying a bonus of at least $1 a quintal. France was paying $2 per quintal, and Denmark $1. It is understood that Norway paid $1,000,000 during 1937 in subsidizing this export, and $1,750,000 in 1938.
In 1921, when this trend started, a Canadian trade commissioner predicted that the markets which had been monopolized by Canada for the five preceding years would soon be lost if steps were not taken to help us to compete with foreign countries. Unfortunately that was true, and it was what brought about the conditions which now prevail. In some markets the process of our elimination came about in a secondary way: European producing countries shoved Newfoundland out, and, in turn, Newfoundland came in and interfered with our markets, so that by each of these circumstances we were being caught in the vicious circle which I have described,
rMr Pottier.]
I should like to refer hon. members to one interesting report given annually by Hawes & Company, an English concern of worldwide experience in the industry. They show what has happened as a result of these assistances and subsidies given by foreign countries. For convenience I compare the years 1919 and 1927. Norway, for example, in 1919 produced in fresh cod alone 359 million pounds; by 1927 their production had increased to 808 million pounds. The production of the Faroe islands, which in 1919 amounted to 99 million pounds, increased by 1927 to 103 million pounds. Iceland produced 168 million pounds in 1919 and 362 million pounds in 1927. Germany's production of 28 million pounds in 1919 had risen by 1927 to 110 million pounds. In France the increase was from 73 million pounds to 124 million pounds over the same period; in England the increase was from 173 million pounds to 328 million pounds. And this trend has continued. I give the figures for those two years because, so to speak, they split the period half way, indicating what the trend has been and how it has continued. In the same period our production dropped from 260 million pounds to 197 million pounds, and by 1932 had dropped further to 142 million pounds. So that where the other countries gained, we lost. This condition is a result of intensive assistance by way of bounties, subsidies and market regulations put into effect by countries.
Unfortunately in the salt fish industry there are no new markets. There are certain people throughout the world who eat salt fish, and there is no change in the consuming market in that respect. The only fluctuations in the salt fish trade are brought about by changes in the purchasing power of the people who are accustomed to eat and apparently need salt fish particularly in the warmer countries. Taking the world as a whole, there are no new countries to which we can look for markets in the immediate future, no other consuming classes who are likely to start eating salt fish. The only way we can hope to increase the income to our fishermen from this industry is to find our way back into the markets which we formerly had and which we lost through assistance given by foreign governments to their industry and to our disadvantage. We must take some steps to try to get back what we have lost, or even to hold what we have at the present time. This bill which is now before the house is designed for that purpose. I think it will be as effective as anything the government could bring in to assist this industry.
I did not mention that this bill covers all salt fish, including boneless herring, mack-

Salt Fish Board
erel, pollock and hake. These are not small items. For instance, in boneless cod the value was $175,000; pickled codfish, about $300,000; pickled and salted herring, $400,000; mackerel, $400,000; pollock and hake, about $40,000. All these will be affected by this bill, in addition to the dried codfish to which I have been referring up to the present. I have not mentioned these other types of fish that will be affected by this measure because I believe the dried codfish industry has been a backlog, so to speak, of the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. With the trend going down, as I indicated, we suffered severely; and we must try to reverse that trend, which will be to the benefit of the people generally.
It seems to me there are limits to the benefits that can be derived' by fishermen generally from the fresh fish trade, and in our lobster industry difficulties are constantly arising. Under present conditions in the fresh fish trade you must have two things; the fisherman must be comparatively near the fishing grounds, particularly the shore fisherman, and he must live in a district reasonably near his market. Fresh fish must be transported quickly; otherwise it will spoil on its way to the market. In the salt fish trade, however, the situation is entirely different. The fisherman brings his fish ashore and salts them, and then he can keep them indefinitely, for a week, a month, or longer. That enables the fisherman in the outlying districts to cany on where it would be impossible for him to do so if he were engaged in the fresh fish trade.
I should have stated that Newfoundland found itself in exactly the same position at a somewhat earlier period. Away back in 1936 they established a fisheries board which at present is practically a marketing board. It assists the fishermen financially, more or less controls exports and tries in every way to improve the marketing of the product. I think, therefore, the time has definitely come when we must take some such action as is proposed in this measure. There are two sets of individuals who will be affected by this legislation, the shore fishermen and the schooner fishermen. I hope this bill will benefit both classes, and that the shore fishermen particularly will be encouraged to carry on. The man in the outlying district who is too far from the market to engage in the fresh fish trade can and will produce salt fish if he can sell it at prices that will bring him a reasonable return.
I realize that there may be difficulties in the selection of a board. This is not a pleasant thing for me to mention, but I think it my duty to give my views on the subject. I do not desire to embarrass the government, but I must urge upon the minister that no person should be appointed to the board who is directly or indirectly interested in the export of fish. It can easily be seen how difficult and impossible it would be for an exporter of salt fish to sit on a board that is passing out government money to assist in the export of that fish. I do not care how fair a man might try to be; human nature has too many frailties to be put to a test of that kind. I want to see on the board men who are particularly sympathetic to the fishermen. The quality of human understanding possessed by the members of the board, together with their executive ability, will largely determine the success of the measure now under consideration. I hope the price to the fisherman will be increased to a point where it will be sufficient to enable him to carry on, and I trust the board will have that in mind in mapping out a definite policy.
We have in this measure a definite plan. How many years have we heard people say, "Oh. something has to be done about the fishing industry." But inevitably when you ask what should be done the answer was "I don't know." In 1935 the then leader of the government said at Bridgewater: "I confess I do not know what is the remedy." From across the floor of the house we have heard, "Something has to be done," but never have we had a definite plan suggested. In this measure we have a definite indication of what the government proposes to do. As I have said previously, the time has come when the fishing industry must be looked at specifically with a view to making definite decisions in regard to it. The step now being taken is definite and specific and looks towards the development of our fisheries. I believe we have become seized with the extent and possibilities of our fisheries resources and that we are now showing an intention of dealing with them in the same manner as we deal with the other primary products of this country. I realize, as I think every reasonable Canadian must realize, that there are limits beyond which we cannot go. The government must not be wasteful, and new fields must be broken cautiously. I intend to stress before my constituents the benefits derived under this bill, to argue that it is fair and reasonable and that they should take advantage of it. I see it as a new experience, holding forth great hope and containing great possibilities. I am convinced that the fishermen generally will see the merits of the legislation and will do their share to bring about greater production and increased prosperity.
I want to express to the government, and particularly to the minister, the appreciation of my constituents in respect of this legislation. I think the minister has d"T,e more-and I
Salt Fish Board

say this advisedly because I believe it should be brought to the fore-than any other minister of fisheries we have ever had. He has wrestled with the situation and has striven to bring about a definite policy of economic planning; by which I mean that this is the first legislation brought before the House of Commons in the interests of fishermen that has involved any element of economic planning. The minister has made of the Department of Fisheries a real department. I beg hon. members to approve the bill as an evidence to our fishermen that their difficulties are being considered, and that we are working with frankness and harmony of purpose in extending to them a helping hand.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill entitled "An act to provide for the constitution of a salt fish board," and it has for its primary purpose the improvement of conditions among and the bringing of greater returns to the primary producers. There are other provisions, but, as I see it, the heart of the bill is in paragraph (b) of section 5, which says:
5. The board shall . . .
(b) devise and recommend to the minister a plan, or plans, which may be adopted for the orderly marketing of fish, salt or to be salted, with a view to improving conditions and bringing greater returns to the primary produce and the exporter.
I believe the word "produce" is incorrect; it should have an "r" added, making the word "producer."
The bill contains also power to investigate and report. In addition there is the item of $800,000 in the supplementary estimates to provide for assisting the salt fish branch of the fishing industry. I believe that this item in the estimates, and the appointment of the salt fish board are two vital factors which will tend to improve conditions in the industry.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), for whom I have the highest regard, and on whose opinions I place great value, has criticized the appointment of a board. He has said that it simply looks like the appointment of another board and further expenditure by the country which could not be justified. I have heard expressions of opinion from people in Nova Scotia and elsewhere to the effect that with its own staff the Department of Fisheries could carry out the work for which the board would be appointed. I should like to point out, however, that for a long time we have had ministers of fisheries at the head of the Department of Fisheries, and yet successive governments have failed to deal effectively with the matter. Moreover, at its last session the legislature of Nova
*Mr. Pottier.]
Scotia passed a resolution asking for the appointment of a resident deputy minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia, indicating that in that province there is a feeling that local knowledge should be brought to bear on fisheries matters, and that there should be more attention paid to the fisheries in that part of the country.
I am informed that there is a provincial fish board in British Columbia, and I have no doubt that that board, appointed by the British Columbia legislature, would cooperate with the dominion government as it sees fit in the interests of British Columbia fisheries.
There is this to be said about a board: It seems to be part of the necessary equipment of a democracy. It is always well in bringing forward something new for the benefit of an industry to call in technical experts who are interested in the industry. While at the present time in Canada the appointment of boards is criticized, I would point out that we are not overloaded with them in the maritime provinces. The appointment of a board would be an added advantage to the maritimes in presenting their claims to the government and in persistently and intelligently pressing those claims, as is done in western Canada.
I do not think the members of the board should be highly paid. I believe there are men in Nova Scotia who, for the sake of seiving the public and the industry, would readily serve on a board of this kind. These are men who have been successful in the industry, who would not depend for their daily bread wholly upon any fee they might receive for their services, and who do not demand a high standard of living. I do not think we need any $5,000 a year man, or anything of the kind, on the board. Such service should be considered an honour, and I am confident that the men chosen would gladly cooperate with the department and the government in the interest of the fisheries of the province.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) has suggested that no one either directly or indirectly connected with the export of fish should be on the board. Well, as I read the bill, if we eliminate those who are interested in or who have been connected with the export and production of fish we should have no one left but members of the learned professions, without practical experience. So far as possible I believe we should confine the appointments to men in the fishing industry.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I know the hon. member does not wish to be unfair, but I believe I made special reference to persons financially

Salt Fish Board
interested in the industry. I do not think they should be on the board. But I was not including retired exporters or persons who are not exporting at the present time, and who are thoroughly familiar with the industry.


John James Kinley: Both the fishermen and the exporters are financially interested in the fishing industry. In the county I represent we believe that there should be real cooperation between capital and labour, and that it should not be a class movement. Every person connected with the fishing industry has a financial interest in it. I contend that in order to have the benefit of expert knowledge and the best advice available, we must get it from people who know the business. In choosing the board the minister should maintain a proper balance between primary producers and exporters, and should select men who will work together and produce the best results for the fishing industry of the Atlantic coast.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned the Halifax award, which by legislation now provides the bounty paid to the fishermen. In his customary persistent and eloquent fashion he put forward an argument in the interests of the British Columbia fishermen. I shall not discuss that angle of the question at the present time, because it is not at issue. I would refer the hon. member, however, to the Maclean report, which goes so far as to say that there is no question as to the intent, and that the law should be amended to make it clear that the application of the bounty should be exclusively to fishermen on the Atlantic coast. The salmon fishing industry constitutes the major portion of fishing on the Pacific coast, and the regulations particularly show that salmon fishermen are not included among those who should receive the benefits on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. NEILL:: The regulations, but not the act.


John James Kinley: I agree with the hon. member that the act should be amended so that the meaning would be clear.
This bill is of great importance to my constituency. In 1937 there were 203,000 quintals of dried salt fish produced in Nova Scotia. Of that amount 104,150 quintals were produced in Lunenburg, where I live. For over fifty years Lunenburg has been the commercial centre of the deep sea salt fish industry of Canada. The achievements in that regard have contributed to making this county one of the most stable in the country, and this has had its effect on provincial and national
life.	.
The bill provides that assistance may be given not to exceed twenty-five per cent of the value
of the fish at the point and time of export shall be provided from the item in the supplementary estimates. This morning I received a telegram from my riding stating that the price is likely to be $4.50 for large fish, $2.50 for haddock and $2 for hake. This is the price paid to the primary producer, and when consideration is given to the expenses that must be incurred before the fish is ready for export, it is easy to see that twenty-five per cent will amount to well over $1 per quintal. For the last three years the government of Nova Scotia has paid a bounty on fish. For two years it was SI, and then it was reduced to 75 cents, 50 cents going to the fisherman and 25 cents to the vessel owner. This year it is expected the federal government will provide stimulation for the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast.
In 1937 the production of salted fish in Lunenburg was increased by about twenty-five per cent, partly due to the bounty which was paid. Without that bounty the fishermen could not have operated at a profit. This cost the provincial government perhaps $80,000, but it brought into this country over $300,000 of new wealth. When you can create over $300,000 of new wealth with an expenditure of $80,000, it is not only good for the fishermen, it is good for the country. We have a tariff structure to assist and stimulate our manufacturing industry. We must consider that the primary producer is the customer who buys the articles manufactured in this country. Unless the primary producer has money he cannot buy. I think it can well be seen how this stimulation of a primary industry is justified. The manufacturing sections of this country are the sections that have prospered. There is a greater per capita wealth in those districts, and the people have more purchasing power. They have greater earning power than the people engaged in our primary industry on the coast. I am sure if we follow the example of what has been done for the manufacturing industry, we shall bring about greater prosperity in this primary industry and we shall have what might be called a balanced.economy.
Reference has been made to the fresh fish industry being included in this bill. This is a matter that will probably be considered in committee. It is something about which even our fishermen are not quite sure, and I do not think we can be dogmatic in deciding a question of this kind. This bill is the first step forward, and I think we should go carefully. I am supporting the principle of the bill because its intention is to raise the standard of living of our primary producers in the province of Nova Scotia. I consider

Salt Fish Board

section 5, paragraph (b) to be the heart of the bill. This board to be created will no doubt have to fix the price of the product. I might say that the price of salted fish is usually arrived at definitely in the province of Nova Scotia three times a year. The first occasion is the frozen bait trip. This price has already been paid and everybody knows what it is. Then there is the spring trip, the prices for which have not yet been arrived at because these fish are not landed or ready for market. Then there will be the summer trip. When prices are agreed upon, everyone knows what they are. I believe the intention of this bill is to set prices for each of these seasonal productions. In that way the primary producer, the fisherman, will be guaranteed an amount from the money voted by this parliament.
The bill has been framed so that the primary producer will get his share of the money used to stimulate this industry. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni expressed the thought that perhaps it would all go to the exporter, but let me say to him that so far as I am concerned, representing as I do the banner fishing constituency of the Dominion of Canada-[DOT]


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Question 1


John James Kinley: *-I shall use every effort
to see to it that the fishermen of Nova Scotia receive first consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member gave the
production for 1937 as 203,000 quintals, and indicated that the price was likely to be $4 per quintal. Twenty-five per cent of that would be SI, and with a production of 203,000 quintals this would come to about $200,000. What is to become of the remainder of this $800,000 we are asked to vote?


John James Kinley: I gave the figures for Nova Scotia, but I would remind my hon. friend that there are also fisheries in Prince Edward Island, on the Gaspe coast and in New Brunswick, which will increase the total production that would come under this legislation.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, there are two criticisms I have to make of this bill. It is not my intention to deal with them at any great length, but let me say that it is not to be wondered at if we from British Columbia should offer a protest, mild though it be, to the putting into effect of a bill designed to help the fishermen of the maritimes alone. I say this because British Columbia produces at least fifty per cent of the total catch of all fish in Canada.
It produces more by nearly $3,000,000 than the
[Mr. KioW.J
two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined, the figures for 1937-38 being: British Columbia, $16,150,439; New Brunswick, $4,449,688, and Nova Scotia, $9,229,834.
My own view, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill makes a new departure in singling out the maritime provinces for special treatment. The bill is designed especially for the two maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We realize that the fishermen on that coast do require help; but so also do the fishermen of British Columbia. While every effort will be made as a result of this bill to increase the export of dried salt fish, I think a greater effort should be made to increase the consumption of fresh fish in Canada. I think that should come first. True, the department is spending something like $200,000 a year in advertising fish, but will the mere advertising of fish in magazines and newspapers result in a greater consumption of fish in the eastern central, and prairie provinces if the fish, when they reach the consumer, are not in first class condition. I hear many complaints around Ottawa, even from members of parliament, about the quality of the fish they purchase in this city. They like fish, but they are off fish after eating it in Ottawa and in many eastern cities. Fish has to be very fresh, and with the new methods of freezing and rapid transportation there is no reason why there should not be an increased consumption of fresh fish in Canada. I believe greater efforts should be made along that line. It might interest members to know that Canada consumes per head only from 20 to 22 pounds of fish, as compared with 40 pounds in Great Britain, 70 pounds in Norway, 92 pounds in Japan, and 25 pounds in Germany. We have in the maritime provinces and in British Columbia great fisheries. Yet all governmental efforts are concentrated on inducing people abroad to eat our fish, quite overlooking the great market we have at home. As I say, I believe a further effort should be made to increase the consumption of fish in Canada.
This bill does not affect and will not help the fishermen of British Columbia, although we have an export trade in salted fish to the old country and to other countries as well. True, we had a fish board in British Columbia, but it was controlled mostly by Japanese interests, because most of the salted fish exported from British Columbia and controlled by that board went to the orient, either to Japan or to China. But there is a considerable market in Great Britain for our finer varieties of salmon caught by trailers.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Not salted.

Salt Fish Board


Thomas Reid: Yes, there is a market in Great Britain and Germany for salted salmon. I myself have been in plants where they were putting up about 250 pounds of salted salmon to the barrel. It was salmon that had been caught by trollers and was going to the old country. Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Prince Rupert puts up a considerable quantity of that class of salted salmon. This bill, of course, will not help them in any way.
I do not believe it is a sound principle to single out the maritimes and give to them entirely preferential treatment. This bill is not comparable to the wheat bill. All the wheat growing provinces by that bill were assisted by subsidy. It is true the prairies are predominantly wheat growing provinces. But although we have two sea coasts, and the Pacific is predominant in fisheries, this bill does nothing to help our fishermen, and it is therefore, as I say, not to be wondered at that we from British Columbia view with some misgiving a bill designed to help only one section of the country.
As nothing is being done along the same line for the fishermen of British Columbia, I deemed it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to rise and voice some criticism as. to the partiality shown in the bill.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry in Canada must be in a bad way, judging from the addresses which have been made in the house during the present session. I am glad that the people in the maritimes are veering around to the policy and principles of protection, the old national policy, for the protection of this basic industry w'hich has suffered so much, and that at last a form of needed bonuses, subventions and subsidies is to be set up.
I am sorry to see that the bill proposes to create another board to assist in the preparation and marketing of fish. It was contended, when the old Department of Marine and Fisheries, which had existed since 1867, was divided and a separate minister appointed in charge of fisheries, that the change would put the fishing industry, which had been suffering for years, on a sound basis. This will be the second board appointed by the federal government to deal with fish. The late government appointed a board under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to assist, those engaged in the fishing industry. Now we are to have another board, a board with power to appoint advisory committees of all kinds, to make rules and regulations, and to have a duplicate staff, which will no doubt be independent of the department. Then you will have two rival bodies having authority to deal with fisheries, the minister and his 71482-2SS1
staff, and the two boards and their staffs, with all the consequent useless duplication.
I am glad to see maritime members supporting at last the principle of bonuses, subventions and subsidies for this industry, which I have advocated since 1922, just as they did, after a long fight, for coal, steel and iron. The principle is also applied to grain. I believe that the proper solution for our problems in the basic industries in all the provinces is to be found in the application of the principles of the old national policy, of which the party on this side of the house and its predecessors were' the founders and authors and pioneers.
I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, how another agency, the board to be set up under this bill, will help to solve the problem. We have the national railways, and we have boats under the marine department, and there is no reason why a long range plan could not be worked out so that our transportation facilities would be utilized far more than they have been for the quick transportation of fish, inland and for export. We have an exhibition of fish at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto, but the market for dried, salted and pickled fish has never been what it should have been, or what it was hoped it would be.
The bill overlooks one of the main reasons for the depression in this industry, and that is the inroads that machinery has made in this industry in the past ten or fifteen years. No board can change that condition; it is here to stay, and some of the evils which flow from the elimination of man power in this industry could be taken care of without a board at all. I fail to see why the country should be loaded with another board which will be a further burden on the taxpayer, adding to our over-government and overtaxation. This industry has not benefited very much from the boards which have already been set up, except that of the last government. In my opinion it is 'better for the minister of the crown to take responsibility for the proper preparation of the fish for market and for finding markets for it and giving aid to those in distress. There is also the Department of Trade and Commerce, which could help coordinate in marketing and preparation. Why all this duplication and overgovernment in this industry? Every good citizen in Canada wants to see proper support given to the fishing industry. I know that the people in the maritimes are suffering from conditions in the fishing industry, and there is a very warm feeling in Ontario for them. I have seen the conditions myself. But a board is not the cure for the disease. A minister of the crown has been specially appointed to
Salt Fish Board

look after the fisheries of this country, the responsibility should be left to him, and he should have a free hand to act and get results.
The people of the maritimes have been to blame, in part; for they have consistently supported free trade. Many of the big industries of the maritimes, coal, fish, steel and iron, have moved their head offices to Montreal and until recently the banks as well; and the industries have suffered in consequence.
It is a retrograde step for parliament to be appointing all these outside boards with power to make rules and regulations which are given the force of a statute, and boards with power to appoint additional advisory committees of all kinds. An advisory committee may be appointed in every riding to prepare the fish and help in finding a market for it. This bill overlooks something no board or anyone else in Canada can do, and is one of the real reasons for the condition of this industry, namely the fact that in Canada the fisheries are a declining factor consequent upon the fact that a maximum of mechanical development and a minimum of human power are responsible for the present depression in the industry.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question?	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Emmett Finn: I understood that there were several other hon. members who desired to speak on the bill, but whether they intended to reserve their remarks until the committee stage, I do not know.


Walter Edward Foster: Carried.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker. I protest the putting of the motion for second reading while the hon. member is on his feet. There should be ample time at least for a member to rise from his seat.


Walter Edward Foster: I understood the hon.
member to imply that he reserved his remarks until the bill was in committee.


Robert Emmett Finn: I wanted to know whether
there was any further criticism of the bill, or any support, from hon. members on the second reading. I understood that others were going to speak, but whether they were reserving their remarks until the committee stage,
I do not know. What I have to say I am going to say on the second reading.


Walter Edward Foster: There is nothing to prevent any hon. member from speaking, but I 'Mr. Church.]
construed the hon. gentleman's remarks to mean that he would speak when the bill was in committee.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am afraid you misunderstood me, Mr. Speaker; I wish to speak on the second reading. I do hope that any remarks that I have to make will not bring about a change of mind or heart in some hon. gentlemen and that they will go ahead and discuss the bill on the second reading, if that is their intention, instead of waiting until the committee stage.
I do not share the views of the minister, nor do I concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) nor in those of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley). At any rate, I do not go the whole length with them. In my judgment this bill does not proceed from the single mind of anyone responsible for its introduction into this house but is a conglomeration of ideas put together, not in any sequence nor with any very intelligible expression of exactly what it means. One need only have had something to do with the drafting of a bill or its modification after drafting to know what are the essential features that must of necessity stand out prominently if a bill which is to become law is to be enforceable and those who are supposedly to benefit under it shall do so.
The first and most important section of any bill is the interpretation clause, and even if anyone tells me that in this bill the interpretation clause, in so far as it deals with exporters and fishermen, is clear and understandable, except perhaps to the person who is going to benefit by the provisions of the bill, through perhaps a distorted interpretation of those provisions, I say that the fiduciary relationship is not between the fisherman, the man who catches the fish, and the consumer, but between the exporter and the markets of the world, to whatever extent they may be obtainable.
So far as I am personally concerned, I may say at once that the old proverb seems to apply to this bill. I may not be able to quote it correctly, but it is to the effect that while the candle burns any sinner may return. This bill as I understand it will allow somebody to return, and financial assistance is to be given to the very persons who should not receive it. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and to what the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg had to say, and I rather gathered from the remarks of the latter gentleman that everything was rosy, that the price to the fisherman is fixed. If that is so,

Salt Fish Board.
may I ask the hon. gentleman what price is guaranteed to the fishermen? Take his banner constituency of Queens-Lunenburg-and I say this kindly and I hope in a generous spirit-can he tell us what the price is?


John James Kinley: One of the functions of the board is to submit to the minister a plan indicating how the money should be disposed of, and the price will be fixed accordingly, I have no doubt. No price is fixed at the present time. I know that they have paid $4.50 for large fish and other prices down the scale for different kinds. The prices are not yet fixed for the other fish. One of the duties of the board will be to do this in the interest of the fishermen of Nova Scotia.


Robert Emmett Finn: With all due deference to the shrewdness and mental ability of the hon. member, I am bound to say that as I read the 'bill there is nothing within the four comers of it that warrants that statement. There is no authority for either the primary 'board or the local advisory boards to fix the price of fish. If my hon. friend can show me where provision is made for their doing so, I shall be pleased to give him an opportunity to inform the house even if it takes from my time.


John James Kinley: The board is advisory to the government. These are technical expert men who are supposed to be in the field, and they will submit a plan to the government. Then it will be for the government to say whether 'the plan is fair or unfair. It gets back therefore to the representatives of the people.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I desire to say to my hon. friend after that explanation is that the situation is far worse than I thought it was. To a measure supposedly of the importance of this 'bill as introduced there should be some finality, and there is no more finality in any one section of this bill than there is assurance that if we were all to pass out now we should enter the golden gates.


John James Kinley: Well, there is flexibility.


Robert Emmett Finn: There may be flexibility, 'but I say with all the earnestness and seriousness at my command that as to the hook and line fishermen of Nova Scotia, the inshore fishermen, this bill largely deals with individual fishermen, and this goes home to the heart of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg and also the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare-


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I resent the idea that my heart is not with the individual fisherman. I will speak for myself; I do not want the
hon. member for Halifax to represent the people of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. Let him keep to his own constituency.


Robert Emmett Finn: The remark I just made did not contain in one single expression one innuendo or one specific statement which would cause the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare to make the remark he has just made. I am dealing with Bill No. 130.
I do not believe that the wool can be pulled over the eyes of the fishermen in the little province of Nova Scotia-I will keep within my own province, and I will speak in reference to Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare when I believe I have sound reason for making any statement.. When the hon. member for that constituency tells me to keep to Halite county, I say to him that I would not make any such statement or suggestion of that kind to him, and I resent its being made to me.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: The hon. member spoke of the heart of the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare.


Robert Emmett Finn: No, I was not speaking of the heart of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare or of the heart of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg; I was speaking about the heart of the provisions of this bill. This bill does not contain one sentence to assist directly-it may indirectly, by a circuitous route-the hook and line inshore fishermen.


John James Kinley: Does the hon. member suggest that it helps only the deep sea fishermen?


Robert Emmett Finn: Is there anything further?


John James Kinley: That is all; I was just going to say that.


Robert Emmett Finn: I would say that indirectly, perhaps by an elastic manoeuvre on the part of the hon. member or any hon. member of this house-I do not mean to cast any aspersions-this bill is intended to help the primary producer.


John James Kinley: Surely.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend says, "surely"; then make it sure in the bill. As the bill stands to-day there is nothing in it that is sure-as I read it and have interpreted it, and I hope I have done that fairly. For instance, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg spoke of bonuses, of the aid given by the government of Nova Scotia to the deep sea fishermen.


John James Kinley: To all the fishermen.


Robert Emmett Finn: The government of Nova
Scotia found out when it was too late that they were paying this dollar a quintal, to
Salt Fish Board

whom? Not to the primary producer of fish in Nova Scotia, not to the primary producer of fish in the county of Queens-Lunen-burg, but to the vessel owners; so much so that the government of Nova Scotia came to the conclusion-


John James Kinley: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Emmett Finn: If my hon. friend keeps raising points of order and interrupting I shall not have much chance to say what I intend to say; but I am perfectly willing, and hope I am good natured enough, to sit down and let m3' hon. friend make a further statement, which may be a qualification1-


John James Kinley: I wish only to be courteous to my hon. friend, and to keep the record clear. The cheques went directly to the fisherman himself, and he had to endorse the cheque before it was cashed.


Robert Emmett Finn: When my hon. friend makes a statement of that sort in this house, following the rules of evidence, observed in any court he must have personal knowledge. If he is a fisherman within the meaning of this bill, and he received a cheque, then the statement is in order and can be accepted. But if he is speaking of what someone told him, it is not evidence, and as far as I am concerned, while I do not doubt his veracity for one single moment, I think there is a mistake somewhere. The mistake is not in my statement, because the fact remains that the money was claimed by the owners of the vessels, and the men who were fishing on those vessels said they were not entitled to receive it because they were receiving agreed rates; their board was being paid and in some cases some of them had a share in the vessel. The thing I am particularly interested in is in no wise of a selfish character, and I do not think it is so in the case of any hon. gentleman who has spoken or will speak in this house in regard to this matter. But when it comes to paying out of the treasury of Canada through the finance minister, governed by the supplementary estimates, a sum estimated at $800,000 this year, there should be a hard and fast, not a loose, wide open clause, through which you can drive a coach and four before you even begin to get an interpretation as to what it means. Take the constituency represented by myself and my colleague the hon. junior member for Halifax, who is here, who takes an interest in these matters; in the county of Halifax we have practically no fishermen except inshore fishermen unless they go down to Lunenburg and join some vessel.
It has been suggested that under this bill the pathway of the fishermen will be made 
rosy. Perhaps in order to get a full understanding of what may happen we should bear in mind what took place last winter, when the lobster fishermen were in such dire straits that they hardly knew where their next meal was coming from or how to keep themselves warm. What happened? This concerns persons both within and without this house, so that in what I have to say I am not casting any personal aspersions. After all, however, a department and a minister can be judged only according to the record, and we find that the assistance offered these people in their awful plight was this: they were offered snow shovels, picks and axes to go out and dig side drains and shovel snow in the middle of winter, so that they might get their lobster traps in order to carry on what is a fairly lucrative business with the United States and upper Canadian markets open to the lobster fishermen of our province. I say that could not have happened if proper legislation had been upon the statute book. We also find that in order to help the fishermen the provincial government desired to spend something like $177,000 on preliminary work on highways, and that in the middle of winter. Quite properly this government and the Minister of Fisheries took the position that this money could not be used for that purpose, and that unless the provincial government could devise some other method by means of which these men could earn what was required, the money would not be available. I understand, however, that a large portion of that money has been handed over to the province, which did not put up a dollar, and that S75 or $100 has been loaned to individual fishermen. Up to the present, however, I do not believe any hon. member of this house knows who spent that money, how it was spent, and who received it.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when public moneys of Canada are voted by this house in order to help those engaged in a particular industry in time of distress and need, at least hon. members who have the responsibility of voting the money on the recommendation of the government and the responsible minister should have some information as to what has become of the money, who got it, how much has been spent and how much was put up by the provincial government. Up to the present that information has not been made available, and I do not believe it will be.
There is another condition which I. say should not be permitted to continue. To-day we have a department of fisheries without a deputy minister, without the king-pin of the

Salt Fish Board
department in his place in the Hunter building, guiding the destinies of the fishermen of Nova Scotia to the extent that the government can help them through money voted by this house as bonuses, cash grants or whatever they may be called. We have in the department a very capable gentleman, Mr. Cowie, whom I have known for years, but who is to retire very shortly. Since Mr. Found retired on reaching the age limit nothing has been done in the way of a new appointment, and I should like to know from the minister who is responsible for this legislation. As the minister in charge of the department of course'he is ultimately responsible, but I mean who in the department is responsible for the drafting of the legislation, and who asked for it? Yesterday the minister spoke of receiving letters from some person up along the baie de Chaleur who could not get rid of his fresh fish and did not know what to do, and from some other company. But there was nothing of finality, nothing in sequence produced by the minister yesterday to assist hon. members to come to any sound conclusion as to whether we were doing the right thing in the right way at this time.
Yesterday I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), who has devoted many years to the best interests of the people of his province and his constituency, whose heart to them is dearer than Pluto's mine, richer than gold. He placed before us certain claims and made certain suggestions, and he was speaking as an individual not directly interested in this industry. That is a very different thing from hearing from gentlemen whose first principle is to get all they can and give very little in return; who find out in the probate office how much their friend who died was worth and then try to make a little more money so that when their time is up they may beat him out in the matter of worldly wealth.
I am afraid my remarks have been somewhat rambling, but they could not be otherwise. I must confess, and I do so openly, that we have not had sufficient time to ascertain the intention, whether expressed or implied, of those who will have the task of putting this legislation into effect if it becomes law. I do not believe my colleague from Halifax desires, nor do I, to take a narrow view of this matter, or to view it purely from the standpoint of our constituency. But by a circuitous route and by inference we are told, "Oh, the primary producer will be all right, because he will have to sell to the exporter who will get the market." If one looks at the interpretation clause in the bill
he will find that the fisherman is the exporter. Then when we come to the section which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said yesterday he would move to strike out, when in committee, we find that it is the exporter and not the fisherman who gets the twenty-five per cent. I say the exporter is not the fisherman, and I do not believe there is an hon. member in the house who will say for one moment that under the terms of the bill, or under the widest possible interpretation of its provisions an exporter is a fisherman in any sense of the word, although in the spring of the year he may go fishing for a little relaxation. He may bring home a few trout or a salmon to his wife and family. If he does not have good luck and happens to have a few dollars in his pocket, he will buy a couple of fish so that he will not have to come home and say, "Well, I had bad luck."
The situation to-day is serious. It is as serious for the fisherman in Nova Scotia as for the farmer in the Canadian west. Every hon. member in the house sympathizes with them. Not long ago I was told about conditions in Saskatchewan, and a vivid description was given to me of the dust bowl and of conditions which existed after storms had blown themselves out. I was told about the dire distress and need of people who had taken land in order that they might make a living and have happy homes. My heart goes out to them, as it does to the fishermen in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the other provinces interested in fishing. I think every bona fide fisherman, who can be described as such within the finest meaning of the term, should have the same treatment as the fishermen in Nova Scotia and in my own constituency of Halifax.
It is my judgment that when this bill is read clause by clause and discussed in committee hon. members will realize how empty it is, with the exception of the fact that $800,000 is available for a purpose which should be specified, but which is not at all specific, either in the interpretation clause or under the other sections of the bill.
I dislike dealing with a matter which verges on personalities, but I should like to point out that when last winter public opinion was running so high, when petitions bearing 1,400 names came from Nova Scotia asking for assistance for fishermen who, through an act of God, were in a dire plight, they asked for bread and we gave them a stone. I do not know who has asked for this legislation. I heard the minister say yesterday that he had had representations in reference to beam trawlers. Last year I attended a meeting of
Salt Fish Board

the maritime union of fishermen, representative of fishermen from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island had a separate meeting-and at that meeting, within my hearing, and within the hearing of the minister and Mr. Found, who were sitting there, I listened to a resolution asking that licences for beam trawlers be abolished forthwith or within a reasonable time. No explanation was given at that time by the minister, nor was any statement made as to future policies. That resolution, bearing the written word of the fishermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was passed unanimously; and yet no more attention was paid to it than might be paid to a whiff of wind which might blow past the parliament buildings on a cold night. One can come in out of the cold to a place where it is warm. But when a few letters came to the minister from some private interests stating that they want a bonus of twenty-five per cent to find markets to which to ship the fish they buy from the fishermen, some attention is given to it. If twenty-five per cent is to be paid to the exporter, then I say there should be a parallel clause stating what the fisherman is to get who goes to sea and risks his life catching fish. It was astounding to find last winter that a member of the economic council of Nova Scotia, an adviser of the government in matters connected with fishing, was in favour of the trawlers, and was doing his best to keep them going.
It was learned-and I would not mention it here if it were not so-that a certain size of fish was not useful to the National Fish Company in their business. The gentleman in question obtained these fresh fish for little or nothing from the company, salted them down and sold them in the West Indies. But what did the poor fisherman get? He was not allowed even fair competition. He had to go out in his little boat alone, perhaps never to return, while the trawlers went out and brought in fish by the hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is the primary producer, the small fisherman, we desire to help, and each hon. member, if he does not sing his swan song in the meantime, will tell his electors what he did in the struggle on behalf of the primary producers of fish in the maritime provinces. I desire to say here and now that ever since I have been in public life, both in this parliament and in the legislature of Nova Scotia, I have always remembered one who was perhaps my greatest personal and political friend, one to whom I owe allegiance as a member of this government, the late Hon. George H. Murray. There was never an occasion when legislation which TMr. Finn.]
appeared to be in the interests of private individuals was introduced that I did not make it known openly and plainly just exactly what was my position. I tried to make it plain that the person I wanted to help was the man who had sent me there to look after his interests.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has exhausted his time.
^ Mr. FINN: I accept that statement, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take my seat. Perhaps I may have a word or two to say when the bill is in committee. I do not want to transgress the rules by speaking a moment longer, but I want every hon. gentleman in this house to believe me when I say that my only ambition, my only hope, my only desire, my only wish and my only action is to help those who should be helped. I intend to see that every word is deleted from this bill that may tend to help any person who can help himself and who has helped himself before, as will probably be shown by his income tax return.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the indulgence of the few moments I have taken beyond my allotted time of forty minutes.
^ Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be quite brief, but I would not care to have this bill receive second reading without expressing my approval of the measure and at the same time complimenting the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) upon his efforts to assist the fisher, men who were mentioned so often by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn). I am sure I express the feelings of all hon. members when I say that we are glad to see him with us once again after a month's absence due to illness. While he and I may differ as to the merits of this bill and as to whom it will affect, I believe we are both interested in the people which it is the intention of the bill shall be benefited and served. I have in mind particularly the 9,176 individual fishermen of the maritimes who were obliged last year to turn to the government for direct aid. In addition, twenty-eight associations of fishermen in the three maritime provinces received assistance. In my own constituency, there were something like 849 boats and 1,143 individual fishermen-


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not catch that word; was it "votes" or "boats"?


Mr. ISNOR:: I hope each boat will contain a vote for the government which has introduced this measure. There were 849 boats with 1,143 individual fishermen in the constituency which my colleague and I have the

Salt Fish Board
honour to represent, and they were paid $8,735 in bonuses. I am supporting the principle of this bill because I believe it is going to be of direct benefit to the fishermen to whom I have just referred, as well as to other fishermen throughout the whole dominion. It is true that it does not affect the fishermen of British Columbia to the same extent as it does the fishermen of the mari-times-


Alan Webster Neill: No extent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has stated that the production of fish in British Columbia was valued at $16,000,000. If I remember rightly, the value of the salmon production was about $9,000,000, which would leave a balance of $7,000,000. The production of Nova Scotia, to which this bill particularly applies, is over $9,000,000. It will thus be seen that it is of real benefit to the maritimes. I agree with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) when he states that this is a step in the right direction. I hope it will be brought out in committee that the bonus paid by the province of Nova Scotia was of material benefit to the individual fishermen during the years 1937 and 1938. I believe this bill will prove of direct benefit in increasing the export business. Our fishermen should enjoy the increased prices which should follow the assistance given by this bill.
An amount of $S()0,000 is being provided in the estimates for the assistance granted by this bill. With a price of $4 per quintal, it will mean that for every $5 worth of fish, the government will put up $1. The $800,000 to be voted may represent a possible $3,200,000 of extra money which will come into this dominion. I think that is an important factor to consider. This additional money will be returnable to us through the medium of this extra export business. For this reason, and for others which I may refer to when we are dealing with the particular sections in committee, I am in favour of this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in
this measure because of the long association I have had with several counties in Nova Scotia in which fishing is carried on. It seems to me that the principle of this bill is twofold. I agree that it is wise to appoint a board or other agency to study and report upon the best methods of preparing salt fish for the export markets, including the manner of curing and packing and the marking of packages for export, and arrangements for an adequate inspection of salt fish for export.
But these are matters which come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), and these studies might well be carried out under his supervision. With a board or without a board it would be quite possible I think to deal efficiently with these matters by means of an advisory committee, which could make its headquarters in Halifax, Lunenburg or elsewhere. There might be two or three committees for the several localities in Nova Scotia, because the fishing interests of one district are not entirely coincident with the fishing interests of another. That is a matter for careful study, and I would commend the Minister of Fisheries for taking any measures that he deemed advisable in order to effect the purpose he has in view.
But there is another minister who I think should be here to discuss this matter. The investigation of the marketing of salt fish in the export trade and the exploration of all the possibilities of opening up new marketing outlets is not a matter which immediately concerns the Minister of Fisheries. We have a Department of Trade and Commerce which has efficient and well qualified agents in the principal salt fish markets of the West Indies and South America, and they must have gathered clear and definite information with regard to the possibilities of improving our Canadian export markets in the ports under their jurisdiction. These are the men whose reports I should like to hear. The minister representing the Department of Trade and Commerce to which they are attached should also be heard as to the possibility of developing those markets for the salt fish trade. I remember very well, as a boy, when Yarmouth county, in which I was born, now represented by the hon. member for that county (Mr. Pottier) was engaged in every port and cove in building ships, large and small, and when there was an export trade in salt fish not only with the West Indies but with Brazil and even Argentina. But that trade has diminished until the market is almost lost. Whether the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) gave a strictly accurate account of the loss of those markets I do not know. There are some conditions which occurred to me which were not stated by him.
But apart from studies and reports to the minister upon the best methods of preparing salt fish and packing and curing fish, and the adequate inspection of salt fish for export, this bill provides for a bonus to the exporter of salt fish; and it is quite clear that the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) was fairly correct in his summary of that provision. I do not think it is a bonus to
Salt Fish Board

the producer of fish-that is, to the fisherman. I!t may be that if you give a large bonus to the exporter he will be induced out of the kindness of his heart to pay a higher wage to the fisherman or a higher price for the fishery product. That may be, but there is only a moral engagement to that effect, and I have found in business life that merely moral engagements do not carry suffering humanity very far.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Has my hon. friend read the definition of exporter, which clearly includes the producer of fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have read it and reread it, but it certainly was not drafted to give a clear idea of the intention of the draftsman. It says:
"Exporter" means a person or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state.
The whole purpose of this bill, I am thoroughly convinced, is to give a bonus on the export of salt fish.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not necessarily.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Whether that is the purpose or not, I agree with the hon. senior member for Halifax that if there is a definite purpose or intention in the mind of the draftsman it should be made perfectly clear in simple terms, and I am going to deal with it, as I believe it will be construed if it remains in its present form, as a bonus on the export of salt fish.
First we not only need the advice of the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to the possibility of expanding those markets which we have, and which were larger markets in former times, but which have now become restricted, but we should have some information as to our competitors in those markets. Where does the competition in these markets for salt fish come from? Is a bonus on the export of salt fish likely to lead to an extension of those markets in the face of the competition that will undoubtedly be induced? Canada may bonus, -but other countries are just as able to bonus as we are.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The trouble is they are doing it now, which is driving us to it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then we should have, even on the discussion of the principle of this bill, thorough information-that is all I desire -as to the nature of the competition, its extent, and whence it arises; whether a bonus on the export of salt fish will overcome that competition, so as to increase Canadian salt fish markets to a very considerable extent.

As it is now one o'clock I shall simply say that these are matters that must necessarily be discussed when the bill is in committee, and I am stating them now, in order that when the bill is in committee we may have with us the Minister of Trade and Commerce and that those who are able to do so will be in a position to supply clear, definite and extensive information with regard to the present markets and the existing competition, and also with regard to the results which are expected from this bonus which we are proposing to grant out of the treasury of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN:: We are on section 1.


Alan Webster Neill: I move in amendment that we strike out the word- "salt." The idea is to make the act apply to all branches of the industry both salt and fresh. I listened yesterday and to-day to the many reasons put forward by hon. members from the maritimes as to why the bill should pass, and it surprises me that they always stop half way. If we desire to help the fishing industry of the maritimes, why should we take two bites at the cherry? Why not include the less in the greater? Let me suggest a parallel. Suppose there were an island on which the government desired very much to help in the establishment of an industry for the support of the inhabitants, and let us suppose they decided to start a saw mill. Suppose instructions were given, by virtue of the authority under which the mill was to be erected, that only fir should be cut by the mill, notwithstanding that there were spruce, hemlock and other kinds of timber. Somebody might come along and want to have some cedar cut. It might be said, "There is a good deal of cedar and hemlock on the ground and we could get rid of all that at the same time, and the overhead would not be more." But suppose the government replied, "No; youi authority extends to fir and fir alone." What success could anyone expect from an enterprise restricted in its operations to one phase of its possible capacity? Well, does not the fishing industry wish to do as much business as possible?

Salt Fish Board
I cannot see why there should be any objection to including fresh fish in this bill. If I were attempting to curtail the operations of this legislation I could understand an objection being raised, but that is not what I am doing; I want to extend the bill, and I cannot see that there is anything wrong in that. One would almost think that I had suggested something improper in asking that the bill be extended, that it be widened in its scope, with beneficial effects not only on the Pacific but on the Atlantic coast. I said yesterday, and it has not been denied- and it is obvious when we look back over the business of the past six years- that the trend is away from the salt fish industry and in the direction of fresh fish. The increased facilities of transportation, including airplanes and all the rest of it, favour the development of the fresh fish industry, and this is all the more accentuated by the comparatively recent disc'overy of a method of freezing fresh fish which makes it infinitely superior to the old system. Under the old system the freezing process broke down the particles and when the fish was thawed out it had to be used immediately and was not in the same condition as when caught. It was almost mushy. With the quick freezing process, however, the deterioriation is arrested at once-in fact it never sets in-and the fish is absolutely as good as when it was caught. The whole trend of the business indicates that we are progressing towards the handling of more and more fresh fish and the establishment of a fresh fish market.
It is as useless for us to try to build up a business when the trend of commerce is against it as it would have been for the old livery stable people to take the view that, whatever one might say about motor cars, they would continue to keep stables. In the long run the livery stable had to go, and the same thing will be true of the salt fish industry. Without depreciating their ability to handle salt fish-I am not doing that one iota-I do ask why this bill should not recognize the indisputable modern trend towards fresh fish. Why should not power be given to the board to deal with fresh fish? That is all I am asking-simply that they be given power to deal with the fresh fish angle as well, and as salt fish disappears or diminishes, we shall be able to control the business and switch over naturally and easily to fresh fish.
The bill declares that the object is to get more money for the industry. Well, suppose that in carrying out their duties the board discover that fish produced in a certain part of the maritimes could be better disposed of in the fresh fish market. Why should it be
wrong for them to have the power so to advise? But if this bill goes through as it is, it will be wrong, improper, ultra vires, for the board to make such a recommendation. Some particular bay or some part of the coast, from its proximity to a certain fresh fish market, might lend itself to the handling of fresh fish, but the board will be forbidden to deal with fresh fish at all under the bill as it stands.
I do not see that any harm would result from extending the scope of the bill so as to make it apply to both salt and fresh fish. They need not go into the fresh fish market if they do not think it necessary, but at any rate they should have the power to make recommendations in regard to fresh fish. It is said that this is one step in the right direction. Why not take two steps while you are at it? I repeat, it would not do any harm, and the machinery would be available, without the government having to come back to the house again, to enable them at any time to take such steps as they thought best with regard to fresh fish.


Mr. STEVENS:: I agree with my hon. friend that if we are erecting a board at all it is desirable to have one that has the power to deal with the fishing problem. Either it is intended to assist the fishermen engaged in the production and disposition of fish, or this bill is for the purpose of assisting those who are merchandising or exporting fish in the external trade.
It will be recalled that yesterday in the discussion one hon. member pointed out that there was a large production of fish and that a portion of the catch was salted and cured and exported in that form. If that is true, then the object of this legislation ought primarily to be to assist the fisherman who finds himself in possession of fish, of which only a part can be marketed fresh, the rest having to be disposed of in some other form. I suggest, therefore, that it is a mistake to start this movement with merely a salt fish board.
Let me refer the committee to the price spreads report, which went into this matter fully four or five years ago. There are one or two excerpts that may be illuminating and helpful. The report suggests the establishment of a board. This board, it says, might be known as the fisheries control board, and then it goes on:
Its most important duty would be to make every possible effort to ensure that the fisherman secure a fair price for his fish and not, as at present, the pittance that is left over from the consumers' dollar after all other branches of the industry have received their share.
That is the very essence of this problem- that the fisherman, the producer, may receive
Salt Fish Board

a better price for his fish. Nearly all the other factors that enter in, the processing, handling, marketing of fish, are conducted by business concerns. In the maritimes I understand that three large concerns do most of that business, and they are well able to look after themselves. Of course there are a large number in connection with salt fish. I take it that hon. members who are supporting this bill will assert that their object is to help the fisherman. If that is so, then the place to help the fisherman is back at the source or root of the matter, namely, where the fish are caught.
Then the report goes on to suggest certain other measures: the elimination of misrepresentation of varieties and grades, the establishment of higher standards of quality, adequate inspection of grades, the elimination of consignment shipments and of cut-throat competition, and the direction of surplus production of fish through channels calculated to bring the most profitable financial returns. There we have a tremendously important matter.
Those of us who have studied the question of marketing know that there is a large market in Canada to-day not properly and adequately supplied with fresh fish. There is room for expansion and extension of Canadian consumption of fish. The minister pointed out yesterday that one of the difficulties was the diminution in the demand for salt fish on the export market, that certain markets had been closed for one reason or another, that we had lost markets here and there. But the essence of the problem is in the handling of the fish from the moment it is caught. I suggest that the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to strike out the word "salt," followed of course in subsequent clauses by consequential adjustments, would be advisable-that is, that the board shall be a fish board, to deal with the fish problem, with the marketing not only of salt fish but the marketing of fresh fish, because there is a lot of work that can be done there.
Let me add one observation; because I did not have an opportunity to speak on second reading-I was in the banking and commerce committee in another place. I am not criticizing the government for its effort to assist the maritime province fisheries and for leaving out British Columbia, because I believe that a certain proportion of the fishing population of the maritime provinces is perhaps in the most dire need of any class of people in Canada. I am not, therefore, begrudging any

assistance which can be given them, but that assistance I want to see reach the hands of the producer.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I submit that this amendment is hardly in order. The purpose of the bill as shown by the sections and the explanatory notes is to assist the dried salt and pickled fish branches of the fishing industry. The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. All the arguments of my hon. friend would have been in order when the principle of the bill was being discussed on second reading, but the principle has been accepted by the house, and the bill is now before the committee. The amendment would extend the scope of the bill. That is the first objection. The second is that the adoption of the amendment would mean an additional charge on the public treasury, therefore the proposal of the hon. member cannot be moved as an amendment to the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not necessarily.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes,
because sections 6 and 7 provide for assistance to exporters and for making advances from moneys appropriated by parliament, and the advances if made on all sorts of fish would certainly be greater than when restricted to salt and dried fish.


Thomas Reid: I think the minister is going a little out of his way on that point, because in the estimates there is a vote of $800,000 for the fishing industry. Even if the amendment were adopted it would not increase the expenditure beyond the amount allotted in the estimates. So it cannot be said that the amendment would increase the charge on the public treasury.


Mr. HEAPS:: Even if the $800,000 in the estimates is for a specific purpose, it is within the discretion of the house to say how the money shall be spent.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, yes; the amount is put into the estimates by the government, and when the money is spent there will be no more for the department to spend. But we have a right to say whether it is to be spent on salt fish or fresh fish or any other kind. I think the minister's point is not well taken.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The amount provided in the estimate is to help the salt fish industry. If we change the purpose of the bill and include assistance to fresh fish, we should have to vote an additional amount of money

Salt Fish Board
to take care of that, or change the wording of the vote in the supplementary estimates. In either way we should be imposing on the crown a further expenditure which has not been provided for.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose you spent $600,000 on salt fish and $200,000 on fresh fish, would not that be perfectly all right?


Ernest Lapointe: It is a question of discretion.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If the money was voted by the house to do it.


John James Kinley: So far as the point of
order is concerned, the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill and to which the governor general assented distinctly said salt fish.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For the year ended March 31, 1938, the total exports of fish, salted, dried, smoked or pickled, all of which I think would come within the purview of this bill, amounted to 977,329 quintals of 100 pounds each, valued for export at $3,961,164. So that twenty-five per cent of that sum would be even more than the $800,000 which has been appropriated by parliament in the estimates for this purpose.


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Justice said that this was an amendment that should have been moved on second reading, as it affected the principle of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I
said the arguments set forth should have been made on the second reading, as they deal with the principle of the bill. But when the principle has been adopted by the house we are discussing in committee the bill as it is.


Alan Webster Neill: I did put in a reservation on the second reading; I made an objection and gave notice that I intended to move the amendment in committee. So that the passage of the bill on second reading was accepted subject to that notice.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is tc strike out the word "salt" in section 1. I read from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 223, paragraph 781:
An amendment must be relevant both to the subject matter of the bill and the clause to which it relates.
Then, further down:
... It must not be beyond the scope of the bill; it must not be governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.
I agree with the Minister of Justice; in my opinion the amendment is out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to offer the minister a suggestion. Yesterday when the bill was under discussion the meaning of the word "exporter" was questioned, and the house was assured that under the interpretation section "exporter" meant the person owning the fish. I shall read the definition as it appears in the bill and then offer the minister a suggestion which I think will clarify the meaning. The definition is:
In this act and in any regulation made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(d) "exporter" means a person or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state, whether dried, boneless, pickle cured or otherwise processed-
In the first place it is rather loose language, particularly the words "owning fish which is afterwards exported." The fisherman probably will part with his fish to a buyer, not knowing at all whether the fish are to be exported or sold in the domestic market. Then these fish are accumulated in warehouses; they lose their identity, and some go to the export market while others go to the local market, as conditions may dictate. Obviously it is impracticable for any board to follow that fish, unless the change we suggested a moment ago were adopted. That would make it allinclusive, and would deal with the original producer. But we are not doing that; we are dealing with the exporter, and the benefits of the bill cannot accrue until the fish are billed for export. Then the benefits accrue, but to whom? To the owner of the fish? Obviously you cannot follow the odd quintal of fish back to the original owner; it cannot and will not be done. In my opinion, and I am going to be very frank about this, the intention of the bill is to benefit the exporter, and no doubt it is hoped that the benefit to the exporter will be reflected back to the primary producer. Knowing business practices as I do, however, I venture to say that a very small modicum of this benefit or bonus will find its way back to the fishermen. I suggest that the definition be changed to read:
"Exporter" means a person or cooperative group of fishermen offering fish for export in a salted state-
And so on. In other words, after the fish are cured by the fisherman he offers them for export. Then the 'board takes the fish or directs the securing of them or controls them, and follows the fish through to the point of export. In that way you would segregate what was to be exported from what was to go on the local market, and you would have an opportunity of passing on a portion of the subsidy to the producer of that salt fish
Sail Fish Board

There is one other point. Where you have large exporting firms, at Halifax or other central points of shipment, it will be very easy to deal with the exporter of fish. But when you move along the coast of Nova Scotia towards the strait of Canso, in the area where the greatest suffering obtains among fishermen, the situation changes. There would be very small individual quantities of these fish made ready for shipment, unless you could get the fishermen working together in cooperative societies, which I agree would be a very desirable thing. In that case you might be able to follow the fish through, but as I understand it-and if I am wrong I am open to correction-the individual production is gathered up by coastwise boats and local concerns and moved to the export centre. I see nothing in this bill that enables this board to follow the fish back to the source of production. Therefore I am arguing very earnestly that what most of us have at heart, namely assistance to the producer of fish, will not be brought about by this bill. I offer this suggestion to the minister; I am not moving an amendment, but I suggest it as a possible improvement to this section.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion, but I believe the suspicion that has arisen in his mind is due to the fact that he is not fully acquainted with the conditions that prevail on the Atlantic coast or with the different methods of operation in connection with the production of salt fish. One must bear in mind that the purpose of this legislation is to assist those who process salt fish for export.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But not the fishermen.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In some instances the fisherman will be the processor and the exporter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Admittedly that is a small proportion.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. In some localities, as I say, the same person is the fisherman, the manufacturer or processor, and the exporter. In many other sections the fisherman does only a very small part of the processing and then turns over his fish to firms using the services of another class of people called the makers, whose job it is to dry the fish after it has 'been wet salted. There is also a third class of people interested in the salt fish business; that is, the final driers, and then the exporters put the finishing touches to the fish to prepare it for export.
My hon. friend said he had a suspicion that this measure had been framed for the purpose
[Mr. Stevens'
of giving help to the corporations, the big fellows, the well-known class of people called the exporters. I must tell him that the measure was framed with a desire to get away from that very thing. Had it been the desire of the framers of the act to help the corporations, we should not have gone to the trouble of trying to give an enlarged definition of the word "exporter." We would have simply allowed the word to carry its usually, accepted meaning. We went to considerable trouble to find a definition which would enable the board to give assistance to those who are spread along the coast, who catch their own fish, who put it through the first degree of processing, and who afterwards turn it over to others. We want the board to be in a position to give assistance to all three classes of people, if necessary. We do not want any one class to be overlooked.
To show that the meaning of the term is well understood by exporters I shall read to the committee a telegram I received the day after the bill was introduced in the house and reproduced in the Halifax newspapers. The bill was introduced on May 9, and on May 10 the following telegram was addressed from Halifax to the acting deputy minister of fisheries at Ottawa.
Board of trade telegram yesterday based newspaper report.
That sentence has no reference to this particular matter. Then the telegram continues:
Have just seen bill. Definition exporter ambiguous as under definition smallest fisherman becomes exporter if he owns even one pound fish which later is sold to dealer and exported. Actually salt fish exporters are corporation, individuals, etc., who conduct or intend to conduct more or less regular business of shipping salt fish abroad. Bill mentions board consulting committee on marketing. In addition committee clauses changed as formerly suggested word marketing should be deleted substituting consulting on any matter pertaining to work of board.
This telegram is signed by Fletcher S. Smith, president of the salt fish board of the Halifax board of trade. The telegram shows ' clearly that the professional exporters saw immediately the intention of the department in giving a special definition to the word "exporter'' as it appears in the bill. They protest against the definition which we have given. I undertook the responsibility of replying to that telegram in the following terms, on the same day:
Fletcher S. Smith, Esq.,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Your wire this date received. Do not agree that definition exporter is ambiguous, on the contrary made for purpose of covering small producer. Other suggestions to be taken into

Salt Fish Board
consideration. With regard wire yesterday, suggestions noted but am afraid cannot be entertained. The board is to be one for the benefit of the small producer as well as the dealer and exporter.
And this telegram is signed "J. E. Michaud, Minister of Fisheries." I am willing to admit that the definition of the word "exporter" is not as felicitous as it should be, and I am open for suggestions. I believe hon. members who represent constituencies made up of fishermen classified as salt fish fishermen will agree with me that if it is the intention of 'the measure to extend its benefits to these small people, then they cannot be defined as producers or primary producers. I defy anybody to tell me who would be a primary producer of salt fish. I should like to know when salt fish is produced or when it is finally produced. But I think by using the expression "owning fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state" the board is enabled to give assistance to small men who have been described as hook and line fishermen and inshore fishermen, men who live away out, long distances from communications, and have not the facilities for storing their fresh fish or for keeping them fresh until they can find markets. They must salt or process their fidh to some extent immediately after it is out of the water. We want to get at those men. If such a man puts a small quantity of salt on his fish, and that fish is afterwards exported, he is entitled to the benefits of this measure. The term "owner" has been used to enable the board to reach those men, and to have someone along the line who will handle 'the fish and extend a share of assistance to them. The term is also used to cover professional fish makers who are found along some, though not all, sections of the coast. They are not fishermen, but it is their business to take the wet and salted fish from the actual fishermen, and then to dry it, cure it and grossly pack it. Then they hand it over to another class of people who put the finishing touches on for export. Under the measure we want all three classes to be considered as exporters, because at one time they will own the fish and the board will be in a position to say that certain people are entitled to a percentage of assistance, whether it be twenty-five per cent or less. They may receive such share as may seem right and proper to the board in the circumstances.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The processing of salt fish may have changed considerably since I was a lad in Nova Scotia. But I have been around the coast of Nova Scotia frequently in recent years during the summer holidays and have seen fish being pickled and in pickle, and
fish being salted and dried. I have reason to believe that the methods of processing have not changed very much in recent years in that branch of the fishing industry. What happens, I believe, is that the shore fisherman who brings in his fish may do one of two things. He may sell it at once to a company to be resold as fresh fish, in which case, either in ice or otherwise, the buyer prepares it for 'the market. There are certain processes which use salt and others which use chemicals to preserve it for the fresh fish market. But for the dried or salted fish market it is sold to a firm which packs fish as salted fish in barrels or hogsheads, or other containers in which the fish is finally sold after processing. That man or company is usually a person or firm distinct from the fisherman who actually caught the fish, hauled it into his boat and brought it to shore. In other cases, where fish is not salted when fresh and is not pickled, it is true that fishermen sometimes dry their fish. But a very small portion of the dried fish is dried by the fisherman or his family who caught the fish.
At different points along the coast I have seen considerable quantities of fish 'being prepared for the export as well as the domestic market. The person or firm having charge of the drying and preparing of this fish for export is not usually the fisherman who caught the fish. I am quite familiar with the counties of Queens, Shelburne and Lunenburg, and I know that in the olden days when most of the fish was caught from sailing vessels the fisherman was in a certain sense the owner.


John James Kinley: He is yet.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When the fisherman fished from the vessel on shares, as he did in the olden days, he had an interest in the catch, which continued until the fish was dried. Often the owners of the fish or the managers of the vessel would have the fish dried and then sold for those who were working on that fishing vessel. But as I said this morning, this is not the way fishing has been conducted in more recent years along the coast of Halifax and Guysborough and as far east as the strait of Canso. Now a fisherman goes out in the morning in his boat, brings in his fish and sells it to a purchaser who intends to dispose of it on the fresh fish market; or he processes the fish slightly for the puipose of preserving it from the hot sun. The fisherman does not pack his fish in barrels or containers as salt fish, nor does he dry it for export.
I admit the difficulty which must have confronted the minister in the drafting of this bill, and I agree with the hoc. member for
Salt Fish Board

Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) when he says that when once the shore or boat fisherman lias caught the fish and brought it in, it is impossible to determine afterwards whether or not that particular fish enters the export trade. Under this bill it is impossible for the minister or the board to determine what portion of the fish caught by an individual or a group of individuals enters into the export trade. That difficulty must be met, and it is not met by this definition. If the definition in 2 (d) were that "exporter" means a fisherman or a cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state, then the individual fisherman or group of fishermen would be able to obtain a bounty under this legislation. But it is impossible by any practical business method to decide whether fish caught 'by a fisherman or a group of fishermen is or is not afterwards exported.
I know that a great deal of the fish that is caught and dried along the Digby coast is sold to various purchasers, the National Fish Company, for instance. I have seen fish spread out along that coast over wide areas for drying, and when I inquired who owned it,
I was told that such and such a company was the owner. The fish was being prepared for export in a special manner which would best suit the requirements of the trade. At that stage, when the fish is dried and ready for export, you can easily determine what portion is exported and what portion is sold on the domestic market, because the dealers could be compelled to keep accurate statistics as to whether it was sold in the domestic or in the foreign market. But when fish is caught by a particular fisherman in an open boat along the shore and brought in and sold partly as fresh fish and partly to those who intend to pickle it and partly to those who intend to dry and salt it for export, how you can determine the interest of that fisherman in the exported product is something I cannot conceive at the present time.
I think the minister will have to decide whether or not a bonus should be paid directly to the fisherman on his catch. This might assist very much in encouraging the fishing industry, because the bonus would be paid on the catch whether it were sold as fresh or as salted fish or whether it went into the export or domestic market. That would be the cleanest way of doing it. Once the fish enters into the ownership of a company which finally disposes of it by export, the company can very well show evidence as to the quantities of fish they have exported and with respect to which they will receive the bonus. That may assist the fishing industry.

As I said this morning, and as the hon. member for Kootenay East has emphasized this afternoon, while there might be moral grounds upon which a fisherman could demand some consideration from a firm of exporters because some of his fish was exported, or upon some other ground, there would be no legal ground upon which he could make such a demand. Once the money has gone out of the treasury with the approval of an order in council, with the approval of the board or of the minister, if it is paid to the man who is actually doing the exporting, who is the only man who can affirm that the fish has entered the export trade, I fear very little consideration will be given to the man who caught it, and who may be living miles or several hundreds of miles away from the port from which the export is made.
We are all anxious to assist these fishermen. As a matter of constitutional law, the fisheries are under the jurisdiction of this parliament, while the production of wheat and of many other things is not. If we can give and may give assistance to other producers who are not under the constitutional supervision and legislative control of this parliament, I see no reason why we should not give assistance to the fishermen whose business is under the control of this parliament. But I am loath to vote in favour of a bill that offers such scant advantage to the individual fisherman. I should like the minister to consider how you may determine that a fisherman once owned fish which is afterwards exported. We can easily tell who owns it at the time it is exported, but it is difficult to tell who owned it months before it was exported or even before it was fully prepared for export. I think the minister should reconsider that carefully.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). There are two or three mistakes about the meaning of the bill in the minds of some hon. members. In the first place the bill is not necessarily a bonus-paying bill at all. The bill provides for assistance to fishermen.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A quiet way of paying a bonus so as not to be offensive to competitors.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If my hon. friend will permit me, I will develop my argument. I am not speaking thoughtlessly or idly.
The assistance that is given to exporters of fish varies in different countries. In France I believe a rather large bonus is given to the exporter. In Norway substantial assistance is given to the producers or exporters of salt dried fish. In Newfoundland assistance is

Salt Fish Board
given, and while it is difficult to obtain the details of their plan it is something like this: There is a board, something like this board, I assume, which determines the minimum price which the producers of various grades of salt dried fish are to obtain; then theie are dealers licensed to buy this salt dried fish, and upon their export of the fish the loss to the dealers is made up out of the fund that is placed in the hands of the board. That is not a bonus in the ordinary sense of the term. It is the guarantee of a minimum price for the fish.
The reason for not being as definite as a great many members of the house would like the government to be is that exporters of salt dried fish from Canada are competing in foreign markets with exporters from other countries of this fish which is subsidized in various forms. The forms of subsidy vary from season to season and often from month to month, and if we were to draft and have parliament pass a bill which would say in detail just what assistance to our fishermen would be given by the government through the board, we would probably find that the form or extent of the assistance given by our competitors would be changed next month. That is the situation which necessitates an exceedingly flexible bill. It may be that one form of assistance will be given to one kind of salt fish, and another form of assistance to another kind of salt fish.
The point I want to make clear at the outset is that this is not a bill simply authorizing the payment of so much money per unit of the fish to any person-producer, exporter or dealer.
I cannot improve upon the explanation which my colleague the Minister of Fisheries gave of the scheme of the bill or the reason why "exporter" is defined as it is in the interpretation section. The word "exporter" is defined in such a way that any person and every person, whether fisherman or not, is eligible for assistance under this bill, provided only that the fish in respect of which assistance is given is eventually exported in a salted state from Canada. That is the definition, and believe me there was no hasty drafting of it. It was a definition drawn exactly for the purpose. If the definition, as suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said, "a person, fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen" of course nobody could receive any assistance but the fisherman or the cooperative group of fishermen. But it may be important that the government be authorized to give assistance to somebody who gets the fish afterwards, on the condition or with the undertaking that he pass that on to the fishermen. It
would be impossible to do that for the very reason the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George advanced, the difficulties of identification.
The hon. member says that it would be impossible to trace the fish back. The government of Nova Scotia has been operating for the last two years a scheme which would come within the authority of this measure, and the assistance has been passed back to the fishermen. It has taken some little trouble to see that that was done, but it was done. Perhaps the payment of assistance will have to be somewhat delayed until it is ascertained to which country the fish is going; for I point out another thing: distinctions will have to be drawn in the treatment given fish exported to different countries. The United States, for instance, has a countervailing duty, and fish that goes into that country subsidized by the dominion government would get no benefit because it would be confronted by this countervailing duty. That does not apply to our fish going to Cuba, or Haiti, Brazil, or any of the other tropical countries which are and have been in the past such an important market for salted fish. This means that the board must exercise tremendous care from week to week, from day to day almost, to see that their form of assistance does not come into conflict with the laws of the countries to which the fish is exported. This is one of the reasons for having a board, instead of leaving it to the Department of Fisheries, whose head office is far removed from the place where this product is produced. The board will have to study the situation continuously and adapt their methods of assistance from day to day to the situation that arises, both in the countries of their competitors and in the countries to which the fish is exported.
Fresh fish, I might say, although it does not come under this bill, is exported from Canada almost wholly to the United States, and assistance to fresh fish would therefore be practically meaningless, almost useless. You could not give any assistance without doing yourself more harm than good, because the United States has a countervailing duty which could be applied to fish. But the same considerations do not apply to the export of salted fish. I read this interpellation clause to mean, and I do not think there is any doubt that it does mean, this:"'exporter' means a person .or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported" -by such person, group or anyone else; I read it as meaning nothing else-"in a salted state, whether dried, boneless, pickle cured or otherwise processed." If there is
Salt Fish Board

any doubt in the mind of any member that it has that meaning, I would take the responsibility of moving the insertion of those words, but I myself do not think there is the slightest doubt about it. What else could it mean? It means fish, whether salted or fresh, whether salted slightly or salted a lot, whether in the hands of the fisherman, the maker or the dealer, which is afterwards exported. That fish is eligible for assistance, all the persons who touch it are eligible for assistance, and the board has to see that the assistance is given in a way which will allow it to get back to the producer of the fish.
It is idle to say that the intention of the government is to assist some dealers or exporting corporations. Let us be practical. What government would do that or would want to do it? What advantage would there be to any government in doing it? Of course what the government is trying to do is to get the benefit back to the fishermen, but they will have to do it in a way that will be practicable in view of all the difficulties and the complexities of the situation.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: What I have to say
is largely along the line of the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). I do not think it is pretended that under this bill the individual fisherman will be subsidized for any one pound of fish which he may have caught and which will afterwards be exported. I do not think that would be feasible. In practice it could not be done. Undoubtedly what the government has in mind will raise the price not only of fish that is exported but of all fish, including even fresh fish sold in Canada, and that is as it should be; and if the bill can cover the three classes of people mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries I do not very well see that we can ask the government to go any further.
How will the individual fisherman be benefited indirectly? Let me refer the committee to section 5, paragraph (b). The board shall:
(b) devise and recommend to the minister a plan . . . with a view to . . . bringing greater returns to the primary producer and the exporter.
There is a misprint in that paragraph, by the way; "producer" appears as "produce." That refers to the producer whether he exports fish or not. What objection could there be to the board saying to the exporter, before paying any subsidy, "You must give the fisherman a quarter of a cent or a half a cent more"? That would not come directly under the act, but the whole fishing industry

would benefit, not only the exports but the fish sold in this country, even fresh fish. For any pound of fish exported would make room for a pound of fresh fish to be sold in this country.
With regard to the definition of "exporter," it seems to me there is an anomaly here:
"Exporter" means a person or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported. . . .
This covers the cooperative group but it seems to exclude the lone fisherman. What objection could there be to this phraseology: " 'exporter' means a fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen or any other person owning fish," and so forth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: "A person" is a fisherman.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: It is true that "a person" is a fisherman, but in this context, since you have differentiated between person and cooperative group of fishermen, the definition would be interpreted as shutting out the lone fisherman. Why not say a fisherman or group of fishermen or any other person"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of National Revenue says that "a person" is a fisherman. Quite true. And this person you are dealing with here is a person owning fish which is afterwards exported. Our point is that you cannot determine that the fish caught by a given fisherman has 'been exported. It might be salt-cured and sold in the local market. This is the crux of the matter, because if you turn to subsequent sections you will find that the board is being empowered to give assistance to exporters, to make agreements with them. The interpretation clause is therefore important.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is vital.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. Now let us examine this. Exporter means a person owning fish which is afterwards exported; exporter means also a cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported. These two classes are clearly within the scope of the bill. In other words, all the large exporting firms are taken care of. They are covered. The cooperative societies are covered.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And all persons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What we are getting at is this. We want to ensure that when this bill passes we are not going to be faced, through the interpretation of any section, with impediments to the giving of reasonable assistance to the very class referred to by the minister, namely, the primary producer, the fisherman who catches the fish. It is then green-cured,

Salt Fish Board
as some of us say, then dried, and so on. I am not an expert on fisheries but I do understand something about administering laws, and I apprehend that there will be all sorts of difficulty and that the board will have a great deal of trouble in paying the bonus, or the benefit, or whatever you choose to call it, to this class to which I have referred. That is the difficulty. All I ask is that in this interpretation clause we make it abundantly clear that these people will share in the benefits. There is $800,000 in the estimates to cover this. Knowing something about the export business and the general subject of merchandising, I know that the exporter as a concern, and the cooperative group as a concern, will take by long odds the lion's share. There is no question about their rights; they are clear. There will be no difficulty in paying them. Here is an exporter doing business in Spain. He says, "I am competing with Norway and Sweden and Newfoundland. The conditions are thus and so." The minister visualizes the setting up of a scheme to suit-whom? That exporter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all; I did not say that, either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not saying this in an offensive way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Don't misrepresent me,
then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is a trifle
too touchy. I am trying to clarify this complex matter. He said that in Norway and Sweden they gave certain types of benefits-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And in Newfoundland
another type, and in other places others; and he said it was impossible to frame this bill in such a way as to meet all these contingencies. He said furthermore that one man might export to a market governed by certain conditions, another man might export to another market with other conditions, and there must be flexibility in the bill to meet these variations. Now that is all I say that the minister said.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is all right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me come back to
where I was when the minister jumped off the roost for a moment. Here is an exporter exporting to Spain in competition with Norway and Sweden. That calls for the setting up of a certain type of assistance under the bill. That man is taken care of; the powers with respect to him are clear. Here is a man
exporting to Cuba and meeting the Newfoundland situation. All right; we will fix another form of assistance, and he is taken care of. But the man I am concerned about is the fisherman referred to by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. While I know a little about the technique of this thing; while I have been in the maritime provinces, have a reasonable amount of intelligence and can see for myself, I am thinking about these fishermen up the coast, who are remote from Lunenburg or Halifax, who have been abandoned by the big companies-there are packing plants up there that cost perhaps $100,000 or $150,000, shut down; the only place to which these people can send their fish to-day is the central markets, and that is why they are suffering. This is the class we want to assist. The minister rather taunted me a moment ago, saying that I did not understand the thing. I was not going into the details of how the fish is piled in the sunshine and dried and mild cured; it is not the business of parliament to analyse all that-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not mention the hon. member in the whole of my speech.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me, the hon.
gentleman did; he said I did not know what I was talking about.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not pretending to deal with these details, but I know, and other hon. members know, that it is the class of fishermen remote from the large centres, not in direct contact with the large exporting firms, who are in difficulty to-day more than any others, and it is to ensure that that class receive the benefit that I am arguing this afternoon. I believe this section could be clarified. The word suggested by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud) would probably do it, covering the fisherman or smaller processor. Anyone who is familiar with the administration of these laws knows that the smaller man invariably disposes quickly of his catch or product-wheat, tomatoes, fish-whatever it may be. Why? Because he is living from hand to mouth and has to do it. He disposes of his product to the first person to whom he can sell in order to get a little cash to buy groceries, clothing and other necessities. The identity of the fish is lost. To say that you can set up a board with inspectors and officials who will follow that fish from the fisherman to the mild curer, to the salter and dry processor, and then to the man who trims it for final export, and keep its identity-it cannot be done.
Salt Fish Board

Futhermore a portion will be sold on the domestic market and a portion sold as salt fish.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why not follow back the exported fish?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is equally difficult. I will explain why. Let the experts correct me if I am wrong. This commodity is gathered into central depots for export, because it is exported in large numbers of barrels or boxes or kegs or in whatever form it may be packed. It may lie in the warehouse for some time; being .preserved or cured it does not have to be exported to-morrow. It may be several months before it is sent to market. Ii may be sent on consignment-I am not sure on this point, but I know that used to be done.


John James Kinley: Not much of it now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the returns have to come in, and you would not make up your claim for the benefit to be paid until that export is accomplished. In the meantime the fisherman, who is the one we want to help and whom we now have to search for like the needle in a haystack, sits twiddling his thumbs, waiting to see whether he shares in this or not. Again I say to the minister, out of some experience in this sort of thing, that it is the easiest thing in the world to lose sight of and forget these inarticulate and helpless people. I repeat, that is why I want to see in this bill a mandatory or obligatory instruction to the board that they shall look after that class, the small producer.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am glad to hear my hon. friend state at last that he is in perfect accord with the intent and purpose of this bill; because it is drawn and worded for the purpose of helping the very people he has been describing as remote and neglected and forgotten. The only point upon which we seem to disagree with regard to this definition of exporter is that according to my own interpretation I have always regarded a fisherman as a person. My hon. friend says he is not-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister did not quite catch what I said. I did not say he was not a person. I said that under this definition the "person" is limited to a person owning fish which is afterwards exported. Therefore a fisherman, unless you can identify him with 'the export, does not become "a person" under this bill.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Unless he owns fish he is not a person entitled to the benefit of this bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unless he owns fish which is afterwards exported; that is the qualification.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Exactly. All those who will be entitled to benefit under this bill will be persons who will at one time own fish which is exported. But there is no objection whatever, if it would serve the purpose of clarifying the meaning of this section, to using the word "fisherman," making it read: "'Exporter' means a person, a fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen."


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Put the word "fisherman" first.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It has been repeated
several times that- some fisherman might dispose of his fish, right after it is wet salted out of the water, to people who will finally process and export it. You cannot expect that fisherman to get all the benefit under the act and leave the others without any. In order to cover that class I am willing 'to include the word "fisherman," with groups of fishermen and other persons who may come under the act to be entitled to benefit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That will help somewhat, but another problem follows. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud) approved by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), will improve the bill. But this problem arises and should be considered: the bonus or assistance granted from the public treasury should, according to the statement of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Usley), go primarily to the fisherman. The bill is intended to assist the fisherman.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Pardon me; the fisherman who will devote that part of his catch to export as salt fish.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; it is to the fisherman of the fish that is subsequently exported.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In a salted state.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The whole of the bonus- I persist in calling it a bonus; it is well known to what I refer-is to be distributed among those who actually fish and catch the fish subsequently exported. Now, the exporter acquires the fish, he keeps it in stock for months, as the hon. member for Kootenay East suggests, and then exports it. What is to be the rate of division between the fisherman or group of fishermen who catch the fish and the firm or corporation that actually exports the fish? If the entire amount is to be paid for the benefit of the fisherman or groups of fishermen, then nothing is left for

Salt Fish Board
the exporter, in case he is not a fisherman, but a company or a corporation engaged in the export business. After all, the export business is carried on by firms or companies, even though a firm may be a shareholder in the fishing schooner.


John James Kinley: They usually are.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How are you to divide it? What is the proper share of the exporter?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That will be his lookout. We feel that the exporter can very well look after himself. Our purpose is to see that the exporter, if he is the one who actually receives the money, produces evidence to satisfy the board that he has paid either the fisherman or the fish maker, the secondary processor, a fair and reasonable portion of the final price. If he cannot do that, he will not be entitled to, and will not derive, any benefit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I commend the minister for his good intentions.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It has been done in Nova Scotia for two years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a different situation. The government and legislature of Nova Scotia can control the prices of fish products in that province. This parliament cannot. Therefore the legislative power they have over all property and over all contracts relating to the sale and exchange of property places the provincial government and legislature in a supreme, a paramount position which is not occupied by this parliament, this government or the minister.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I agree with that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For the moment I should be willing to accept the definition, improved as the hon. member for Kent has suggested, which suggestion has been approved by the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have agreed to that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But I shall renew the discussion when we reach section 6, because in voting an appropriation of $800,000 to be distributed under this act, parliament must prescribe definite conditions and regulations under which the bonus shall be apportioned or paid as between the respective contesting applicants for it. The exporter will allow very little to get out of his hands if he once receives the bonus, unless there are explicit terms regulating the action of the board in making payment.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I confess that in reading this section, and especially the definition of the word "exporter," I was not clear as to what the minister had in mind. But since
he has explained that by "exporter" he means to include even a single fisherman, and I understand that the word "person" will include such fisherman, nevertheless, I think we should include the word "fisherman." Since we mention fishermen later, I believe we should mention the single fisherman. I have prepared an amendment which reads as follows:
That clause 2, paragraph (d), be amended by striking out the words "person or cooperative group of fishermen" and substituting therefor the words "fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen or any other person."


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is satisfactory.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not wish to raise undue
objection or to erect barriers to impede the passage of this measure, but in my opinion the whole purpose and intent of the bill, from the first clause to the last, is to help one class of person only, that is, the exporter.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Was the hon. gentleman
here w'hen the committee resumed at three o'clock?


Robert Emmett Finn: No, I was not.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If my hon. friend had
been here he would have heard the explanation I gave as to that, in which I denied that and gave proof to the contrary.


Robert Emmett Finn: It does not matter particularly whether one is in the house to hear information which may be handed down by the minister. We are dealing with a bill, and in section 6 it states specifically, with no explanation-


Frederick George Sanderson: We have not reached
section 6 yet.


Robert Emmett Finn: I know, but a moment ago
my hon. friend was not called to order when he said he would deal with section 6 later.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is an amendment which has not been read to the committee. Shall the amendment carry?


Robert Emmett Finn: Surely I have a right to speak to the amendment.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment is:
That clause 2, paragraph (d), be amended by striking out the words "person or cooperative group of fishermen" and substituting therefor the words "fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen or any other person."


Robert Emmett Finn: Is this an amendment to the interpretation clause?


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Yes, to subsection
(d) of section 2.
Salt Fish Board


Robert Emmett Finn: That subsection states:
"exporter" means a person or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish which is afterwards exported in a salted state, whether dried, boneless, pickle cured or otherwise processed-
It may not be quite within the rules of the house to make a comparison between two sections, but I submit that we should not hew too close to the line. If this interpretation clause, even ar amended, is read in conjunction with section 6 of the bill, it will be seen that the board's hands are tied, that assistance can be given only to the exporter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have yet to consider section 6.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Under the amendment, "exporter" will include a fisherman.


Robert Emmett Finn: I cannot hear every person at once, but I shall be glad to listen to the hon. member for Kent.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: The assistance is to exporters, and in the amendment just proposed we say exporters include a fisherman or a group of fishermen or any other person owning fish which is afterwards exported.


Robert Emmett Finn: There is no need of beating about the bush in connection with this matter. I am dealing more with the situation in Halifax, where to-day we have a concern known as General Sea Foods. It is a United States corporation, with its head office in New York and a branch office in Boston. They have moved everything that is movable out of the Halifax office, and little or nothing is known as to the reason. To be candid, in my judgment, and speaking subject to correction, one of the reasons for this bill is that during the past year, as the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of National Revenue know, when the question of fresh fish and the National Fish Company of Halifax was under discussion, they built four vessels. I am subject to correction by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, who is well versed in these matters, but he knows that for years the fleet which went down to the banks from Lunenburg had to lie idle in that harbour. They were beaten out in one matter, and now they are going to be beaten in a second matter by the National Fish Company, which practically controls the fresh fish business in Canada. Now they are going after the other market, and the person who will be frozen out, who will have to stand the gaff and take the hook, will be the poor fishermen along the coast of Nova Scotia and the county of Halifax. I shall not interfere with other constituencies, but will leave them to hon. members representing them.

The amendment of the hon. member shows a keen desire on his part to assist the real fisherman.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: We all have that in mind.


Robert Emmett Finn: No, I do not think all have it in mind. I do not think the people who drafted this bill had it in mind. And if I know anything about the people who had anything to do with drafting the bill, it never was in their minds, and it will never be in their minds, if they can keep it out.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Just to keep the record clear may I say that only the department and myself bad anything to do with the drafting of the bill. I refused to consult any other interests in the matter.


John James Kinley: The hon. member for Halifax asked me a question.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not ask a question; I made a statement. However I shall be very pleased if the hon. member will take my statement as a question and give me an answer to it.


John James Kinley: The hon. member stated that the National Fish Company of Halifax built four schooners. As a matter of fact they built two schooners last year at Lunenburg, and are now operating them in the fresh fish business. I must add that those schooners were manned by Lunenburg captains and crews. But the National Fish Company is primarily in the fresh fish business, and of course this bill does not appeal to them. In regard to our own fishermen, men who fish out of Lunenburg, I would say that they carry on both salt and fresh fishing.


Robert Emmett Finn: To what extent do they carry on fresh fishing?


John James Kinley: About fifty-fifty, according to the figures I have in front of me. The hope is that by stimulating the salt fish business we will improve the whole structure, and that vessels which have been laid off will be helped by this legislation to improve the conditions in the salt fish business. It is believed that some of the surplus which would otherwise depress the fresh fish business will be taken up, and that a better opportunity will be provided also in the fresh fish business. This legislation commends itself to me in the interests of the fishermen and the industry in my constituency.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am pleased to have this candid explanation, or answer to my question, from the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. But I think his answer proves one thing, and

Salt Fish Board
proves it conclusively, that the fresh fish business has gone into the hands of the National Fish Company, which is a monopoly.


John James Kinley: Too much so, yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: And when we have an hon. member coming from a fishing community who is candid enough to say "yes, that is so," I must ask hon. members if that is cariying out Liberal principles. Are these Liberal doctrines? Are these things we can stand behind and defend, in the face of our promises to keep an open mind and an open market? A little while ago the Minister of National Revenue said the fresh fish industry could, not be assisted because of the countervailing duties in the United States. The minister must know that we are exporting under a quota agreement, and that beyond that we cannot export one pound.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, no.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The quota is not filled, and we can go beyond it by paying a higher duty.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I say to the Minister of National Revenue is that his very statement shows that we have done away with the benefits we are receiving under the reciprocal agreement; because if we have to pay a higher duty to send more fish we are under no obligation to that great and friendly neighbour to the south of us. We are paying the piper through the sale of that extra amount of fish, over and above the quota.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the quota is not half filled.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not say it was. I was making a general assertion that there was a quota. My hon. friend may smile, may make interruptions and may read a newspaper-and any hon. member who can do those three things at once is a Houdini. If he tries to do that at any public meeting during an election campaign I am afraid his majority, or mine, would be like this quota-it would not be quite filled.
As I said this morning, the primary producer is the man who is losing. This afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay East said the same thing. He said tha't the primary producer is like a needle in a haystack; he is going 'to be pretty hard to find. If we are to apportion this twenty-five per cent among the man who gets the fish, the man who partially cures it, the man who does a little more to it, and finally the man who receives the greatest benefit, it will take a larger staff than could be provided by this SSOO.OOO. I cannot for the life of me see why legislation in this house should entirely forget the fisherman, the man who toils, who goes to sea.
who takes his life in his hands and sometimes never returns, and who has to leave his wife and helpless Children. The fisherman is like the man about whom the President of the United States has spoken; he is the man by the side of the monument, the forgotten man.
The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud) suggests that the word "fisherman" should be used, instead of the word "person." All I can say is that if the legal officials in the department, competent as they must be, and familiar as they must be with the needs and necessities of the present day, under present economic conditions, could not draft a bill better than this one is drafted, then I would not have them in my office, even to empty the waste-paper basket. I do not know who they were. It is immaterial to me. I do not know how long they are going to be there, but it is a pity the superannuation act could not take hold of them right away, so that some competent people could be put in their places to bring out clean legislation-and I use the word "clean" in the sense of clear-cut. My learned and hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue, is a keen lawyer, and able in his profession. I do not think he would turn out of his office a piece of legislation like this, or would offer it as a draft for the consideration of 245 members of the House of Commons. I think it is rather legislation that should go to one of these eleemosynary institutions where they sometimes examine heads as well as give pills.


An hon. MEMBER:: And t'ake care of sick people.


Robert Emmett Finn: Some people may be sick and some may be well. Even though one has been sick he may not mind it when he is trying to do something to help the forgotten man, the man at the side of the monument. That is the man I am going to stick to until I am called to that place in the great beyond where some people would like to see me now. But time cannot go fast enough to ca'tch me.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are no fish
there.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have never been there and I do not know. My hon. friend must have had a taste of it, and apparently he did not like it; otherwise he would not make that remark. Surely the department must want to help the primary producer, and he is the man that should be helped by this legislation. If he is not helped, then the bill should be put on the scrap-heap and not on the statute book.
I was saying a moment ago that the Minister of National Revenue said he could not
Salt Fish Board

help the primary producer of fresh fish because he was up against the tariff wall of the United States. I ask the minister if there is anything in our reciprocal agreement with the United States that would prevent this parliament undertaking to assist the fishermen of Nova Scotia? This assistance should be given not with reference to fresh fish or to salt fish, but to the industry in general. The fact that this government gave assistance should not interfere with our reciprocal relations with the great country to the south. We have been here since last January and this bill was introduced only on May 6. In the dying days of this session, or what may be the dying days of this parliament, legislation as important as this was introduced only yesterday.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was introduced three weeks ago.


Robert Emmett Finn: The second reading was the first time that any light was shed on the bill.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It was distributed three weeks ago.


Robert Emmett Finn: It was distributed, but that is like a man going to church. He puts his hand in his pocket and puts something in the box, but he does not find out until afterwards that it was only a cent when he intended to put in five cents. The first intelligent statement we have had in connection with this bill was on the second reading yesterday. The bill ran that gauntlet, it ran the gauntlet this morning and now it is in committee.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. gentleman
ought to be thankful that we waited four weeks for him.


Robert Emmett Finn: The minister is going out of his way to make a personal reference. I may be in the same position as my hon. friend. Five weeks ago he told me that he had been home in bed for two weeks and was going home to go to bed again. But I did not rebuke him in reference to that, and I do not think the remark of the Minister of Fisheries is quite fair. I am trying to make a fight for the fishermen. I was ill and confined to bed and unable to be in this house, and I do not think it is right for the minister to suggest that on that account the legislation was not brought before the house for consideration. Providence has permitted me to be here now that it is up for consideration, and surely someone can give the information asked for.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would remind the hon. member that we are now discussing an amendment to paragraph (d) of section 2, and I would ask him to confine his remark" to the amendment.


Robert Emmett Finn: I bow to your ruling, but when other hon. gentlemen are allowed to interject all sorts of remarks and statements, of a personal character and otherwise, and nothing is said, apparently we need a revision of the rules.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is out of order.


Robert Emmett Finn: My present statement?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I apologize in reference to that. Coming down to the matter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud), in order to deal intelligently with that amendment I think I have a perfect right to discuss the section of the bill which the amendment is intended to amend. How can that be out of order?


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon. member confines himself to the amendment, I shall not call him to order. I called him to order because his remarks were away from the section and the amendment.


Robert Emmett Finn: I bow to your ruling, but it seems to me you have to take the bitter with the sweet. I have to take the bitter, and the Minister of Fisheries takes the sweet.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kent is a good amendment. It endeavours to protect as far as possible the class of person which we are desirous of protecting and assisting. We want to make his life and the lives of his wife and children happier as the days go by. We want to provide a little sunshine where there is fog, disaster and a great deal of sadness and sorrow. All you have to do is go into the constituency of my hon. colleague and myself and travel the 115 miles from Ecum Secum to Dartmouth, and the 40 miles from Halifax to Peggy's Cove, to realize the conditions under which these fishermen live. How can hon. members talk about these men being exporters? If you went down there and congratulated one of these men upon being an exporter, he would be so much surprised he would probably drop dead. As hon. members who represent fishing constituencies know, most of these men have not sufficient money with which to buy one of these little racks

Salt Fish Board
upon which codfish is dried. All that many of these men get is what they earn from shovelling snow through the winter. How is such a man to get into the export business? The only chance he would have is to make some sort of arrangement with the prime minister of England which would give him the right to trade umbrellas for fish.
I should like to see this matter stand over until to-morrow to see if it would not be possible to set up a subcommittee of hon. members of this house. Such a committee could discuss the matter with the minister and it would shorten up things and make them better all round. An endeavour should be made to see if more cogent clauses could not be drafted to cover the things which apparently it is desired that this bill should do; then put the bill through in a form which would mean something to the poor fisherman along our coast.
I commend this amendment. I want the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of National Revenue to understand that I am speaking in no spirit of criticism and with no desire to hurt anybody. I have but one aim and object, and that is to try to help the poor fisherman who to-day cannot help himself. If the parliament of Canada can do that without regulating him out of business, we shall at least be attempting to assist him and give him some hope for the future, a future that at its best is none too bright. That, sir, is my only motive. I have no interest in the matter except that I have always loved the poor man, the man who has to work by the sweat of his brow-and sometimes not only his brow is wet but his cheeks too, with tears. That is what is occurring to-day in Nova Scotia, and with all the resources which this government has at its disposal, when we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on commissions taking evidence in various matters, surely we can spend a little time in trying to do something for the poor fisherman. Perhaps we can get some expert or set of experts, practical men in the fishing business, to come before the minister or the officials of his department to give their views.
The minister said that no one had had anything to do with this bill except the officials of his department and himself. I do not think that is a sound position. I think any department, especially a technical department, could not have done better than to bring to Ottawa men honest in purpose and intention, men who are anxious to help the fishermen of Nova Scotia, to assist the minister in putting on the statute book practical 7H92-286
legislation that would mean something. Then the fishermen on next Christmas day would not find his sock with only a heel and toe in it. Under this measure, if passed as it is, he will get not only the toe but the boot.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) was told that if he had been here at three o'clock he would have received information that would have convinced him that this bill was wholly innocuous as regards the debated question of exporters and fishermen. Well, I was here at three o'clock and did not hear anything to change my opinion as to who would be the principal beneficiaries under this bill.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member tries to put in my mouth words I never uttered. I never said to the senior member for Halifax that had he been here at three o'clock he would have heard words that would have convinced him. I said something different.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister may not have used the words " convinced him," but I think that was the suggestion. I do not mean to misrepresent the minister at all. I heard the explanation and I heard nothing to change my previously formed prejudice, if you like, that the principal beneficiary would be the middleman. I shall deal with that in a moment.
The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud) told us a little while ago that he had had great doubts about the meaning of this subsection, but that after he had heard the explanation of the Minister of Fisheries he was convinced it was satisfactory. The hon. member for Kent is one of the ablest lawyers in the house, and when he has doubt about a thing there is room for doubt among those of us who are not lawyers. I am not a lawyer, and a lot of other people are not lawyers, and I do not want something in a statute which creates dubiety in the mind of a clever lawyer, but something that I and ordinary people can understand.
I got quite a kick this afternoon, to use the vernacular, from observing the change in popular sentiment, so to speak. Yesterday afternoon when I sprung on the house the idea that this was a bill primarily for the middleman a dozen members leapt to their feet, sword in hand, to convince me of my error. They were not quite sure whether I was knave, fool or both, but they were convinced that there was something very wrong with my mental equipment. But in the short space of time since, I have lived to see the situation very much modified. One member says that the benefit to the fisherman

Salt Fish Board.

is not perhaps direct but indirect. Yesterday we were told that it was the fisherman and nobody else who would benefit. But that is modified now to "indirectly." Then we had the Minister of National Revenue saying- I hope I am not misquoting him, because I wrote down the gist of it-that it might be necessary under certain conditions to bonus a man who was not a fisherman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On condition that he passed it on to the fisherman.


Alan Webster Neill: The point I am trying to make is that it was contended yesterday that it was impossible under this legislation to bonus anybody who was not a fisherman. Then the minister was going to trust to some kind of good faith on the part of the middleman to pass the assistance on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What minister, may I ask? Is the hon. member referring to some position I am supposed to have taken, or to some other minister?


Alan Webster Neill: It was expressed on both sides of the house. I rather think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St, George (Mr. Cahan) said that the only solution would be to trust to the good faith of the exporter, and I think the Minister of National Revenue said much the same thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Alan Webster Neill: That he would expect himu ^r' ILSLEY:	I never used the word
"expect." I said on condition or with the undertaking. The scheme has been working for two years in Nova Scotia, and I can give the mechanics of it reasonably well if anybody wants to have it.


Alan Webster Neill: If it is dependent on the
good faith of the middleman I have grave doubts as to its being a success. It was suggested by someone-I will not say who, for fear of treading on someone else's toes-that the exporter would be told:	You must pay
a quarter of a cent a pound, or something more, to the fisherman. I had occasion to be connected with an arbitration respecting the price of fish last summer in the city of Vancouver, and we came into contact with the fisherman on the one hand and the can-neiyman on the other-somewhat similiar conditions to what we shall have under this legislation. The question arose as to what the costs of production were, and it was simply marvellous how they would build them up. Outside of Grimm's Fairy Tales it would be difficult to find how many expenses they could pull out of a clear sky-expenses, con-

tingencies, possibilities and impossibilities that we never heard of before. They could build up a picture which made it conclusive that they should not pay anything at all to the fishermen, and they proved it to their own satisfaction on the reductio ad absurdum principle. They started in with their prices, and then took off all their expenses, their interest on bonds, and various things, and then said, "That is all that is left, and that is all we can give to the fishermen." They never thought of starting by giving a living wage to the fishermen and building up from there. If the department starts to argue with the exporter or middleman and says, "You have received this benefit, so pass it on to the fisherman," the middleman will produce fifty reasons why he cannot. He has had to go to extra expense, to put in more machinery, or his income tax is higher. He will find a lot of lions in the way to prevent him from passing it on.
There is another point which I wish to bring out. The Minister of Fisheries said some time ago that he had received representations from some organization-the Halifax board of trade, someone tells me-protesting that the language was ambiguous; and the minister, commenting upon that, said that it was not very clear. Well, that is fairly substantial evidence that this section does need amending.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I did not use those words either to-day or at any other time. I read the telegrams. If the hon. member wants me to read them again I will do so.


Alan Webster Neill: All I quoted out of the
telegram was that the language was ambiguous.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: But I did not say they were right.


Alan Webster Neill: I leave it to Hansard, but
the minister went on to say the words were not very clear.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He said that there was no
ambiguity. He replied at once that there was no ambiguity.


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about what he
said in the house, that the language was not very clear. We will leave it to Hansard. If he says he did not say so, I will accept his statement. We will try him along another line and see whether his recollection is the same as mine. Dealing with the various classes of people who would benefit, he differ-

Salt Fish Board
entiated between the fisherman who took the fish out of the water and another man whom he called, I believe, a maker.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Fish maker.


Alan Webster Neill: Then there was the collector, who collected the fish and centralized it in one place, the agent and the exporter. He said that all these people were entitled to a share in the bonus or the benefit. I distinctly take issue with that. I say that no middleman is entitled to any share in a bonus of that kind, because the middlemen have their charges paid, no matter whether the transaction is profitable or unprofitable to the producer. If I were a salesman with a lumber company and were paid SI a thousand, if the government chose to bonus the lumber people I would not expect to share in the bonus, because I got paid so much a thousand for my services. The collector, the agent and the exporter are entitled to be paid a satisfactory price for their services, but if there is any bonusing to be done I fail to see that they are entitled to any share in it except in an indirect way through greater production from which they would obtain a greater profit.
To come back to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I have an amendment which I drew up an hour ago intending to propose it when an opportunity offered. I move that we strike out the word "person" in paragraph (d) and substitute "fisherman." It would read very much like the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kent with the exception that I would leave out certain words that he added. With my amendment the paragraph would read:
"exporter" means a fisherman or cooperative group of fishermen owning fish. . . .
The difference is that the hon. member has added the words "or any other person." Naturally I prefer my own amendment. My complaint against his amendment is that when we add the words "or any other person" we get back to where we started from, because any other person might be an exporter. While it does help the fisherman to some extent to define exporter in the terms I have stated, I suggest that we should stop there if our purpose is to benefit the fisherman and no one else. If that is what we want to do why not say so? Why put in any other person? What other person is entitled to a share in the bonus? If you want to add "producer-fisherman" you can do so, but why go further and include any other person? If you do you are leaving the door wide open.
Amendment (Mr. Robichaud) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
71492-286J
On section 3-Constitution of board.


Alan Webster Neill: I move that we strike out subsection 6 and substitute the following:
One member of the board shall be taken from the permanent staff of the finance department, one from the fisheries department and one from the trade and commerce department.
I mentioned this matter yesterday. In Ottawa we have a staff of permanent officials with yearly salaries. There could be advisory-boards at Halifax, Lunenburg and elsewhere,, but there are able officials in Ottawa. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George pointed out, the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce should be very much interested in this because they have a wide field and agents throughout the world on whom they could call for assistance. They could do work of this kind more economically and just as effectively, and they could be advised by the advisory boards in the various places.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not think it would be advisable to accept the amendment because it would simply mean removing three officials and replacing them with new appointees. Why not leave them where they are and appoint to the board people who have an intimate knowledge of the questions with which they have to deal and who could give more satisfactory service to those whom it is intended to serve? The amendment would serve no useful purpose but, in my opinion, would paralyze the work of the board and nullify it.


Alan Webster Neill: This will not be a full-time job and therefore that objection falls to the ground. Did we not this session pass a bill providing for a defence board taken from among the permanent officials? We took men of ability in their particular line. The proposal is not without precedent.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Every hon. member is
anxious to see as much progress as possible in the passage of this bill, and there is only one predominant thought in anyone's mind, namely, to help the individual fisherman. My hon. friend's suggestion that we set up a board composed of departmental officials would mean nothing practical. No benefit, would accrue to those whom we have most in mind. I say that in all charity. I am getting a little bit surprised at the attitude of the hon. member from British Columbia. He began by telling us that this measure was for the benefit of the maritimes alone, and now he is telling everybody how the thing should be run. I say that in the greatest charity, but I mean it. If the board is to be any good it must be on the spot. There must be some economic planning, and that must be carried on by men who have
Salt Fish Board

some permanency. I am interested in this board chiefly from one angle, the only one which, in my opinion, will in any great measure benefit my constituency. The last amendment made that clear, and I heartily approve the suggestion of the hon. member for Kent, N.B. That is under section 6, paragraph (c); this is the thought that seems to have been missed by everyone, and the one that appears to me as the most interesting. It will have the power to take the fish of a fisherman-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is discussing clause 6, I take it.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: No, I just referred to it incidentally, as to the necessity of having a board composed of experienced men. Section 6, if it is going to be any good, requires men on this board who have experience and know the fishing industry, know the burdens of the fisherman and can help him in his struggle. Section 6(c) gives power to this board to export the fish for the fishermen. That means that in these outlying districts where now they cannot find a purchaser, the board will export the fish for them. A board composed of men located in Ottawa is of no use to export fish for individual fishermen on the outskirts in the maritime provinces. I am absolutely opposed to having any Ottawa officials on this board. We want men in the jnaritimes who know the industry and its problems and can deal with them.


Alan Webster Neill: Would an advisory board
not cover the local situation?


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: The maritime provinces feel that they have had enough of long distance administration of their fisheries. A board in Ottawa would not serve the purpose at all.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest to the minister who is in charge of this bill, and also to the present leader of the government in this house, that a certain sum should be fixed as total remuneration for the members of this board. That deals with subsection 4 of section 3, which reads:
The remuneration of the members of the board shall be fixed by the governor in council.
I think there should be added to that "and shall not in the aggregate exceed"-a certain sum. The whole matter is so indefinite that we ought to know within a fixed limit the total amount of salaries that will be paid to this board, although such aggregate amount might be apportioned among the chairman, the vice-chairman and the third member as the governor in council may deem fit. I make
(Mr. Pottier.l
that suggestion; it is useless for me to make a motion because, unless the government accept it, it is impossible to have it accepted by the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would strongly endorse what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George says. I had the clause marked; I think the remuneration should be indicated in the bill.	*


Ernest Lapointe: There are many statutes where the same principle is to be found, the remuneration fixed by the governor in council.


Mr. STEWART:: It looks like a blank
cheque.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this house we are gradually losing our control of affairs, gradually getting more and more lax in our control. I have noticed this during the last few sessions. I know that on frequent occasions we have fixed the amount in the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, in some instances.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We fix it for judges, members of the pension board and members of other bodies of that kind. I think we fixed it in the grain bill, although I am not certain of that, also in the elections act and other important statutes where the dignity of the office is certainly equal to that of this. It is not a question of detracting from the dignity of some prospective chairman. We are getting lax and loose, and every time we do this it simply increases the tendency to that laxity. It would be a compromise to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that a maximum sum should be fixed.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member knows very well that if we fix a maximum sum we shall be pestered by those who hold the job to get the maximum. Our intention is to pay as little as is necessary. To leave it as it is will give us that chance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In my opinion it is bad practice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Staff.
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister say
whether it would not be wise in this instance to have 'the officers, clerks and employees appointed by the civil service commission, as Is often done in similar cases?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; they will all have to serve in Halifax and in connection with a definite and technical matter, and I think the

Salt Fish Board
board as well as the government are just as well qualified as the civil service commission to select the staff that will have to serve that board.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Although some of the staff of this board will have to be technical people, I am sure the minister cannot say that all the staff will be of such technical calibre that they can not be selected by the civil service commission. There will be clerks, stenographers and so forth, whose work is the same whether in Ottawa or Montreal or Halifax or Vancouver. Surely they could be selected by the commission.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: This is a matter of temporary employment and those who will serve either as clerks or technical officers will serve in a temporary capacity for, as we expect, a comparatively short time. If they are appointed by the civil service commission it will give them a status of permanency, and they will be claiming superannuation and other benefits to which we feel they would not be entitled and for which we should not expose ourselves to be asked. For these reasons I think it is better to leave it to the government and to the board to appoint them for employment in a temporary capacity.


Angus MacInnis: Does that mean that this is a temporary board, just for a short time?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We all hope it will be.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: As soon as the difficulties are taken care of, the work of the board will be finished.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friends are extremely optimistic, setting up a board to take care of the difficulty of finding markets for fish and thinking that in a few years that market will be found and that then they can abolish the board and things will go on without it. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare a few minutes ago was speaking about economic planning. So you are going to plan for to-day, and to-morrow you will not have any plan.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It will stay planned.


Angus MacInnis: If anything has been made perfectly clear during the past few years it is that things do not and will not take care of themselves. If this board is set up, undoubtedly it will be permanent until something more permanent takes its place.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Duties of board.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for St. Lawrcnce-St. George, who is not in his place at the moment, said he wished to say a few words on this.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member is speaking on his behalf?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry I do not know what he was going to say. I did intend to suggest, before we disposed of the matter on the point of order of the Minister of Justice, that this board might investigate markets for all classes of fish. That, however, has been ruled out of order, therefore I shall not discuss it, but will give the floor to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to extend somewhat the remarks I made before luncheon to-day.
I do not think this question of marketing and the survey of possible markets is a matter which should be under the supervision and jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. EULER:: It is not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has at the present time agents and officers in the chief markets for fish, and I have no doubt that an examination of his files will show quite recent reports as to the difficulties of marketing and the prospect of extending our markets, together with a statement of the countries competing in those markets and of the conditions which have enabled competing countries to drive Canadian fish out of those markets in foreign countries. I have before me the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, in which I find a complete and detailed report of the markets for fish. I find that markets for salt and dried fish are restricted largely to the West Indies and Cuba. At one time we had a market in Brazil, but that market has been restricted. The market in Cuba has been increased considerably. I find that in 1934 we shipped to Cuba 21,248 quintals; in 1935, 38,280 quintals; in 1936, 47,296 quintals; in 1937, 46,891 quintals, and in 1938, 39,800 quintals of dried and pickled fish. That really	is one	of the principal
markets for Canadian dried and salted fish. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he had an hour available to examine the statistics in his office, could give us a clear idea of the state of those markets and the adverse conditions which have restricted our sales there, although with the exception of the last year our sales to Cuba have been increasing; and he would be able to inform us also as to who are competing with us in those markets. We are asked to bonus our product in order that it may compete with the products of certain other countries. Which are those countries? How much of the market do others control? Do they control it because
Salt Fish Board

of -better shipping facilities? Do they control it by reason of having some advantage under the foreign tariff? Do they control it by reason of the rate of exchange that prevails? Before we enter upon a final discussion of this scheme we should have a review of the trade and commercial conditions with which we are dealing. Otherwise it is impossible for hon. members at least those who have no more intelligence than I, to appreciate the conditions and difficulties our fishermen are up against. That is a matter which always has been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I doubt the expediency of taking it out from under the jurisdiction of that department.


William Daum Euler: May I assure the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George and the committee at large that there is not the slightest intention of taking the promotion of the sale of fish, any more than that of the sale of any other commodity, from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This bill so states.


William Daum Euler: I must repeat my statement that there is no intention whatever of interfering with the functions of the Department of Trade and Commerce in connection with promoting the sale of any commodity whatever. It is, I think, pretty thoroughly understood by this time that it is strictly within the province of the Department of Trade and Commerce to promote the sale of all Canadian products in foreign countries.
I may tell the committee at once that I am not prepared to take an hour to make a statement in connection with the promotion of the sale of salt fish or any other kind of fish, or to discuss what is being done in connection with the promotion of sales in foreign countries. The bill was not in my charge; and while I have no desire whatever to evade my responsibility, I am not prepared to go into all sorts of details with regard to fidh. All hon. members know there are so many different ways of preparing fish and so . many fadtors entering into the preparation and sale of fish that the minister cannot be expected to know all the details offhand.
I might, however, give the committee a little information as to the markets to which Canada in the past has made sales of fish, and the difficulties in connection therewith.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was what I desired.


William Daum Euler: I shall give that to the best of my ability and as briefly as possible. As a matter of fact, the difficulties in the marketing of fish are similar to those we have experienced and are now experiencing in connection with * Mr. Cahan.]
the marketing of wheat. For instance, in some parts of Canada the fishermen are confined almost entirely to the production of this one commodity, and they are producing in excess of what can be consumed in this country. There is a necessity, therefore, just as there is in the case of wheat, of finding a foreign market. And just as in the case of wheat, we find we are confronted with certain difficulties, such as those of exchange control and tariffs, and particularly the difficulty of very severe competition from other countries.
The hon. member has asked who our competitors are, and has asked me to name our chief markets. In the past the chief markets for this kind of fish, or for fish generally, have been Italy; the West Indies, including Cuba; Spain and, particularly, Brazil. Our chief competitors are Newfoundland, Norway and Iceland. Newfoundland is perhaps as strong a competitor as we have. The people of Newfoundland are almost confined to the production of one commodity, namely fish, and it is true that they seem to be able to provide competition by selling their fish at a price lower than that at which we can sell. The result is that we are in keen competition with Newfoundland.
Then, some of those countries are trying to make barter deals. They are attempting to exchange their products for the products of other countries. Canada has never tried to enter into barter arrangements. It may become necessary so to do. Norway subsidizes heavily her exports of fish. I take it that this bill is by iway of providing some means of competition with Norwegian and other fish.
Italy and Brazil, to both of which we formerly sold large quantities of fish, are now trying to develop their own fish producing facilities. The same condition applies to fish as applies to wheat. Where in years gone by we sold large quantities of wheat to France, Germany and Italy, those countries are now in a, large measure supplying themselves. I am informed that Italy and Brazil are making determined efforts to supply their own fish. So far as Brazil is concerned, where we had perhaps the most valuable market of all, they have put on a very high tariff against Canadian fish.	.
I have spoken of some of the difficulties. The chief of these are the strong competition we have to meet, exchange and other controls, and other obstacles which have been placed in the way of trade. In that connection I might instance Italy. In recent years Italy has established a board which has complete control of all purchases, including purchases of fish. I believe at one time large quantities of Gaspe fish went to Italy. That fish

Salt Fish Board
was of the finest quality. But for reasons of their own the board which operates in Italy are buying fish which they can obtain cheaply from other countries-I think probably from Norway. Someone may say, "Why not try to make some sort of trade agreement with Italy?" May I point out to the committee that the former government was negotiating and had practically concluded arrangement of the terms of an agreement with Italy. We continued those negotiations; but as hon. members know very well, certain events made it practically impossible for us to negotiate with Italy. Those negotiations have not been concluded and are being resumed. At the same time, here is one difficulty. Unless by way of trade agreement Italy guarantees that she will make a definite purchase of our fish, there is not much that can be done, because there is no private purchaser of fish in Italy. All purchases are under the control of a board.
I believe I cannot add anything further. In speaking I have attempted to point out the competition we must face. I apologize to the committee for making my observations rather discursive.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, they are not; on the
contrary they are extremely interesting.


William Daum Euler: I have outlined the problem
with the information I was able to obtain a few moments before I spoke. I would say that we still have a good market in Cuba. Most of our market is in eastern Cuba, although in that market Newfoundland is now becoming a strong competitor. I believe the western end of Cuba is being supplied by Norway. One might say, "Well, if you can sell Canadian fish to eastern Cuba, why can you not sell it to western Cuba?" I am told Norway happens to have a particular method of curing fish which has special appeal to the people of western Cuba. As I said at the outset, there are, in connection with the preparation of fish many matters with which I am not familiar, but it will be realized that there are ways of preparing fish which will appeal to some groups which have been accustomed to a certain product. I believe the same is true in Brazil and in other countries.
Then, our market in the British West Indies is not as good as it was. Newfoundland has become a keen competitor. The committee is aware that we have had a twelve-year trade agreement with the British West Indies, and that it will be terminated at the end of this year. The government has given notice of the termination of the agreement, pending the making of a new agreement with the
British West Indies. We hope to have discussions, beginning perhaps late in the summer or early in the fall, with regard to the consummation of a new trade agreement. I can assure the committee that in those negotiations the Department of Trade and Commerce will bear in mind not only the conditions with respect to fish but those with respect to all other commodities, and in any negotiations will do everything it can to promote the sale of fish and other commodities.
At one time we had a market in Spain for fish. The reason for the loss of that market is at once evident. During the civil war in Spain very little could be done by way of carrying out an exchange of products. An additional reason is that some of those countries have become more or less impoverished, and have not the purchasing power they had before. In many instances they try to make barter arrangements, but, as I said before, Canada has not taken part in those arrangements.
If the hon. member would like to ask any further questions I should be pleased to give the best answer I can. Meantime I believe that is about all I can say.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he feels disposed to advance one, as to whether a bonus on the export of dried, pickled and salt fish is likely to increase our sales in the markets he has mentioned? For instance, I have these figures showing sales to Jamaica:
Quintals
1934		 129,914
1935		 133,357
1936		 119,780
1937		 115,805
1938		 103,307
The minister will notice a steady drop in our sales to Jamaica.


John James Kinley: Newfoundland was paying a higher commission to their agent in Jamaica.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What country is competing with us and taking away our market in Jamaica? I know Jamaica very well, and I have no doubt the minister knows it equally well. I have been there on many occasions, and I must say I have never had salt fish prepared in as delicious a manner as I have had it in Jamaica or Trinidad. They seem to have facilities to make it a most delicious and tempting dish. What has interfered with our market in Jamaica? Is it Newfoundland? Does Newfoundland subsidize or assist exports *to Jamaica in such a way as to drive us from the market? Can we by a vote of $800,000 reestablish in those countries markets for the
Salt Fish Board

Canadian product? What are the prospects, because we do not wish to throw away $800,000? It is a large sum of money to be expended in one year. There are many primary industries which could be assisted by such a large appropriation as that. I should like to know if this $800,000, for the distribution and payment of which we are now providing by this bill, will reestablish our Canadian fish in the markets of Jamaica? There are other markets which might be considered. Despite competition, we have kept up pretty well in the Cuban market. Who are our competitors in Cuba? The minister suggests Norway.


William Daum Euler: In eastern Cuba, and Newfoundland is becoming more and more a competitor in the west.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To what extent are they subsidizing their dried salt fish and pickled fish in competition with us? Is a subsidy to our fish producers likely to reacquire these markets for us? I suppose Italy is beyond hope. In 1934 we sold Italy 76,505 quintals, in 1935, 70,597 quintals; in 1937 our sales had dropped to 1,404 quintals, and in 1938 they had dropped to nothing. Will subsidizing our producers serve to reestablish our market in Italy? Will subsidizing our exporters do it? Will it not be necessary to adopt other radical measures, such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests? Will the matter not depend upon the improvement of relations between this country and Italy?
From my youth I have always looked upon Italy as being one of the foremost, friends of the British people. I was quite sorry to see this friendship disturbed, and possibly this disturbance has effected some reaction in the loss of our market for fish in that country. With what little knowledge I have, I cannot see how subsidizing the exporter of salt and pickled fish, as that exporter is now defined, is going to reestablish our market in Italy or increase our sales in Cuba, Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies. I have been in these countries quite frequently, and ever since I was a lad I have noted that our fish seemed to be much appreciated there. Whenever you were invited out to attend a government banquet or to the houses of some of the wealthier people, you always had placed before you a dish of salted or pickled fish. The people in these countries regarded that as the most tempting dish they could put before a visitor to whom they wished to show some special attention.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend asks me if it is my opinion that the granting of subsidies to our Canadian fishermen will increase our

sales. My answer is that to the extent to which you bonus the seller of fish, to that extent will he be able to compete in foreign markets. My hon. friend has also asked me who are our chief competitors. I mentioned before that Newfoundland is our greatest competitor in the British West Indies. I have no definite information with regard to Jamaica, but their sales in western Cuba, where we have always had a large market, are increasing. Newfoundland pays a bonus of $1 a quintal, which is a direct detriment to the exportation of Canadian fish. Last year Norway paid bonuses amounting to 7,000,000 kronen, but I do not know the exact value of the kronen.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Twenty-five cents.


William Daum Euler: That is nearly $2,000,000. If the Canadian exporter must enter into competition with a bonus paid in another country, surely that is one reason to indicate that the payment of a bonus will give him greater opportunities in that market. I think the answer is obvious. If the Canadian fisherman is placed on a similar basis so far as government assistance is concerned, he should have some chance to compete in these foreign markets. It seems to me that is the answer. Personally I do not regard it as being desirable that we should bonus any commodity. I do not like the theory at all. I will be frank in saying that I do not like it in connection with wheat, but we have to do that because of difficulties which have arisen in western Canada. We have to do it in this instance in order to help the fishermen of Nova Scotia who are perhaps just as hard pressed as the wheat growers of western Canada.
I hope this will be a temporary condition. I hope conditions will improve so that these fishermen will be able to sell their fish on their own merits and make a living. In the meantime we have to deal with a condition, and this is an attempt to place the Canadian fishermen on a basis on which they will be able to compete with foreign producers of fish.
So far as Italy is concerned, I would say that perhaps there is considerable doubt as to whether a bonus will assist in that market unless we are able to negotiate a trade agreement. ' It will assist perhaps to the extent that the monopolistic board in Italy will be able to buy Canadian fish cheaper than they can be bought now. They may prefer to buy Canadian fish at the lower price, because of the bonus. If an agreement is made, one of the terms that should be insisted upon, in view of the monopolistic organization they have over there, is that they should buy a definite quantity of Canadian fish each year.

Salt Fish Board
I do not think I am disclosing any important secret when I say that is one of the obstacles to making a trade agreement with Italy.
I suppose it means that the Canadian government is helping the foreign consumer to obtain cheaper fish, but it is one way of relieving the present desperate situation, just as we are doing in western Canada. For my own part, I should like to see all these products able to stand on their own feet and compete on their own merits, but we have to deal with conditions as we find them, and this is one effort to deal with the fish industry in this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am grateful for the information the minister has given us because it tends to give us a broad view of the situation which was lacking before. I would point out that what has been emphasized in this debate as the ground for subsidizing or assisting or bonusing the Canadian fishery product is that it would give an increased price to the fishermen of this country: But I doubt whether the fishermen will receive very much of an increased price if the price level to our own producers is to be reduced in order that they may be able to compete with Norway and other countries which are subsidizing their products so greatly.


William Daum Euler: He will get more money if he sells more fish.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He will get more money if he sells more fish. But the situation in Nova Scotia, as I see it-this is not from immediate contact with the fishermen, although I was there last year and heard the matter discussed-is that in certain districts of that province where shore fishing from boats prevails, the fishermen seemed to feel that the more fish they caught the poorer they were because they have to spend time and money operating their boats and fishing gear, and they receive very low prices for the products of their fisheries.
There is one other question I would ask the minister. Is it not true that in one or more of the trade agreements which we have with other countries, to which we sell a certain quantity of dried and pickled fish, the bonusing of our fish or subsidizing or assisting it financially as this bill proposes to do-I am not particular what term you use-will lead to adverse reciprocal measures by those countries tending to protect their own markets against the subsidized or assisted Canadian product? I have not had an opportunity, while this bill was under discussion to-day, to look up the trade agreement with the 71492-287
United States and the pronouncements thereon; but if my memory serves me aright-and I am trusting to memory-distinct pronouncements have been made by officials of the United States that if we subsidize the fish which we export to them, protective and retaliatory measures will be taken by the United States against us.


William Daum Euler: That is why fresh fish is not included.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have a considerable market in the United States for dried and salted fish. If I have the right statistics, our exports to the United States in 1934 were 277,619 quintals, and in 1935, 262,703 quintals of salted, dried, smoked and pickled fish.


William Daum Euler: That is probably Puerto Rico, one of their possessions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; I am dealing with the United States, taking the figures given on page 122 of the latest returns of the Trade of Canada.


William Daum Euler: Are the figures for Puerto Rico given separately?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes; every country is given separately. I will give the figures for Puerto Rico in a moment. Our exports to the United States in 1936 were 274,372 quintals; 1937, 304,862 quintals; in 1938 it was down to 248,579 quintals. So that really the United States is still one of our most important markets for dried, salted and pickled fish. Is it not clear that an intention has been expressed officially or in some way intimated to the government that if we attempt to subsidize our fish export, whether dried, salted or fresh fish, retaliatory measures will be taken by the United States to protect their market? I am not raising a petty question but asking simply for information on a subject on which the minister is better informed than I could possibly be.


William Daum Euler: I have no definite information on that point. I conceive they might take action of that kind, but the United States at any rate would be the only country affected. It would not affect other markets.


John James Kinley: Would the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George give the exports for Puerto Rico?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. In 1934, 47,371 hundredweight; 1935, 66,752 hundredweight; 1936, 54,092 hundredweight; 1937, 35,030 hundredweight; 1938, 48,260 hundredweight. Those are fiscal years ended March 31.

45G0

Salt Fish Board


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Just to clear up the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as to the effect of bonusing or assisting fish going to the United States, I have under my hand section 303 of the United States customs tariff, which reads:
Whenever any country, dependency, colony, province or other political subdivision of government, person, partnership, association, cartel, or corporation shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, any bounty or grant upon the manufacture or production or export of any article or merchandise manufactured or produced in such country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government, and such article or merchandise is dutiable under the provisions of this act, then upon the importation of any such article or merchandise into the United States, whether the same shall be imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, and whether such article or merchandise is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by re-manufacture or otherwise, there shall be levied and paid, in all such cases, in addition to the duties otherwise imposed by this act, an additional duty equal to the net amount of such bounty or grant, however the same be paid or bestowed. The Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time ascertain and determine, or estimate, the net amount of each such bounty or grant, and shall declare the net amount so determined or estimated. The Secretary of the Treasury shall make all regulations he may deem necessary for the identification of such articles and merchandise and for the assessment and collection of such additional duties.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Thank you. I had not time to look it up.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said that one of our difficulties was that we produce fish in excess of what can 'be consumed here. Has the minister the per capita consumption of fish in Canada compared, for example, with Great Britain? I was brought up by the sea and where I lived we used fish every day, but I do not know of anyone within my own particular circle who uses fish more than once a week. It seems to me that one avenue of assistance would be the greater consumption
of fish. Has the minister the per capita consumption in Canada? I was going to say something else, but I see it is six o'clock.


William Daum Euler: I have not that figure here. Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. STANDING COMMITTEE



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS-SIXTH REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McPhee.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair. .

[Stage Direction]
Z80. Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings bank business; issue of postage stamps and postal notes, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, in accordance with regulations approved by order in council, $1,370,110.
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Postmaster General):: Last night when the estimates were before the committee I undertook to furnish the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) with information on two matters: first, the number of postal meter machines in use in Canada, which is approximately 1,500; and second, information which I promised to place on Hansard giving details of air mail contracts entered into by the department in connection with air mail services in Canada. It is a lengthy document and to read it would be more confusing than enlightening. I would ask the consent of the committee to put it on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Norman Alexander McLarty: 
Mr. GREEN:: One other question in regard to the air mail service. Can the minister give us any information regarding the transAtlantic service?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South would allow me to bring up first a matter which is akin to the question he has asked, and one answer would serve *both purposes. The minister, in his usual courteous manner, informed me last evening that he would revert to this question, notwithstanding that it comes under item 279, because I had intended to draw his attention to the air service as it affects the Atlantic. On January 19, I received through the mail a map published by the authority of John A. Sullivan, K.C., deputy postmaster general, showing the air mail service extending from Vancouver and carrying through to its eastern point in Montreal. I took occasion at that time to communicate with the Post Office Department because the map showed Canadian air mail routes in operation, indicated by a plain line, and Canadian routes proposed, indicated by a dotted line, 'but showing no part of Halifax. Halifax was not even mentioned either by name or in any other way. There was nothing to show that we were a part of Canada. I wrote to the deputy postmaster general as follows:
In to-day's mail I received a circular letter headed: Office of the district director of postal services, Ottawa, along with a map issued by the authority of yourself, showing Canada's air mail routes and I wish, as a representative from Nova Scotia, to lodge a very definite complaint of the construction of the map as once again Nova Scotia is entirely left out of the picture in so far as air mail routes are concerned.
This map will be issued to all parts of Canada and make known the fact that in so far as air mail is concerned, it will begin at the western coast with service at both Victoria and Vancouver, and stops in the east at Montreal, completely isolating New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
I feel that this certainly is an injustice to the Atlantic coast and the province bordering on the eastern portion of our dominion. Even though there may be no Canadian route in operation, I feel that the map should have shown with a dotted line, route proposed which would lead into Halifax, the eastern gateway of Canada, or some other mark denoting suggested line.
I am not in a position to know as to whether your scheme in connection with service has been completed, but I feel that if such is not the case, there certainly should be provision made for the complete coverage from east to west, extending from Halifax to Victoria.
Would appreciate you advising me in connection with this matter.
Along with the map there were a number of time-tables. I looked through the complete list-there were thirty-six of them- 
and not once did I see the name Halifax. I then consulted the index of places to be served, and running my finger down the H's I again failed to discover Halifax indicated as a part of Canada. Under date January 20 the Postmaster General replied in a letter, the second paragraph of which reads:
May I say in reply that the map to which you refer was issued principally for publicity purposes and was intended to make clear to the recipient the routes which were actually in operation at the time.
For publicity purposes! I suggest that in future the Post Office Department should be very careful in the issuing of maps. I received a further communication together with a map on the cover of which was "Effective March, 1939." I again took the question up with the present Postmaster General, and perhaps I should thank him for having discovered, since he assumed office, that in the eastern part of the dominion there is a place known as Halifax. He issued a new map effective April, 1939. Again I looked at the new map. He does show the name Halifax; he also prints a larger number of tables to show that the air service is advancing by leaps and bounds, and to-day instead of thirty-six it has gone up to something like sixty-four.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, thirty-eight services.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Well, sixty-four routes. But again I fail to find Halifax, the gateway of eastern Canada, mentioned. I know the Postmaster General will keep in mind that he is serving the whole of Canada, that he will want to serve the east as well as the west. Along with the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, I ask that the Postmaster General be good enough to advise us when Halifax will be included in the actual air mail service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Next sitting of the house!


Norman Alexander McLarty: It gives me the greatest pleasure to assure my hon. friend that Halifax will not be forgotten. The air mail necessarily follows the Trans-Canada air service, which of course requires landing fields. At present the landing fields are in course of construction. The eastern terminus of Trans-Canada Air Lines as is well known, is at present Moncton. It is contemplated that this service will go into effect on September 1- that must be taken only as an approximate date. But immediately it does, the air mail service will be extended to the various points in the maritimes, including Halifax and other points that can usefully be served. It would be inadvisable to mention a definite date, but I can assure the hon. member that air mail

Supply-Post Office
service will proceed to Halifax and other eastern points just as fast as circumstances permit. I understand that the Department of Transport is working energetically to complete the necessary landing fields to make that possible.
In reply to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver South as to the progress of the transatlantic air mail, yesterday in the British House of Commons it was announced by the under-secretary of state for dominion affairs that it was hoped that the Imperial Airways would start operation across the Atlantic some time during July. Pan-American Airways have already started-in fact they started last Saturday. It will be a matter of interest to the committee to know that air mail rate across the Atlantic has now been definitely agreed upon. Conversations have taken place between the postal administrations of Canada and the United States, which have worked together in an endeavour to fix the same rate from this side of the Atlantic. The rate agreed upon is 30 cents a half ounce from both countries. Pan-American Airways started a weekly service last Saturday. Imperial Airways will start in July, according to the announcement in the British House of Commons.


Thomas Langton Church: Under this item 280 which I once described as an omnibus item, embracing money order, postal note and savings bank business and many other items, I should like to make a few observations. The minister has probably not had an opportunity yet to consider the matter, but I should like to know if he is considering any long term new policy for the post office to expand its work to meet modern conditions, social, business, economic, patriotic, educational and so on, as the British post office is doing. The British post office is undertaking many new functions from time to time along the lines I have indicated. Take postal notes and savings banks; in my opinion there could be no little expansion of revenue to the department through the educational feature. For example, in the city I come from they have had, apart from the post office, a penny bank, to teach thrift and patriotism.
While our geographical conditions are different from those of Great Britain, I believe that in the future the post office could establish many features that would serve the public. It is a public utility, and every public utility has to be active in seeking to extend its services: light, power, telephone, transportation-the telephone is part of the British post office. You can bring to the people the services of the post office in many new spheres of activity, especially with the . geography
of Canada, three thousand miles from east to west or north to south. I believe that such a policy would lead to a large expansion of revenue, as in the case of the British and Australian post offices. Back in 1868 there were deficits. When Sir William Mulock became Postmaster General they had some surpluses, they started in 1902 with about 85,000; after the war they started to go a little in the red again.
Take, for example, education; many people have not a radio, many rural people have not telephones. I believe the post office, following the practice of the British post office, having a department which might be called a research department that would seek new spheres of activity not only in business but in social matters, health and other ways, in cooperation with the municipalities and provinces and especially the boards of education, would lead to a very large increase in revenue. The use of the post office is only in its infancy. Look at the cards used at Christmas and Easter, for birthdays and so on; many of them are manufactured in Germany and Japan. The new minister is wideawake; I believe he can bring a new vision and a new future for this great public utility and do much to develop the natural resources of the country. I hope that during the recess a study will be made to see if something can be done along the lines I have suggested.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any figures as to fhe volume of air mail from Ottawa or other eastern points to Vancouver and New Westminster? As the minister and most hon. members know, we have now the fastest air mail route on the north American continent, and there was some doubt as to the building up of that service, and as to it becoming profitable in a short time.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Replying first to the
remarks of the hon. member for Broadview, which are most constructive, I am afraid that since my appointment my time has been pretty well occupied in looking after more mundane matters than he suggests. I realize, however, the vast possibilities of expansion suggested by him, and I shall gladly give the matter my earnest consideration when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.
Replying to the hon. member for New Westminster, I take it the figures he wants are as to the mail carried on Trans-Canada Air Lines. I can give them either in gross on a daily average or from various points. I have them as late as May 10. At that time the average daily mail carried was 1,000 pounds. To show the rapidity of the growth, the same
Supply-Post Office

average under date of May 17 had become 1,200 pounds a day. Does the hon. member suggest that I give the information by cities, or merely in totals?


An hon. MEMBER:: In gross.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I give these figures, showing the daily gross as follows:
Week ending April 12.. April 19.. April 26.. May 3.. . May 10.. May 17..
Daily gross Pounds ..	935
..	954
..	962
..	990
.. 1,000 .. 1,200


Thomas Reid: Has the -minister the figures for New Westminster and Vancouver?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have them for the city of Vancouver, but not divided as between Vancouver and New Westminster.


Mr. MASSEY:: Is it anticipated that the air mail rates which have been set will meet the cost; or are the rates set arbitrarily, in the hope that through increasing volume they will gradually reach the point where the rates will meet the cost?
in mind at the same time his subsequent statement that this service will not pay for itself until such time as the volume reaches 2,380 pounds a day, it might be highly desirable to increase that $7,000 to some larger figure to be determined by the minister, in order that more complete and more intelligent use of the air mail might be stimulated, and the break-even point might be reached more rapidly so that the net result would be a saving to the country.
Further than that, and while I am on my feet-I am sure the minister will realize that I am not referring to this or any particular government-we have been exceedingly lax in the publicity work done by our Post Office Department. Those of us who have been to the United Kingdom and who have had sufficient interest to investigate what is done by the British post office, know the splendid work of Sir Stephen Tallents, particularly in recent years. I would commend to the attention of the minister the work that is done there, and at the same time suggest that he give this item of $7,000 further consideration with a view to extending the publicity efforts of the Post Office Department.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does the hon. member refer -to any particular service? The rates vary widely.


Denton Massey: Any one of them.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is anticipated that the rate of six cents an ounce which is charged in connection with the Trans-Canada air mail will, when that service arrives at the point where it is carrying 2,380 pounds a day, carry itself. Until -then the rate will not be sufficient to carry it. It is anticipated that the rate of six cents a half ounce which is charged on the all-empire service will carry itself. I believe it is anticipated that -the rate of 30 cents a half ounce which, as I stated previously, has been fixed for the transatlantic flight, will carry itself.


Denton Massey: The reason I asked the question, and more or less following along the lines of the statement of the hon. member for Broadview, is that I have in mind the exceptionally fine publicity work that is done by the post office in the United Kingdom, publicity work designed not only to increase the use of the mails but to increase more intelligent use of the mails. I notice in the details of this item appearing on page 165 of the estimates that some $7,000 has been budgeted for publicity. It occurred to me that with such figures as the minister just placed on Hansard, showing the rapid increase in the volume of air mail carried, and bearing


Norman Alexander McLarty: I appreciate and agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood. I think heretofore the Post Office Department has under-advertised. After all is said and done, bearing in mind that this is the largest public utility in Canada, a certain amount must be spent in the way of advertising. Perhaps this department has spent less on advertising than any comparable public utility in this country. However, in reference to the item of $7,000 included under this vote, that is referable to the post office savings banks and not to the air mail at all.


Denton Massey: I was referring to all mail.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Quite so. I was just explaining the reference to the $7,000 lest my hon. friend might think that was the total amount the Post Office Department was spending on advertising. Under the previous vote, 379, there is an item of $20,000 for advertising which is designed primarily to take care of the advertising incident to the inauguration of the air mail. I quite agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that, if anything, we have much under-advertised.


Denton Massey: The splendid work that is being done by our tourist bureau is to a degree dependent upon the post office. After all, we have direct advertising by mail, which we have yet to develop to the fullest possible extent, and there seems to be a correlation between the two items. I commend to the minister's attention the possibility of using

Supply-Post Office
more fully the excellent services of our tourist bureau and giving assistance there by way of expansion. [DOT]


Mr. GRAYDON:: Has the contract for the carriage of mails from Toronto to the Malton airport been entered into or executed as yet?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; and I can tell the hon. member for Peel the circumstances as well. Tenders were called for the carriage of mail from the Malton airport to the post office in Toronto. Tenders were received. They varied in amount from, I think, $1,500, which was ridiculously low, to something like $6,000, which was the previous contract figure. I understand the distance involved in the yearly contract is something like 50,000 miles. When I went into the matter I found that Trans-Canada Air Lines, with which the postal service is definitely connected, had facilities which enabled it, without any additional capital cost and iby using surplus facilities, to carry the air mail from the Malton airport to the city of Toronto. In addition, there were four other places on the Trans-Canada air mail route where the same arrangement could be made, and consequently we made an arrangement with Trans-Canada Air Lines for, speaking from recollection, the sum of $10,500 to carry the air mail to and from these airports to the post office in each community. I had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this was in the public interest.


Mr. HANSON:: I should like to remind the minister that in this Dominion of Canada we have a city called Prince Rupert. I realize that the Postmaster General cannot attend to everything at once, but I should like to point out to him that air mail from Prince Rupert arrives here two days after the ordinary mail gets here. The minister gave the hon. member for New Westminster some figures in regard to the air mail at Vancouver, but these figures also include the air mail from Prince Rupert, which has to go down to Vancouver.
I believe the Minister of Transport has under consideration the feasibility of extending the service to central and northern British Columbia. Part of central British Columbia is now served by air mail, ibut the coast, where most of the population are located, is not served. We get mail from Fairbanks, Alaska, from the United States side two days quicker than we get it from the Canadian side. I believe this matter should be looked into, and I have no doubt that as soon as possible the Postmaster General will take some action. I am not complaining, because I realize that this is a new service. I believe we are as
air minded as the people of Vancouver or New Westminster. We feel that we are living in the dominion, and if the service is going to be extended to one community it should be extended to others, and especially to a port like Prince Rupert which offers the facilities of a railway terminus and a modern port. I would ask the minister to give the matter every consideration so that the facilities may be extended to that port.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Skeena, who has heretofore made many representations in connection with this matter, may rest assured that as soon as adequate facilities are provided in Prince Rupert, the Post Office Department will be only too glad to take advantage of them for the purpose of conveying air mail.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: I should like to follow
up what has been said by some hon. members regarding opportunities offered to the Post Office Department to increase its services throughout the dominion. I have particular reference to the post office savings bank. I believe I have brought the savings bank to the attention of the committee at former sessions. Upon looking up the record of a few years back I find that from 1930 to 1937 there has been a gradual decline in the balance to the credit of depositors, and that it was not until last year that an increase was shown. In 1930 the balance stood at $26,086,036.03, and in 1938 it was $22,587,233.09. In the same manner the number of accounts declined until 1937, and then began to increase. In 1930 the number of accounts stood at 82,428, whereas in 1938 it was 84,118.
Until last year the number of post offices with savings bank departments had gradually declined. In 1930 there were 1,343, and in 1938 there were 1,362. The amount of interest paid by the Post Office Department on deposits decreased each year until last, when there was a slight increase. I am glad to note this turn of events. I believe one forward step which to a great extent has been responsible for the increase has been the change whereby a depositor was permitted to withdraw $100 a day. Formerly there was a limit of $50. If an improvement of that kind has brought about an all-round increase in one year, I should think it must certainly be encouraging for the Post Office Department further to increase its services to the public, and it will receive the proper support.
In the last ten or fifteen years there have been taking place in the dominion changes which, in my opinion, offer a great opportunity to the post office to give a service of
Supply-Post Office

which the public in many communities has been deprived. When I make that statement I am thinking of the banks which have pulled out of so many places and left the people without banking facilities. It seems to me that there is an opportunity for the Post Office Department to fill in that which is lacking. From 1920 to 1937 bank branches were closed in each of the provinces to the following extent:
Prince Edward Island	 14
Nova Scotia	 35
New Brunswick	 24
Quebec	 76
Ontario	  377
Manitoba	 180
Saskatchewan	 343
Alberta	 238
British Columbia	 54
In the Yukon there was an increase of one. These figures represent the closing of a total of 1,341 branches of banks between 1920 and 1937. I know that many of those branches may have been closed where there were two or three banks in one place. But there were many places where there was only one bank and, despite that fact, the bankers pulled out. As a result, people have had to drive thirty or forty miles to do their banking business.
I would ask the Postmaster General to consider the possibility of increasing the facilities of the post office savings bank to give accommodation to these people. I have in my hand a resolution passed by the delegates of district No. 12 of the Saskatchewan wheat pool in December last. It reads as follows:
Whereas the residents of rural and small urban communities are now almost entirely deprived of the services of certain functions of commercial banking through the withdrawal of branches of the chartered banks from these communities; and
Whereas the lack of these facilities make it necessary for our elevator department to appoint local payors with many attendant risks and inconveniences; and
Whereas the Post Office Department of Canada now performs certain financial services through their savings and annuity branches; and
Whereas the Bank of Canada Act authorizes the Bank of Canada to render to the people of Canada broad services through the monetary system; and
Whereas the purpose of the post office and the Bank of Canada is fundamentally to serve the people of Canada;
Therefore we, the delegates of district 12, hereby urge our board of directors to enter into negotiations with the proper governmental authorities to make it possible, through legislation or otherwise, for our rural and small urban post offices to render to their communities the services of commercial banking to the extent of deposits and withdrawals on current account, including chequing privileges.

That may be too big a step to [DOT]take at one time, but I suggest it is worthy of consideration.
There is a further suggestion I would make to the Postmaster General. In many instances branch banks have pulled out, leaving buildings with all the necessary facilities. I would suggest that the post office might utilize those buildings, because many of them are standing empty. They have all the necessary conveniences to carry on the work, and could be used to render a real service to the communities they would serve.
I am pleased to learn that an allowance for advertising has been set aside. I have noticed a general lack of knowledge regarding the post office savings bank. Many prominent citizens do not know of the services at their disposal. One may go into a post office and find only one card advertising the services of the savings bank department. At the present time there is no general attempt to pass on information to the general public informing them of the services at their disposal, and I am suggesting that those services should be better advertised. This would be one of the most convenient travelling aids people like ourselves could have. With a post office savings bank account, we could go into a post office anywhere in the dominion to withdraw what money we needed without having to pay exchange or anything else. It would not be necessary to carry round large sums of money.
There are one or two minor matters that I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General. The first is in connection with the passbook which has provision for only twenty entries. In my opinion the passbook should be larger. When the passbook is filled up, the postmaster has no authority to issue a new book. The old book must be sent to Ottawa when a new one is issued with the balance verified. I think the postmaster in a community should have authority to issue a new book, thus eliminating the wait of eight or ten days or two weeks that it takes to get one from Ottawa. Last year the former leader of the opposition appealed to the government to increase the interest rate paid on post office savings to 21 per cent. I think this increase in interest would encourage depositors to deposit their money, and the government would have a means of helping to carry on the finances of the country.
I should like to refer to one other matter which has been mentioned already in this discussion, namely, patronage. I have a letter here that I received from a man who had carried the mails under contract for eighteen years and three months. His contract expired

Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
on December 31 last, but there was no renewal forwarded. The post office authorities told him to carry on because there must be some mistake, but his new contract did not come along. Then on March 31 he received word that his services would no longer be required and that a new man would be on duty the next morning. That is the only intimation he received after a service of eighteen years and three months. These things should not be.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I appreciate the constructive suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Needham), and I can assure him they will receive every attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
281. To compensate H. Marin, ex-mail contractor for financial loss resulting from falling off in amount of mail carried due to change in service, $2,088.32.
Thomas Langton Church: I have a few suggestions to make which I should like the Postmaster General to pass along to his colleagues in the cabinet. If certain changes were made and this department brought more in line with the British post office I am sure there would be increased revenue. First, the matter of tourist trade should be transferred to this department because this is really post office work. Matters having to do with radio should come under this department, as well as the advertising of natural resources and other matters of this kind. There would be reduced expenses if there was more coordination in this connection. It would eliminate considerable over-government, over-taxation and the appointment of useless commissions. The Post Office Department should carry out some of the provisions of the election laws, such as the sending out of postcards to electors as provided for in the new statute. In my opinion, if these matters were coordinated, considerable economy could be effected. They are really educational matters and belong in this department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
877. Commercial intelligence service, $836,000.
Howard Charles Green: Some weeks ago we had under discussion the question of Japanese canned salmon being sold in Australia and Great Britain with the letters "CAN" on the top of the cans, the result being that the salmon was taken by the buyers to be Canadian salmon. At that time the minister was not able to give us much information, and I wonder if he has a statement to make to-night.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, at the time I said I had no information the department had already received notice of this and had taken up the matter with the British government. Mr. Hudd, chief Canadian trade commissioner in the United Kingdom, following some correspondence, brought the matter to the attention of the United Kingdom customs authorities. He now reports that this seeming violation of the United Kingdom Merchandise Marks Act has been noted and that warning will probably be issued to officers of the ports to watch out for possible similar future violations by Japanese salmon shippers If similar instances are found in the future the customs will probably insist that the qualifying mark of origin shall be equally conspicuous and indelible with the marks with which they are associated. Under the provisions of the merchandise marks act, however, it is not obligatory to state the country of origin and the use of the word "foreign" is sufficient for the purposes of the act. I think the matter is well in hand.


Howard Charles Green: What about Australia?


William Daum Euler: Was not that in connection with labels?


Howard Charles Green: No, the Japanese were doing the same thing in Australia; they were shipping in cans marked with the letters "CAN."


William Daum Euler: I did not think it applied to Australia. I thought the complaint was that the goods were being marked with wrong labels.


Howard Charles Green: No, the minister will find that there were two complaints about Australia.


William Daum Euler: I see I have a memorandum on the matter here:
The Canadian trade commissioner at Sydney advised having protested to the Department of Health of New South Wales, who took the matter under careful review.
Samples of cans, and paper pressings of "CAN", in support of the above statement, were sent by the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Fisheries at the time of their receipt. The Department of Fisheries replied that the whole Australian salmon situation had just been discussed (October 12, 1938) at a Vancouver meeting of the canned salmon section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. As a result, it was decided to call a meeting of the entire canned salmon industry in order to take concrete action to correct reported irregularities in the Australian market. The Department of Trade and Commerce advised the Canadian trade commissioner in Sydney accordingly.
In January, 1939, the Canadian trade commissioner at Sydney cabled the Department of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa, that, while
4570	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Commercial Intelligence
more similar shipments then in transit to Australia would be admitted, the embossed lettering "CAN" was now viewed as a contravention of the Commerce and Trade Description Act, and that future shipments must be marked indelibly "Produce of Union of Socialistic Soviet Republics in Asia." This cable was relayed to the Department of Fisheries and a copy sent to its chief supervisor at Vancouver.
We have every reason to believe that the action taken in Australia should put an end to the practice complained of.
There was also the matter of Canadian salmon being sold in Australia sometimes with a Japanese label, but that has been dealt with. It does not contravene the Australian regulations. As a matter of fact, much of our salmon is shipped without any indication of the country of origin, and importers in Australia put their own labels on. In some instances the labels were actually printed in Japan, but as they bore the words, "printed in Japan" they did not contravene the Australian regulations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The other day I saw some
Japanese canned goods with the label printed entirely in English, and the name of a Vancouver firm on the label. That lettering, being all in heavy-type, gave one the impression that the fish was canned in British Columbia. But then in most inconspicuous type, so small as to be hardly noticeable, were the words, "packed in Japan." I do not know whether that is a way of overcoming the difficulty just referred to in regard to marking "CAN" on the tin, but evidently it is an evasion of the existing regulations. If there is going to be labeling of the place where the fish was packed so that the buyer can tell where it came from, it should be in type noticeable to the naked eye. I could easily procure some canned goods to show the minister how easily people can be fooled by labeling such as I mention, so inconspicuous as hardly to be noticed. If the regulation requiring the name of the country of origin to appear on the label can be overcome in this subtle way, I think the department should revise the regulations or at all events insist on the place where the goods were packed being printed conspicuously so that the buyer would know exactly where they came from.


William Daum Euler: That comes under the marking act, which is within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Revenue. I do not know whether the act prescribes the exact size of the lettering to be used, but I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.


Thomas Reid: I think the hon. member for
Winnipeg North has reference to tuna fish because I doubt if any Japanese salmon comes * in here.


William Daum Euler: The reason for the importation of tuna fish is that we do not produce enough to supply our own requirements.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not a case of people
objecting to the labeling, but some people, if they knew the goods came from Japan, would not buy them, fish or any other commodity.


William Daum Euler: Personally I am inclined to
agree with my hon. friend. I am not declaring any policy, but I see no reason why any commodity that is imported should not, if it is at all possible, bear the name of the country of origin so that the Canadian people can decide whether they want to buy goods from that country or not. But that can be dealt with under the marking act, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
378. Electricity and gas inspection services, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, $278,010.
Thomas Langton Church: In view of the cheap light and power movement in many of the provinces, would it not be well to reduce the cost of this inspection? Publicly owned utilities are supplying light and power at cost to consumers, and an item of $278,010 for inspection is a very heavy burden in the smaller places. In Ontario we have cheap light and power in the rural communities, but the cost of inspection of meters is a very large item of overhead. It seems to me that the government would be well advised to consider giving the inspection free. There is no profit from the system itself, because the power is supplied at cost, and this item of inspection imposes a very heavy burden on the consumer. I hope the minister can see his way to revising the schedule or reducing the inspection charge substantially.


William Daum Euler: It is always the intention that these services shall pay for themselves. This particular service pays for itself and has a substantial surplus. I shall be glad to take into consideration the possibility of making some slight cut. It is not the intention of the government to make any particular profit; we simply want the service to carry itself.


Mr. MacNICOL:: If I may revert to item 377 for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to say something kind about the department, I was

Supply-Trade-Motion Pictures
glad to hear some time ago about the splendid work performed by one of the department's officials in Sydney or Victoria, Australia.


William Daum Euler: Sydney or Melbourne, or both.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I said Victoria I was thinking of the state. A Toronto manufacturer has been shipping to Australia lately a large quantity of machinery worth a good deal of money. In conversation I asked him how he obtained this business, and he gave the credit to one of the officials in the Department of Trade and Commerce of Canada, who is employed in Australia. I asked him to describe this gentleman to me, and learned with much satisfaction that he is thoroughly qualified to discuss and explain the operation of machinery; and because of his ability and knowledge of manufacturing products, particularly machinery, he was able to obtain a very large order for this Toronto manufacturer. I felt that the department would really be right in sending a complimentary letter to that commissioner with regard to his work. I -hope that a similar type of gentleman will be engaged in South Africa, because the manufacturer tells me that he would be able to sell the same line of material there. If the department has such men working abroad, I am satisfied that considerable results will come from our commercial intelligence branch. It was news to me, because I did not know that our men did that sort of work. I realize, of course, that a man thoroughly conversant with roadmaking machinery and equipment of that sort, not by hearsay but by practical operation, would be in a position to do a great deal for Canada. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the minister for having allowed me to make these remarks.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Are we back on item 378?


Frederick George Sanderson: It has not yet been passed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I have the information regarding the receipts and the surplus? There has been some criticism in connection with the cost, and I should like to know what the surplus was.


William Daum Euler: The revenues were $329,571 and the expenditures $254,421, so that there is a surplus of $75,149.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I join with the hon. member for Broadview in his criticism because it has been represented that the fees are high. That is a rather unfair accumulation.


William Daum Euler: I have not heard any
criticism, and I ought to hear it, although I am not questioning what my hon. friend says. I shall be glad to consider a possible reduction in the fees, but we want to make sure that the service carries itself.


Mr. THOMPSON:: What is the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and why the increase of $18,120?


William Daum Euler: Electricity is supposed to
be a fluid. The increase is to take care of additional inspectors' salaries, travelling expenses, equipment, et cetera.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which will increase
revenue.


William Daum Euler: Yes. If there are more
inspectors, it means increased revenue. They are doing more work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S80. Motion picture bureau, $150,000.
Mr. HAYHURST:: What is the revenue of the bureau?


William Daum Euler: It is very small, only $18,000, but the expenditure is $74,000.


William Hayhurst: What is the reason for such a large increase this year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That wretched bill we put through.


William Daum Euler: There will be some added expenditure owing to the activities we expect the film board to undertake. We are going to make some documentary films, which some hon. -members have urged and which we regard as highly proper. We expect to take over a good deal of the work which in the past has been done by various departments. There was some criticism in one newspaper, writing entirely in ignorance, to the effect that the various departments would continue with the same work they have always done, making their own films. That is exactly what we do not wish to have continued. The film -board has at its disposal an efficient plant for producing pictures, and it is the intention to take over the making of films from various departments. That means an added appropriation. I may say frankly that, with the formation of the film board, it is intended that its activities shall include the making of documentary and educational films. I am of opinion that there is great national work to be done in that direction. I am not intimating that we shall have an enormous increase in expenditures either this year or next year or so long as I am in charge of

Supply-Trade-Motion Pictures
the department, but I do believe that some added expenditure is entirely justified and will return good dividends nationally from the work that will be done. It is intended to make a documentary film, which is a part of the added cost, out of the material gathered in the course of the royal visit. It will make an interesting film comprising pictures taken throughout the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is somewhat of an optimist when he says that other departments will lose their picture-making propensities.


William Daum Euler: Not entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This afternoon he stood blandly in his place while we passed a bill which will substantially duplicate another branch of the department. A few weeks ago we passed bills under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, one or two of them definitely encroaching upon and duplicating the work of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and here we are voting $150,000, an increase of $61,000, for the picture bureau. As I said when that bill was before us some time ago, the motion picture bureau then in existence was capable of carrying on the work, but we have superimposed upon that organization, at added public expense, two or three high-priced positions-at least they are to be provided for-


William Daum Euler: Only one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and I guarantee that next year or the year after,'when we come back, we shall find that very little additional work has been done. I am talking not about the number of reels, but about the official duties discharged. I venture to say that we shall find some departments carrying on subsidiary work which should be under this organization.
Some years ago parliament came to its senses and set up a bureau of statistics and a national research council. Let us take the latter particularly. The national research council took to itself all the scientific work that was being done in a haphazard way by half a dozen different departments. Mark you, Mr. Chairman, it was meant to abolish all duplication and to get rid of the rather inferior method of carrying on the work in the different departments. Parliament established the national research council and splendid laboratories were set up. But what is happening to-day? There is more clandestine scientific work being done by the departments outside the national research council than ever before. It is the old story. Any department or branch of a department

that can develop some little activity within itself, some duty or another which will help to make that branch grow, will do all it can to bring this about so that there will be more employees and the position of the chief will be aggrandized, thus bringing about an increase in salary. That is the whole psychology of the business. I am warning the minister now that by consenting to the invasion of the duties of the Department of Trade and Commerce by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries, and by setting up this board with increased high salaried personnel, we are wasting public money and duplicating public service. This department over which he presides and the bureau which has been established for some time could have done all this work without that iniquitous bill which we passed a few weeks ago.


William Daum Euler: I do not propose to rehash the arguments I gave on the former occasion, as my hon. friend has done; he has repeated what he said when the bill was before the house. He makes predictions as to what is going to happen. I doubt very much whether he is right. When he speaks of the establishment of a number of high priced technicians he is very wide of the mark. The bill provides for only one additional paid employee. My hon. friend smiles skeptically at that; I can only say, as I think his leader said in connection with another matter, time will tell. The bill is put through in entire good faith, there is no ulterior motive; the whole purpose is to serve the country with a properly equipped film board which will take a wide view, make it its business to serve the country by the promotion of educational films and other activities. Other departments will have no power to act in respect of film making any longer except with the consent of that board. If that board does not do its duty, or if the officials connected with it do not do so, my hon. friend may prove right. My intention is that they shall do their duty, and it is my intention and that of the government to see that the men on that board are capable, qualified and earnest in doing the work they are supposed to do. If they are not, I shall be quite willing to abolish the board. In the meantime I believe it is going to do a very useful work.


Mr. BARBER:: Is that what the $61,000 extra is for?


William Daum Euler: Not all of it. Some of it is for salaries, provision of short-time employment on a fee paid basis of scenarists, directors, camera men, editors, technicians, et

Supply-Trade-Motion Pictures
cetera, for the production of special documentary, educational and trade publicity films; that amounts to $16,000.
Supplies, printing, stationery, et cetera photographic supplies, chemicals and so on- we must have equipment for use in the production of these films-$18,000.
Maintenance of present equipment, $1,000.
Express, freight, cartage, et cetera, transportation of equipment used in the production of these special series of films, $2,500.
Travelling expenses, $1,500.
Staff and experts in connection with educational and publicity films, $5,000, and some miscellaneous expenses.
When inaugurating the bureau, we have to have certain additional equipment and there are certain expenses to begin it. I make no apology for it; I believe we are going to get good value for the money, and if I happen to be here next year I hope to give an account of the expenditure of these moneys that will appeal to the members of the committee as having been in the best interests of the country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice on page 192 of the estimates an item, "special personal services, $16,000." The minister stated a moment ago that there would be only one additional person hired on the extra appropriation. What is that $16,000 for?


William Daum Euler: In order to make these documentary films it may be necessary to hire experts; they may not have in the bureau now men who can do that work, and it will be necessary to hire experts for short periods. That is what the item is for.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister mean that in the list of persons referred to a moment ago, experts, et cetera, there is none capable of doing the work, that extra people have to be hired for it?


William Daum Euler: Quite so, and it may become necessary-I do not want to alarm the committee-to draw certain experts even from Hollywood; if there is a certain film which requires a certain technician that we must have, we propose to get him. The amount involved is not very large. For the work that can be done in the getting out of these educational and business promotion films this item is, I think, small, especially when one considers it in relation to some of the large amounts passed by this parliament.


Harry James Barber: Will it be necessary to bring in actors or actresses from Hollywood?


William Daum Euler: Is that a request for information, or the expression of a wish?


Mr. DUPUIS:: As the minister just said, in view of what can be done in this country I am of his opinion, that the increase in the estimate is very small in comparison with the value of that educational work. I had the pleasure of meeting the officer in charge of the motion pictures; they have interesting pictures which should be spread all over the country, if possible to every school in Canada to allow our children and youth to know their country. In my own case I had to wait until I became a member of parliament tc visit the west and the east. I am sure every hon. member will agree that there is no better means of education and acquiring knowledge than travelling and becoming acquainted with the people, the natural resources and the beauty of our country. I submit that this branch should be enlarged so that every school can have these films shown. For that purpose I suggest to the minister, if it is not already decided, that these films be made in 8, 16 and 32 millimetres.


William Daum Euler: We do that.


Angus MacInnis: When the minister was
giving the details of this vote I was not able to follow him, it did not seem to agree with the details in the estimates. He said there was a small item for travelling expenses, I think $1,500-


William Daum Euler: For the bureau staff on
regular duty.


Angus MacInnis: The item here is $8,500, and the amount for the same purpose last year was $2,000. Then he said there was a small amount for miscellaneous expenses; I notice it is $22,284 and last year it was $3,807. I am not complaining, but I could not follow the minister.


William Daum Euler: These amounts I cited are
additional to what my hon. friend has been observing. I was frank in saying that there is additional expenditure called for. With regard to the amounts I cited, for instance travelling expenses of the bureau staff on regular duties, $1,500, the total amount for travelling is $8,500. There is an increase there.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not opposing the item,
but I should like the minister to explain how these films are distributed, whether they go out to the public, whether any charge is made for them, and who has the showing of them.


William Daum Euler: My notes are pretty lengthy, but first there is the theatrical distribution. In the United Kingdom arrangements are


Abraham Albert Heaps: I just wanted some idea of the publicity the films receive. Evidently they have a fairly wide circulation. The money we spend in this way is really more by way of advertising than anything else.


William Daum Euler: I think so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It really might come under the heading of advertising more than the making of films, because while it has some educational value, it also has a tremendous advertising value, particularly outside this country. With this increase we are asked to vote, how many extra films does the minister expect we shall have within a few years?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I would not even like to commit myself to an approximation. This work will be placed in the hands of this film board when it is established, and it will depend entirely upon what they think it is wise to do. I regret that I am not able to give my hon. friend any definite idea as to what that may mean. I am afraid he will have to be content with that, because anything I might say would be merely a guess, and I do not care to do that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the minister does
anticipate a considerable increase in the amount of work that will be done compared with last year, for example?


William Daum Euler: I hope so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
382. Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom and Europe, $128,400.
Mr. MaoNICOL: I should like to make a few observations on this item if I may have the minister's attention. When he rises to say something in reply, I should like him to have the information at hand.
William Daum Euler: This is for other than the United Kingdom, it will be observed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I will wait until we get to the United Kingdom item.


Mr. PERLEY:: The minister might explain the reason for the increase and the kind of advertising carried on in countries other than the United Kingdom. Is any part of this money for advertising our agricultural products, particularly wheat, in these foreign countries?


William Daum Euler: Of this increase, $30,000 is for advertising in the United States, in connection with the world's fair. There is also a certain amount of newspaper advertising in Canada, and, in addition, from time to time the department is called upon by our trade

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
commissioners in foreign countries for added sums to enable them to carry on advertising in those countries. That is really the reason for the increase in this item.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: What kind of advertising is to be done at the world's fair at a cost of $30,000?


William Daum Euler: Advertising in United States, pictorial and reading matter, including 100,000 copies of a booklet, Canada, 1939, have been prepared for distribution at the fair, advertising Canada.


Harry James Barber: Costing $30,000?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want to discuss Canada at the world's fair just now, but I should like the minister to give a resume of what is being done there. Would he prefer to give it now or under item 392, which has to do with exhibitions?


William Daum Euler: We might as well discuss it under the appropriate item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
383. Weights and measures inspection services, $462,606.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is there a surplus under this vote?


William Daum Euler: I think there is a small deficit. I believe we reduced the fees not very long ago, so now we have a slight deficit.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What was the approximate percentage of reduction?


William Daum Euler: The revenue was $410,896, and the deficit about $10,600, so I do not think we can make any further reduction.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What was the approximate percentage reduction in fees? I understood the minister to say there was a slight reduction. Was it five per cent, two per cent or what?


William Daum Euler: I think the reduction was made two years ago, so perhaps it will not be easy to say at the moment what the percentage of reduction was.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That question is often asked, and I should like an approximation just for general information.


William Daum Euler: If we cannot find it readily I should be glad to look up the information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it not a reduction in the fees or charges on elevator scales in the west?


William Daum Euler: I think it was for cartage, and matters of that kind, although I am not certain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
386. Administration, $106,754.
Mr. LEADER:: I have a suggestion to make to the minister. I do not know whether I am in order to make it at this time, but I shall be only a moment or two. What I have to say has to do with the commission now being charged for selling grain. I understand the grain exchange set their own tariffs. I would ask the minister to keep my suggestion in mind, and that the new supervisor for the grain exchange might be asked to consult with the grain exchange to see whether a change cannot be made.
At the present time the commission for selling wheat is one cent a bushel, and it is the same for barley, while for oats it is five-eighths of a cent a bushel. I believe the average carload of grain weighs 90,000 pounds. This would mean that it would contain 1,500 bushels of wheat, and would leave the commission for selling that carload of wheat at the sum of $15. The same car containing barley would contain 1,875 bushels, and at the present rate of commission the selling charge would be $18.75. A car of wheat at the present price of 80 cents a bushel Fort William, would be worth $1,200 to the farmer, and a car of barley would be worth only about $750. The car of barley is worth to the farmer approximately two-thirds of the value of the car of wheat, and yet he is charged $3.75 more commission for selling it. It seems to me that the same bookkeeping entries would be necessary on the sale of each car. My suggestion would be that the commission be reduced from one cent a bushel to three-quarters of a cent a bushel on barley. In that way it would be almost on a par with wheat. Precedent is found in the fact that at one time one cent a bushel was charged for the selling of oats, but now only five-eighths of a cent is charged. It is true that the amount is not very great, but it does amount to about $5 a car-and that is a worth-while saving, when one has to buy new boots for the baby. Canada produces, on an average, about 80.000,000 bushels of barley a year. So it will be seen that in the aggregate quite a sum would be saved to the farmers who grow barley. I would ask the minister to take this matter up with the grain exchange and see whether the commission could not be reduced from one cent a bushel to three-quarters of a cent a bushel for the selling of barley.


William Daum Euler: I shall be glad to consider what the hon. member has suggested.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to associate myself with the suggestion of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. Perhaps I would be disposed to go even a little farther. I
4576	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
have handled a great deal of grain in the last twenty years, through operating an elevator, and I do not believe that the grain men at Winnipeg are giving sufficient service for this commission. They could easily reduce the commission on wheat to three-quarters of a cent, on barley to five-eighths of a cent and on oats to half a cent a bushel.
. There is one other matter I should like to suggest to the minister. At the present time this payment is not called a commission but is described as a service charge, and it is paid to the grain firms and elevator companies for handling the grain. I think they are not entitled to those payments. The board gets the grain. Once it is delivered to the elevator it becomes the property of the board. All a grain firm can do to earn the service charge is to hand over the papers in Winnipeg, after the grain is shipped from the interior, and take them to the offices of the board. The grain then belongs to the board, which sells it. I do not think the elevator men or the grain commission firms-some of them are registered as commission firms, are entitled to that service charge. I do not know why they have changed the name from "commission" to "service charge," but the latter is what it is now called. I think the minister would be well advised to have different arrangements made between the grain firms and the board whereby the board would not pay a full cent-whether it be called a service charge or a commission-because no real service is given, compared with what was done formerly. When a grain firm used to take grain from a farmer, that firm was responsible for inspection and weighing, seeing that everything was in proper order, and transferring the money to the farmer after all expenses were paid. But as I understand the situation at the present time, the original document is handed to the board, and they are the ones who are entitled to any charge which could be made against the grain for selling. I heartily concur in the suggestion of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


William Daum Euler: I shall be glad to give consideration to what the hon. member has said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
387. Operation and maintenance, including inspection and weighing, $1,546,571.
Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the income from inspection and weighing of grain?


William Daum Euler: Last year the revenue from grain inspection and weighing was $935,668.50, and the expenditures were $1,559,689.18, showing a deficit of $624,020.68.


Mr. SPENCE:: That is a great revenue!


James J. Donnelly: Is that the revenue from both inspection and weighing?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Why is there a deficit?


William Daum Euler: I suppose that last year the crop was small and the overhead was about the same; that may be one reason. However, there has always been a deficit. In 1937-38 the deficit was $833,000; in 1935-36 it was $508,000, and in 1936-37 it was $457,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
388. Canadian government elevators, including equipment, $314,065.
George Halsey Perley: How many elevators are operated in the western division, and how many interior terminal elevators are there? What are the storage rates and elevator fees charged at the different tenninals? Is there any difference in the elevator fees and storage charges at Churchill, at Fort William and on the Pacific coast?


William Daum Euler: The storage charges for
straight grade and tough grain, Fort William, Port Arthur and west of Calgary are l/30th of one cent a bushel a day. The rate for the government interior terminals is l/60th of one cent a bushel a day. The rates for Churchill, from September 1 to October 8 and August 1 to August 31 are l/25th of one cent a bushel a day, and from October 9 to July 31 they are l/90th of one cent a bushel a day, except that on grain in store on October 9 in any year and on grain delivered between October 9 and November 30 in the same year, both dates inclusive, the total storage charge up to and including August 31 in the following year shall be -one cent a bushel.


George Halsey Perley: The rates are higher in the fall of the year than they are for the two or three shipping months.


Olof Hanson: What are the rates at
Vancouver?


William Daum Euler: "West of Calgary" would, I believe, include Vancouver. Does my hon. friend want a list of the elevators?


George Halsey Perley: How many interior elevators are there, and how many are there at Fort William? I should like a list of the eastern terminal elevators.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I have not that information handy. Would my hon. friend like to have a book containing that information?

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act


George Halsey Perley: What are the rates charged in the eastern terminal elevators?


William Daum Euler: At Collingwood the rate is one cent a bushel for domestic grain, three-quarters of a cent a bushel for export grain.


George Halsey Perley: That is per month.


William Daum Euler: Per month, in the summer.


George Halsey Perley: What are the winter storage rates?


William Daum Euler: From January 1, 1939, to March 31, 1939, it is free for thirty days and thereafter one-quarter of one cent for every ten day period, or l/40th of one cent a bushel a day. Maximum storage on export grain is 1J cents for the period November 4, 1938, to April 30, 1939. Goderich is the same. Midland, Owen Sound, Sarnia and Toronto are all the same. Kingston is l/40th of one cent a bushel a day. Port Colborne is l/50th of one cent a bushel a day, maximum storage H cents for the period December 1, 1938, to April 30, 1939. Prescott is l/60th of one cent a bushel a day, maximum storage li cents for the period December 1, 1938, to April 30, 1939. Montreal is l/90th of one cent a bushel a day. I do not know whether I need give the balance of the information.


George Halsey Perley: What are the rates for Sorel and Quebec?


William Daum Euler: Sorel, l/40th of one cent a bushel a day, and Three Rivers, l/90th of one cent.


George Halsey Perley: What is the period at Sorel?


William Daum Euler: From December 1, 1938, to April 30, 1939, it is one cent a bushel.


George Halsey Perley: Were special rates granted to any of the large grain or export firms on grain carried in the eastern terminals this last winter?


William Daum Euler: I have no information as to that.


George Halsey Perley: Were any special arrangements made with any of the large international firms?


William Daum Euler: I have not any information whatsoever.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Should not the minister have that information because this act is administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce?


William Daum Euler: I wonder if my hon. friend would under similar circumstances be able to give all that detailed information offhand. Perhaps I owe the committee an apology for
not having a member of the board of grain commissioners here. If it is important enough it will be quite easy to have one of them here, but personally I have not all that detailed information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister knows why I made that remark. Last year there was quite a controversy in the house over the special arrangement which had been made, I believe with the Dreyfus Company in Quebec. This arrangement had been made over the head of the minister without reference to the board of grain commissioners.


William Daum Euler: Was that discussed in the house?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, and I have the papers in my desk now. The arrangement was changed after it had been challenged in the house. I had a return brought down containing the correspondence between the board of grain commissioners and, I believe, the national harbours board.


William Daum Euler: That was in connection with the Department of Transport; this is trade and commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly it is trade and commerce. The point is that a special arrangement was made by the Department of Transport in direct violation of the authority of the board of grain commissioners, and what we are asking now is: Was the same process repeated this past year?


William Daum Euler: My memory is not so particularly good, but I cannot recall the matter coming up in connection with my estimates last year; I think it must have come up in connection with the Department of Transport. As to whether anything was done this year, I have no information; and having no information that it was done, I would assume that it was not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was.


William Daum Euler: I have no information that it was, and therefore the assumption is fair that it was not done, especially in view of the fact that the action was protested last year and corrected.


George Halsey Perley: I was leading up to the question which the hon. member for Kootenay East has just asked. I have it on pretty good authority that it was done again this year through the Department of Transport over the head of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I was trying to find out if the minister had any information.
4578	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act


William Daum Euler: I have no information, but I shall certainly make inquiry.


George Halsey Perley: I think it would be well for the minister to do so.


Mr. DAMUDE:: Are all the grain elevators under the Department of Trade and Commerce, or are they under the harbours board? I am referring particularly to the elevator at Port Colborne. Is it managed by the harbours board?


William Daum Euler: It is not under the Department of Trade and Commerce but under the Department of Transport. With reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the complaint that was made was not with regard to storage rates, was it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


William Daum Euler: If it was under the board of grain commissioners the minister would have been made acquainted with it. I have had no information with regard to it whatever, but I shall make inquiry.


James J. Donnelly: What is the total
amount which the government elevators earned by the storage of grain?


William Daum Euler: It was $209,640.10.


James J. Donnelly: And what were the
rentals for the different elevators?


William Daum Euler: There is only one rented,
that at Port Arthur.


James J. Donnelly: There is one at Prince Rupert.


William Daum Euler: It is not rented now.


William Hayhurst: Is there any grain in
the elevator at Prince Rupert?


William Daum Euler: None at all.


Angus MacInnis: What is the number of
government elevators, the number owned and the number operated?


William Daum Euler: There are elevators under
the Department of Transport like the one at Churchill, for example, and at Montreal, but under this department the government-owned elevators are at Moose Jaw, Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Prince Rupert.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I want to commend the Department of Trade and Commerce for having got the grain board this year for the first time to fill the internal
^1>. Perley.]
storage elevators which belong to the government, thereby not only saving a considerable amount of money for the people for whom they are handling the grain but making use of the storage we have there. This year they will probably show a real profit in the handling of grain by the grain board, and I would suggest to the minister that another year these elevators be filled to capacity as soon as possible and that any other government storage in the country be used before storage is paid by the grain board to any private corporation.


George Halsey Perley: It would be surprising if
the government had not filled their interior elevators this year under the circumstances, because about 75 per cent of the elevators in the interior are operated by grain firms and some of them were filled to the roof and almost ready to burst. If the government had not taken government wheat and made use of the government storage, it certainly would have been surprising. It saved storage that would otherwise have had to be paid to elevator companies through the whole west, so it was only the right and proper thing to do. I do not think the department needs to be congratulated upon having done it; it would have been foolish if they had not done so.


John Gordon Ross: I agree it was the proper thing to do, but the previous government did not do it at all.


George Halsey Perley: Because the grain was going right through to the terminals in the east as fast as it could.


John Gordon Ross: There was plenty of grain, 298,000,000 bushels, when we came into power, and not a bushel of it in government internal storage elevators.


Angus MacInnis: What amount of grain went through the Prince Rupert elevator in the last grain year?


William Daum Euler: None.


George Halsey Perley: There is an item in the supplementaries, I assume, providing for supervision of the grain exchange in accordance with the new legislation?


William Daum Euler: Yes, $25,000.


George Halsey Perley: In the supplementaries?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Harry James Barber: In the details on page 196 of the estimates there is $16,800 for temporary assistance last year and $68,160 this year. The minister said something a little while ago about overhead and a small crop accounting

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions
for certain losses, tout it would appear that the overhead is being considerably increased by this item of temporary assistance.


William Daum Euler: It is a 'bookkeeping entry. The employees had been put in as permanents and the treasury board did not approve, so they were put back on a temporary basis and brought back into this estimate.


Harry James Barber: They do not appear in the permanents because the reduction for permanents is only from $70,000 to $69,000 odd.


William Daum Euler: It reduces the permanents by $92,525.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and publicity-
392. Exhibitions, $393,300.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I suppose a substantial part of this appropriation will be for the exhibit at the world's fair in New York. I am wondering what the value of these exhibits at international fairs really is. I have attended some of them in different places and that question has often occurred to me. In the exhibit that Canada is showing in New York we shall have to compete with all the larger countries which are spending ever so much more money than we are, far more than we could afford to spend, and far more than we ought to spend in this way. Apart from the ordinary competition which our exhibit will find in the larger nations, there is also the great attraction of the side-shows, which, it seems, are more important to the vast majority of the people who visit exhibitions than are the exhibits of the various countries. On the opening day of the world's fair in New York there was almost a riot because the side-shows were not open, and one can hardly dare suppose that because the Canadian exhibit had not opened on the first day there would be any riot.


William Daum Euler: Hardly any of the others were opened either.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That emphasizes my point.
I have visited these exhibitions in the past and gone to the buildings representing various nations, and I have come away wondering whether the vast majority of the people who attend these fairs really go for the purpose of getting some information regarding the countries exhibiting or for an altogether different reason. It is true that a goodly number of visitors may inspect the exhibits of Canada and other countries, but in view of the enormous amount of money we are spending and the comparatively small showing we are making in relation to other countries that are exhibiting, would the minister be good
enough to give us a frank opinion on this question? We are spending a large sum of money, and it is a question whether we should be more conspicuous by our absence than by the exhibit we have there.


William Daum Euler: I am sure my hon. friend
will hardly expect me, when we are authorizing an expenditure of some $400,000 for an exhibit at that fair, to say that the money is not well spent. I can understand the mental attitude of my hon. friend because I have sometimes been in the same frame of mind myself. But the doubt he suggests in regard to the value of this exhibit applies to all advertising. No one can detect and identify any particular benefit accruing from newspaper advertising, for instance, especially if it is general. We advertise the natural resources of the country; we advertise our railways; the Departments of Mines and Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries and others all advertise to the world at large what we are producing, and it would be difficult to estimate-certainly it could not be done in dollars and cents- the resultant value to Canada. In my opinion this advertising has a considerable value. Take the tourist bureau advertising the beauties and attractions of Canada. Many people are ignorant of those attractions, and this advertising will bring a definite return in the form of tourist business. I must not forget to mention that the provinces are also exhibiting their own resources.
I am afraid, not speaking strictly from the practical or utilitarian point of view, it would be embarrassing to us if our good neighbour to the south did not find us sharing at least to some extent in their great world exhibition. It is true also that compared with some of the larger countries Canada cannot make quite the showing that they are making; and I must say that while kind words have been spoken of our exhibit, there has also been some criticism that it is not as impressive as that of Great Britain or even of Russia or of Italy, and some other countries who are spending anywhere from three to five million dollars. We are spending around $400,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What are the other countries spending?


William Daum Euler: Great Britain, I believe, is
spending over four million dollars, and Russia about the same. I do not think anyone would suggest that Canada should spend four or five millions. Personally I did not feel that we should. In fact, I had not the hardihood to suggest such a thing to my colleagues because it would have been turned down.
45S0
Supply-Trade-Exhibitions

We are, however, making a good exhibit for the money we are spending. The location has been criticized, but in my opinion it has its advantages. I saw it some months ago, but at that time, during the period of construction, it was not possible to form a definite idea of it. It is, however, close to the second most important entrance at the fair, and so far we have had an average of
25,000	visitors a day. We are not adopting the practice, which apparently some people expect, of showing manufactured articles and allowing private exhibitors to display goods with the idea of making sales. That is not the purpose. When we showed at the Glasgow exhibition last year we did something of that sort, but we did not think we should do it at this exhibition, and other countries are not following that practice. We are trying to exhibit the natural resources of Canada, and some of the provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, are showing their resources. We are showing what we can do industrially, and our railways are making a fine exhibit. The Department of Fisheries, the Department or Agriculture, the Department of Mines and Resources and the tourist branch of the Department of Transport have their exhibits at the fair. I have not seen the fair since the opening, but I hope to see it next week and to form some opinion of my own. Some people may be disappointed that our exhibition is not as large or impressive as those of some of the larger countries who have spent three or four or five million dollars, but such critics should bear in mind the comparatively limited amount we are expending and should be satisfied if for the money we spend we get a commensurate value.


William Hayhurst: Has the government a sufficient number of people to show the products that are exhibited? I ask that question because last year I went to Glasgow to the empire exhibition, and I congratulate the government upon its splendid pavilion there and the number of people who visited that exhibition. Most of the people to whom I spoke	were pleased with the exhibits
displayed by the Canadian government, but my criticism is that I found that many people could not understand the various minerals and so forth exhibited by the Department of Mines and Resources. There were nickel products, asbestos and other things, and ores, but no one seemed to be there to explain the exhibits. So I took it upon myself to talk to the people about the various commodities produced in Canada. Very soon I had

an audience of about one hundred round me, whether because I was a good lecturer, or my good looks-


William Daum Euler: We will send the hon. member to New York.


William Hayhurst: At any rate it was evident that the government was not doing all it could to advertise our products. I wondered if the officials the government had there were doing all they could to explain to the people Canada's products. It pays to advertise; I believe in advertising. With regard to fish, we need a balanced diet, and if a pamphlet were circulated showing what we should eat, more people would consume these different products. The benefit of the Glasgow exhibition advertising would have been greatly multiplied if there had been more men and women there who would have spoken about our exhibits and interested the public. Thousands of people were passing through these places, but no one seemed to know what it was all about. They were attracted by the beauty of the exhibit, but its utilitarian and commercial aspect was not presented to the best advantage to the people from all parts of the British empire who were there.
How many people are employed in the New York exhibit?


William Daum Euler: There are some fourteen there or will soon be there on behalf of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The provinces also will have their own employees.
With regard to the Glasgow exhibition I am somewhat surprised at the criticism of my hon. friend. Perhaps he is better able to judge than I was; I visited there for a few hours, but possibly I did not see it under quite the same conditions as my hon. friend.


William Hayhurst: I visited it on several occasions on different days.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to hear my hon. friend's observations, because I shall take care that the same thing, if it occurred at Glasgow, does not occur at New York.


William Hayhurst: Would the International Nickel Company or any other industrial group in Canada have their own salesmen there also?


William Daum Euler: There will be none of that sort of showing in New York; no private concerns are showing, unless one calls the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways private concerns. There are no manufacturers or industrialists as such exhibiting their products. We had some applications, but we did not think we had room, and that was not

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions
our purpose particularly. We were going to show the natural resources of Canada, and we felt that if they wanted to show their own products they should go to the industrial buildings. I think some Canadian concerns are showing, but not in the Canadian pavilion.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Does that $400,000 represent the expenditure in connection with the Department of Trade and Commerce, or does it include the expenditure of the various departments exhibiting?


William Daum Euler: The amounts required by the various departments are included in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Harry James Barber: But that would not include the railways and the different provinces?


William Daum Euler: No; they assume their own, but this refers to the Department of Trade and Commerce itself and the publicity branches of the other departments.


Harry James Barber: Therefore the comparison with any other country is hardly fair. I think the total expenditure on the part of Canada, including the provinces, should be used in making comparison with other countries, because no doubt theirs includes the whole country.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps so.


Thomas Reid: Who is responsible for the paintings sent to these exhibitions?


William Daum Euler: The national gallery of
Canada.


Thomas Reid: I think we have advertised this country too long as a land of ice and snow. It is little wonder we find people from Texas coming up here in July with fur coats and skiis. Many of the pictures that are sent to other countries depict Canada as a land of snow. It is time we stopped that; let other countries know that this is a land of sunshine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and publicity-
S93. Publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe, $491,700.
John Ritchie MacNicol: When I was last in the old country I interested myself in reading the advertising in the newspapers in connection with the "Canada Calling" campaign, to see how much impression it made and what it did for all branches of production effort in Canada. I visited a number of cities to observe the billboards. Much of what has been said on the last item is a basis of some information I am going to give. In these
exhibitions there was little pertaining to Canadian manufactures. The minister said that the purpose of the exhibition was to advertise Canada's produce, meaning, I suppose, farm produce. I say the time has come when industry also should be advertised. After all, we have in this country . over a million people working in industry and producing in our plants some four billion dollars worth of products in a year. I do not find in the exhibitions in the old country or in the "Canada Calling" campaign anything about what is produced by the working men in industry in Canada. For instance, at Glasgow on the billboards there was a picture of a Canadian wheat field, a lot of wheat sheaves, all very attractive to people who have the idea that we do not raise anything in this country but wheat, a couple of binders, and I am not sure whether it was a couple of Indians on horseback, but some kind of people. Another billboard had pictures of all sorts of	canned	goods;	that is	all right,we want to	sell them over	there. There	wasalso a picture of a farm with a pig-pen that the pigs pictured thereon could never get into, if there is any relation between the size of the	pig and	the size of the	pen,	andpictures of	turkeys	larger	than a	pig,	and
s>
on. I found that everywhere; all the billboards and newspapers had nothing on them except Canada's farm products. Here is an advertisement I picked up in Leicester:
Canada calls Leicester to buy Canadian produce, she calls as Britain's nearest dominion, close-linked by common interests of race and trade. Canada buys from Leicester hosiery, underwear, boots and shoes and knitwear of many kinds. In return she sends to Leicester the choicest produce of Canada's rich soil.
It is true we manufacture all these things in Canada. From these advertisements which appeared all over the old land I took it that the country from which I came was just a farming country, with no industries at all and no workmen, although I knew very well there were over a million men employed in the industrial plants of Canada. The impression people over there seem to get, as the hon. member for New Westminster said a moment ago, is that this is a country producing nothing but raw and farm products, with a population made up mostly of farmers. Those things are all very necessary, of course, but Canada means a great deal more than that, and when I go to another country I like to see something more than that advertised. I am not speaking against that sort of advertising, but I like to see the people of other countries told that Canada is something more than an agricultural land. We are now one of the greatest industrial countries of the world. My

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions
lion, friend to my right points out that the rooster in one advertisement in connection with one of these campaigns is as large as a cow. I suppose the pictures really have no relation to the comparable sizes of the various animals illustrated.
At the time of the coronation I remember very well that that magnificent store on Oxford street, Selfridge's, had wonderful plaques on all corners illustrating the various parts of the empire. I was particularly struck with the Canadian plaque, which was some thirty to forty feet high and perhaps almost as wide. After looking it over, I began to wonder if I really came from Canada. I saw on the plaque a number of pine trees with a goat among them; some totem polgs; an Indian dressed in his native clothes, complete with shawl and everything else; a hunter with a cap pulled down over his ears so that his face could not be seen, which would indicate that this must be a very cold country; a gentleman on logs in a river; dogs that looked like Eskimo dogs, and finally a Canadian mountie. Canada means a great deal more than that. That sort of thing is all very well, but I take the stand that when we exhibit or advertise in other countries we should tell the people that this is a thoroughly settled country. I believe western Ontario is about as thickly settled as most parts of the old country, with the exception of the townships and counties adjacent to the large cities. But according to all this advertising we are just producers of raw and farm products. We manufacture finished articles here also, and when the department advertises again I should like it to devote some part of that advertising to the products of the million or more workers in industry in this country. I know it is not the sole purpose of the Department of Trade and Commerce to stimulate the export of farm products; but if that should become the purpose of the department, then we had better create an industrial department for the purpose of seeing to it that industrial products are also exported.
When I was in the old country I made the best survey I could among manufacturers and others, visiting various boards of one kind and another, and I was very much surprised to read in a magazine called The Rubber Age, of May, 1937, the report of one of the big rubber manufacturing companies of Great Britain. In this report I found an opinion expressed that I discovered to be fairly prevalent in the old country, that Canadian manufacturing is just branch manufacturing, and that when you buy in Canada you merely

buy from the branch of a United States company, which means that in so doing you are not being patriotic towards the old country manufacturer. That is not a correct opinion, and I am convinced that the department should make a strong effort to convince the people of Great Britain that we are not just a branch manufacturing country, though even the branch companies are very large concerns in this country, employing thousands of workmen. I think it worth while to put this report on record, for the information of the department:
This group, which embraces footwear, general rubber goods, garments and sports goods, plays an important and increasing part in the broadening of the company's basis to which I have referred. The improved results from this group in recent years are a most encouraging feature of our operations.
Unfortunately, we still continue to suffer from severe competition from British territories overseas. You will remember that the chairman has more than once referred to the competition in rubber footwear from British territories in the far east, where very low standards of living and wage levels prevail.
We also suffer from the dumping in this country of Canadian made goods, some of which are sold here at prices below prices in the Canadian market.
I am told that is not so, but this annual report might lead one to believe that Canada is a low-wage country. As a matter of fact the wages in our rubber factories are well on to twice as high as the wages paid in the rubber industry of the old land. Furthermore, I discovered on investigation that many of the employees of the rubber industry in the old country start at fourteen years of age, and that seventeen and eighteen are considered fairly substantial ages. In this country one cannot start to work at less than sixteen years of age, so the age level here is not nearly as low as it is in the rubber industry of the old country.
That was the impression I obtained over there. It seemed to me there was an organized campaign to spread the idea that Canadian industry was largely an American branch manufacturing industry, whereas actually it is not. There seems to be a wrong impression even in the British parliament. I came across a magazine entitled Leicester Clothes the World, which quotes a statement that was made in the British parliament.


Mr. COLD WELL:: What is the name of
the magazine?


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
William Daum Euler: It comes from competitors.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, it may come from competitors.


William Daum Euler: The same as in Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Department of Trade and Commerce is the department which should rise to the defence of Canadian products, and not only products of the farm.
I will conclude by saying that anything I have said is not in opposition to the activities of the department in connection with the sale of farm products. I am wholly in accord with those activities, but I do suggest that there should be some effort to assist the million workers in Canadian industry, to see that the excellent products they have to offer are sold elsewhere.
In the old country I saw many electric stoves, but I did not see any advertising in respect to electric stoves made in Canada, despite the fact that we make some of the best electric stoves in the world. Our sales of electric stoves are quite extensive. I wonder why the Department of Trade and Commerce, or that department whose business it is to exploit the sale of Canadian manufactured products, should not have advertised, as an example, electric stoves made in Canada, just as it does products of the farm.

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions


William Daum Euler: I am glad the hon. member has voiced his complaint. Listening to him, I would judge that his chief complaint is that the department is advertising only farm products or food products, and that it has made no effort to advertise manufactured products in Great Britain. I believe that is the burden of his complaint. It is true that, generally speaking, most of the efforts by way of newspaper and window advertising have been to promote the sale of food products-bacon, cheese, honey and commodities of that kind. I will say now that a year or so ago, shortly after coming into the department, I had the same impression as the hon. member has expressed. I felt that while it was quite all right to advertise products of the farm, there was no reason, if it were possible to do so efficiently, why some government money might not well be spent to promote the sale of manufactured commodities. In this year's estimates there is an item of $100,000 for that purpose.
I would add, also-and perhaps the hon. member will be surprised when I say this-[DOT] that a year or so ago I wrote to the manufacturers of certain commodities in this country which are exported in large quantities, and in my communication I suggested that the department would like to cooperate with them in advertising their goods. I believe I mentioned a certain sum of money we were willing to contribute, but I did think that perhaps they might be willing to cooperate with us by making some contribution. We were told politely that they did not care to enter into anything of that kind at all. It appeared clearly at that time that they were not particularly anxious to enter into any any sort of arrangement. My hon. friend may say, "Well, the government should spend its own money, and not expect anything from the manufacturers by way of increasing their own business;" but it did seem to me that at least in that instance there might have been some cooperation. The people I have in mind have a large market over there. Despite that experience, however, I would noint out to the committee that there is an item of $100,000 in this year's estimates intended for that very purpose.
I would add that it is perhaps somewhat more difficult to advertise manufactured products than food products. For instance, lumber might be classified as a manufactured product. It is pretty difficult to advertise Canadian lumber effectively. It may be advertised in a magazine or newspaper in any way you like, but when a man goes to a lumber yard I would imagine he does not 
know whether he is buying Canadian lumber or lumber from Norway or Russia. That is one difficulty.
The hon. member will understand that it is quite impossible for the federal government to advertise the product of any one factory; we simply cannot do that. Our advertising must be of a class. We advertise cheese, but not the cheese of any particular factory in Canada. We advertise bacon, but we do not advertise the bacon of Canada Packers or Dumart's or Schneider's, or anybody else. We cannot do that. It is somewhat more difficult to do that kind of advertising in connection with manufactured products than in connection with food products. I hope what I have said to the committee and to my hon. friend will convince him that the department accepts as one of its duties that of promoting the sale of manufactured products, in addition to the promotion of the sale of food products.
The hon. member mentioned rubbers, particularly. Many Canadian rubbers manufactured in my own town are sold in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, one of the factories from there exports 60 per cent of its output. But what I was going to say is that while we have not advertised manufactured commodities in the press, and in newspapers and magazines, our trade commissioners in various countries-and especially in Great Britain, where we have more than anywhere else-are certainly giving a great deal of their time and effort to promoting the sale of Canadian manufactured goods, and their efforts have met with marked success. One hon. member-perhaps it was my hon. friend- paid a great tribute to-night to our trade commissioners. I could read to the committee literally scores of letters that have come to me in praise of the work our trade commissioners are doing in foreign countries. I do not think our producers and our manufacturers are taking as great advantage as they might of the services that these trade commissioners are willing to put at their disposal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They might not all be as familiar with the work performed by the trade commissioners.


William Daum Euler: They should be because the department issues the Commercial Intelligence Journal which sells for $1 a year, a sum which does not cover the cost of the printing. This publication, which is sent to the manufacturers, contains the reports which our trade commissioners make from time to time which contain the particulars of trade and business in the different countries. I do not believe that some of our manufacturers are taking full advantage of the export market possibilities that exist. Some of them do not feel

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions
it is worth while to change their whole set-up. These trade commissioners are there. They are well trained men who know something about economics, who know something about the business of the country in which they are located. They are men of good address and are ready to put manufacturers and exporters in touch with buyers in the different countries. They are ready to help in the appointment of agents. They do all this kind of work and give a great deal of assistance, and they can give a great deal more. As I said last year,
I should like to urge our producers and manufacturers to take more advantage of this service provided by our trade commissioners. They are located in practically every important trading country.
Just a word with regard to wheat. While the wheat board act is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the wheat board acts independently in connection with the advertising of wheat. They have spent a considerable amount of money in Great Britain to advertise the merits of Canadian wheat and of flour made from Canadian wheat. They have a man over there constantly employed in the promotion of the sale of Canadian wheat. I do not know that I can add anything more. I can assure my hon. friend that we have not entirely lost sight of this matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have been very glad to hear what the minister said about commencing industrial advertising again-I shall put it in that way-to assist in the sale of our manufactured goods. I was just wondering if the trade commissioner in Jamaica, for instance, ascertained that there was a need there for equipment to make eaves-troughing or other articles in the tin line, whether he would get in touch with the factory in Hamilton which makes a great deal of this equipment. Would he write to the department direct, or would he write to the factory in Hamilton? If he wrote to the department, would the department get in touch with the manufacturer and spur him on? As the minister says, some of them are rather slow.


William Daum Euler: He would write to the department, and the department would get in touch with those who could supply the needed equipment. If he had received a communication direct from a manufacturer, he would communicate with the manufacturer direct.


George Halsey Perley: The minister stated that the wheat board was still carrying on an advertising campaign in the United Kingdom. He will recall that in 1936 they put on quite an elaborate campaign. I believe when the estimates were being considered last year, the 71492-2881
minister gave the amount expended, and I should like to know if he can give us now the amount the wheat board spent in advertising in the United Kingdom.


William Daum Euler: That would not be covered by the trade and commerce estimates.


George Halsey Perley: The minister mentioned that a great deal of advertising was done by the Canadian wheat board.


William Daum Euler: That would come out of the Canadian wheat board fund, and would not be included in these estimates. If I gave some information on that before, I imagine it was in a more or less casual manner in connection with the discussion on the Canadian wheat board.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any item under which we can get that information?


William Daum Euler: Not under these estimates. If my hon. friend desires to put a question on the order paper, it will be answered. He does not have to do that; I shall be glad to find out what the board is spending and let him know.


George Halsey Perley: The wheat board was not operating in 1937 and 1938, and I was wondering if they did any advertising in those years.


William Daum Euler: I do not suppose so. I know the year before, they did spend a considerable amount of money in advertising the virtues of Canadian wheat.


Harry James Barber: Is there any duplication
in the publicity campaigns carried on in the United Kingdom in connection with the sale of agricultural products? When we were discussing the agriculture estimates, we voted certain amounts of money for that purpose. It would appear that a campaign is carried on by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I think this should be explained.


William Daum Euler: I can give that explanation. At times there have been perhaps some rumours of overlapping, but the principle is definitely established and strictly carried out that the promotion of the sale, of agricultural products, as well as others, in foreign countries is the function of the Department of Trade and Commerce. There is an item in the agriculture estimates to cover marketing, but that has to do almost entirely with the promotion of marketing of farm products within Canada. It is true the Department! of Agriculture does maintain a number of men in Great Britain, but they are there, not to promote the sale of goods but to survey the
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

requirements so that they may be communicated to the department, which in turn can notify the producers as to the manner of goods required, how they should be put up and other information that will make the goods more salable in a foreign country. Once the goods reach the foreign market, the promotion of their sale is directly under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions.
394. Administration, $12,500.
Howard Charles Green: What is the present position with regard to the construction of new ships for service from the Pacific coast to Australia and New Zealand?


William Daum Euler: Nothing is being done at the moment. Tenders were called for by the Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies with which they are associated, but they were so high that for the time being they have abandoned the project.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamships subventions.
S96. Pacific ocean.
British Columbia and China, and/or Australia, service between, $118,800.
British Columbia and South Africa, service between, $80,000.
Canada, China and Japan, service between, $600,000.
Canada and New Zealand, on the Pacific, service between, $300,000.
Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte Islands, service between, $12,000.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $25,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $15,000.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, service between, $10,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between, $10,000.
Thomas Reid: As the minister knows, year after year I have been protesting against the employment of orientals on these ships. Has the minister any information as to what steps the Canadian Pacific Railway have taken to implement the recommendation that passed this house two years ago?


William Daum Euler: I think I stated last year that the Canadian Pacific were prepared to take on and train a number of Canadian boys, and they have arranged to take on twenty-four on the Pacific Empresses, six on each ship. These will be in addition to the white men formerly employed on the ships. The boys will be rated as boy seamen and, I believe, are ultimately intended to become quartermasters. This is the extent of what nas been done.
.'Mr. Euler.]


Thomas Reid: After two committees have gone into the matter, one here and one on the Pacific coast, and made definite recommendations, 1 think criticism is due because the recommendations have not been carried out. Are the Empresses given their major overhaul at Esquimalt or Hongkong?


William Daum Euler: I understand at Hongkong.


Thomas Reid: Cannot pressure be brought to bear on the company to have the major repair work done in Canada? Esquimalt can easily handle the Empresses; there is no reason why they should be laid up in Hongkong and money spent there when the work could be done in this country, and we are subsidizing this service at the rate of $600,000 a year.


William Daum Euler: I have a certain sympathy with my hon. friend's complaint, but I am informed that there are not properly equipped machine shops in Esquimalt to do the work. It is a comparatively small place.


Thomas Reid: The same statement was made last year, and my information is that Esquimalt can handle the Empresses. The company has minor repairs done here, but for major repairs it goes to Hongkong to have them done by cheap labour in the orient instead of in Canada. I personally object to that, and I think an investigation should be made to ascertain whether or not Esquimalt can handle the Empresses. My information is that it can.


William Daum Euler: We shall be glad to make inquiry.


Major James William Coldwell: The total vote for well over $2,000,000 is headed " Mail subsidies and steamship subventions." I am in sympathy with the hon. member for New Westminster in his protest. WTe have so much unemployment among our own Canadian seamen that I think every effort should be made to see that Canadian seamen are employed on ships which receive such enormous subventions and subsidies from this government.
The question I was going to ask is this: This vote is headed " Mail subsidies and steamship subventions." How much of this vote is subsidies and how much is subventions? In the case of a mail subsidy, I assume we get a service and the subsidy is part payment. To what extent is it a subvention?


William Daum Euler: There is no segregation made as to what is subsidy and what is being provided for carrying the mails. All these contracts provide that the mails shall be carried without any further cost. For example, the Canadian Pacific has a total subsidy this year of $350,000 for carrying the mails on the

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
Atlantic, and the value of carrying the mails is $182,000. So the straight subsidy is not very large.


Leslie Gordon Bell: On the Atlantic are there several companies carrying the mail, and, if so, how is the money apportioned?


William Daum Euler: It is all Canadian Pacific.


Major James William Coldwell: No other lines carry the mail?


William Daum Euler: We have no other Ca.nadian line subsidized.


John James Kinley: Are the Canadian Pacific steamships a Canadian line?


William Daum Euler: It is called the Canadian Pacific.
Mr. KINLEY': I am told that they cannot take on Canadians, that the British seamen's union will not allow them to be taken on British ships.


William Daum Euler: The ships are registered in Great Britain; that is true.


Angus MacInnis: This vote is quite a
large one. Has the government this year made any inquiry, before arranging for the subsidy, as to wages and working conditions on these ships? I think it is the policy of this as well as of past governments that when a public work or a public service is assisted out of the national treasury, certain conditions as to work and wages are stipulated. Is the same principle followed in connection with these subsidies and subventions?


William Daum Euler: There is in the contract for
local services a clause which provides:
All officers and men and other persons employed on the vessel or vessels engaged in the performance of the subsidized service set forth in this contract shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time during the continuance of this contract for competent employees in the district in which the said service is being performed, for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged.


Angus MacInnis: That is for local services?


William Daum Euler: Yes; it is not included in
the ocean services.


Angus MacInnis: A few years ago the industrial and international relations committee went fully into this question as it affects the Pacific services and made certain definite recommendations. Those recommendations were unanimous, if my memory serves me aright-I was a member of the committee-and I would ask if the government has any intention of giving effect to
any of those recommendations or of taking steps to see that reasonable wages and working conditions are put into effect on these ships. It is understood that the Canadian Pacific employs oriental labour on its vessels because it is cheaper than white labour. But I do not think this government should subsidize oriental labour. If the company was employing labour that was in a position to demand reasonable wages and reasonable working conditions approximating, say, those maintained on United States ships in the same class of service, there might be some reason for paying a subvention or subsidy, but under present conditions I do not see why in the world we pay them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is almost eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to discuss the general question of subsidies and how the various amounts are arrived at by the department. These estimates show that $2,054,000 is to be voted in subsidies and subventions for the coming year. In item 396, for instance, there is a subsidy of $600,000 for the service between Canada, China and Japan; $300,000 for the service between Canada and New Zealand; other items of $15,000 and $10,000, for other services; and $118,000 for the service between British Columbia and China and Australia. What is the basis for arriving at these amounts? Perhaps the minister would tell us either this evening or on some other occasion when these estimates are before the committee.


William Daum Euler: Subsidies are granted on the
general theory of promoting the sale of our goods in other countries. Many of these ships would not operate if they were not assisted, because they could not make sufficient profit. The whole question of subsidies may be a matter of opinion. So far as I am concerned, I do not like the idea of subsidies at all. I would like to see every tub stand on its qwn bottom-I did not intend a pun or to refer to any of these ships as being tubs. As I say, I do not like the idea of subsidies at all, but in order to sell our goods in other countries-and it is necessary that we do-there must be means of transportation supplied, and these services could not carry on, it is contended, without our supplementing the rates in this way.
As to how the amount is arrived at, in most instances tenders are called for. Not always, but where we find the service is properly rendered and there is no other line of steamships available we often give the contract again at
Royal Visit

the same rate if we think it is correct after an examination of the balance sheet, and nearly always they show losses.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Naturally, especially if subventions and subsidies are going round.


William Daum Euler: It is a matter of opinion,
but in the interests of foreign trade we think it is advisable to supplement the revenues of these ships in this way.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 26, 1939