amounted to $130,000. When that vote was under consideration I asked the minister the following question, which appears on page 3358 of Hansard:
Mr. Short: Is it the intention of the department to expend any of this $130,000 for advertising ?
Mr. Cardin: I am informed that the officers are preparing to do advertising out of this vote.
Mr. Short: A portion of this money will be used on advertising?
Mr. Cardin: Yes.
I understand that not one dollar was spent in the advertising of fish products, notwithstanding the fact that application was made by the Canadian Fishermen's Association that the department carry on a vigorous advertising campaign in connection with the industry. A bulletin is issued by the department covering their activities, but that is of no use in the creating of a demand for fish. Is it the intention this year to spend a suitable amount for advertising?
The subsidy of $1,975 per month applies for five months only in the year. I do not think we should be criticized for making any expenditure which might prove useful to the fishermen. Up to this year I believe the collecting service has proved very profitable. The high cost of operating the service was caused by an inability to secure boats suitable to do the work, and that is the reason we entered into the contract referred to by the hon. member.
I have nothing to say against the collecting service because I want everything done that is possible for the shore fishermen in Nova Scotia. They need every assistance that can be given to them. However, it would have been much better for the
Supply-House of Commons
fishermen if the $5,270 which was paid to the Sadie Mac had been distributed among the fishermen. It might be mentioned that this boat is owned by a very good friend of the government. That boat carried 32,550 pounds of fish at a cost of $5,270. The fishermen could have eaten their fish, or salted them down, and the distribution of this amount among them would have been much better. The minister says that suitable boats could not be obtained, and he enters into a contract for five years with Mr. R. W. Hendry of Halifax for the five boats. Why was it necessary to enter into a contract for that period? The minister could have gone along the coast of Nova Scotia and obtained all the boats he required on a monthly rental basis. He could 'have obtained any number of boats at a rental of from $1,200 to $1,700 per month with the option of cancelling the charter on a month's notice. Instead of that he enters into a contract for 5 years for five boats at a rental of $1,975 each per month.
I have been in the house almost every minute for several days. Yesterday I heard what was said in the house by the two leaders. I do not know whether the hon. member for Acadia spoke, but I suppose he shared the views of both leaders, and I will act accordingly. I saw the leader of the opposition this morning. Although I am nearer to the Prime Minister, I have not yet had an opportunity of conferring with him. There is to be a conference and on the broad principle of acting generously the committee can depend I shall do the right thing.
Let me tell my hon. friend at once: the Senate itself deals with its own employees. It appoints its officers; it appoints its servants as it pleases. The House of Commons is in a different position. Our appointments come under the Civil Service Commission.
I quite understand that, but that is what I am protesting about. The people of Canada pay both Senate and House oif Commons and this house very generously votes the money to pay the higher salaries in the Senate.
hon. gentleman make that statement. He takes the view taken by that great public servant, Sir John Bourinot, whose view was that when the House of Commons decided to appoint an officer, that officer should be ipso facto appointed. I advocated the same policy four years ago, but I was denied the privilege of appointing our own officers under the control of the House of Commons, as the matter should be.