Mr. NEILL:

I contend that three men are not enough. What is the total output of the industry? I do not know what it is in money, but it is a very big business, and three men are not competent to run an industry so diverse as this is and located so far apart. I beg the minister to consider this point, that the board should have a membership of at least five, with not less than two nominated by the working fishermen on the Pacific and, of course, the same on the Atlantic.

I should like to take the opportunity here, which I did not get when the minister's estimates were before us, of complimenting him upon the attention he has paid to the duties of his position. He has been out to the Pacific coast twice in less than three years; when he was out there the fishermen-and he got in touch with them, that is the working fishermen-and the business men with whom he came into contact, at least those whom I have had anything to do with, appreciated his businesslike grasp of everything he handled, and he took a keen interest in every proposal put before him. If he wants to wind up his political or his fisheries career by putting himself on a pedestal for all times among the fishermen of the Pacific coast, an action which

'Mr. Neill.)

perhaps might do the fishermen more good than this bill, with all its potential trouble and expense, would be for him to use his influence with his colleagues to prohibit the return of the Japanese to the fishing industry on the Pacific coast. If his colleagues prove obdurate he may then do it himself, by a very simple regulation, not requiring any appeal to the senate or anybody else. I assure him that it can be done by a stroke of the pen.

Mr. NEILL:

Then I suggest that the minister should tell that to some of his followers, who, I hope, will act upon it. In fact, I think more of the minister than I do of the bill, and if the minister were hitched up to the bill forever I would give more support to it. The best thing that can be said for the bill is that it may do good, that it may serve a good purpose. But it is not the Book of Revelations. It is not the last thought on the subject for all time to come. It is only a possible solution of a possible difficulty that has not yet come upon us.

One of the hon. members-I speak subject to correction because my hearing is only fair and the acoustics are rotten-suggested that this was the greatest bill that had ever been introduced for the benefit of the fishermen, I presume since confederation.

Mr. NEILL:

I happened to be out of the chamber, and I am not sure that the question I have in mind has been brought up under this section. Paragraph (c) reads:

"Institution" shall have such meaning as may be prescribed in the regulations.

I do not understand why it is necessary to adopt that form. This is supposed to be an explanation, but it is really no explanation at all. It is simply handing over to the people who will draw up the regulations the power to say what it means. In the other paragraphs of this section ,we find definitions of "child", "maintains", "minister", "parent", "registration" and so on. There is no attempt made in this section to explain the meaning of "institution". It says:

"institution" shall have such meaning as may be prescribed in the regulations.

Is what we mean by "institution" so complex that it cannot be explained in a paragraph just as "child" is explained in paragraph (b)? This takes the whole power away from parliament to define an institution and gives the power to the person who will draw the regulations. Is this committee incapable of defining "institution", or is there anything improper about it that we cannot deal with it here? Is this one definition out of them all beyond us, that we cannot say what the word means? It is a common thing in this house to say, whichever party is out of power, that the government is governing by order in council, but orders in council are not nearly as bad as the abuse of the power to make regulations. Orders in council, many of them, are just matters of passing a resolution, and they must be passed by thousands in time of war. The real damage, if damage is done, is done by abuse of the power to make regulations. This power to make regulations generally appears at the back of an act where it is scarcely noticed, and it gives the framer of the regulations power almost to make an act that suits him. It is generally provided that the regulations must be laid on the table, but has any hon. gentleman had the experience of trying to get something that has been laid on the table? I was referred to three different people when I tried to get something that had been laid on the table, and finally I was told that I might get it in a few months hence if I am lucky. I would1 ask whoever is in charge of the bill to explain why it is necessary to take all powers away from this parliament to define such a simple ordinary word as "institution".

Mr. NEILL:

I have an amendment to this section, as follows:

That section 11 be amended by adding thereto as subsection 2 the following:

"Such regulations shall forthwith after approval by the governor in council be published in the Canada Gazette and shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session."

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regulations shall be published. Section 11 does not make provision for that. It provides only for the making of such regulations as may be necessary. But there will be no facility for the public to learn what has been passed.

Mr. NEILL:

Would the minister consider an alteration in the words dealing with the matter to which reference has now been made? Where standards have not been established, fish may be purchased "by the board or its agents on such basis of quality as the board may designate." That is putting far too much power in the hands of officials. I have supreme suspicion of official-made regulations, because they are far too often made for the convenience of those who carry them out rather than for the practical benefit that is to be derived from them. I cannot give the exact legal word's, but it is customary in a case like this to use language of this kind: "may be purchased by the board or its agents -on such basis of quality as the custom of the trade and/or the board may designate." That would give power to the minister after all. It would help him, or whoever makes the regulation, to take notice of the custom of the trade. It might be that an inferior class of fish, which has been well known and has always had a certain grade attached to it, or which has been designated by some name, could be sold in bulk without being put up in boxes. Certainly, at any rate, the custom of the trade would be a protection against any bureaucratic rule being passed which would make the bill unworkable. It might read: "by the board or its agents on such basis of quality as the custom of the trade and the board may designate", or it might be made to read "as the board may designate after taking into consideration the custom of the trade". If you include the words "custom of the trade" you , give that added protection, and you may be sure that the custom of the trade will be a wise and reasonable one.