To be quite honest I must begin by saying that I am not a scientific
expert on either animals, sanctuaries or Labrador. But, by way of
excusing my temerity, I can plead a life-long love of animals, a good
deal of experience and study of them--especially down the Lower St.
Lawrence, and considerable attention to sanctuaries in general and
their suitability to Labrador in particular. Moreover, I can plead
this most pressingly important fact, that a magnificent opportunity is
fast slipping away before our very eyes there, without a single effort
being made to seize it. I have repeatedly discussed the question with
those best qualified to give sound advice--with naturalists,
explorers, missionaries, fishermen, furriers, traders, hunters,
sportsmen, and many who are accustomed to look ahead into the higher
development of our public life. I have also read the books, papers and
reports written from up-to-date and first-hand knowledge. And, though
I have been careful to consult men who regard such questions from very
different points of view, and books showing quite as wide a general
divergence, I have found a remarkable consensus of opinion in favour
of establishing a system of sanctuaries before it is too late. I
should like to add that any information on the subject, or any
correction of what I have written here, will be most welcome. The
simple address, Quebec, will always find me. The only special point I
would ask correspondents to remember is that even the best
recommendations must be adapted to the peculiarities of the Labrador
problem, which is new, strange, immense, and full of complex human
factors.
Perhaps I might be allowed to explain that I speak simply as a
Canadian. I am not connected with any of the material interests
concerned. I do not even belong to a Fish and Game club. My only
object is to prove, from verifiable facts, that animal life in
Labrador is being recklessly and wantonly squandered, that this is
detrimental to everyone except the get-rich-quickly people who are
ready to destroy any natural resources forever in order to reap an
immediate and selfish advantage, that sanctuaries will better
conditions in every way, and that the ultimate benefit to Canada--both
in a material and a higher sense--will repay the small present expense
required, over and over again. And this repayment need not be long
deferred. I can show that once the public grasps the issues at stake
it will supply enough petitioners to move any government based on
popular support, and that the scheme itself will supply enough money
to make the sanctuaries a national asset of the most paying kind, and
enough higher human interest to make them priceless as a possession
for ourselves and a heritage for all who come after.
If, Sir, you would allow me to make one more preliminary explanation,
I should like to say that I have purposely left out all the usual
array of statistics. I have, of course, examined them carefully
myself, and based my arguments upon them. But I have excluded them
from my text because they would have made an already long paper unduly
longer, and because they are perfectly accessible to every member of
the Commission which I have the honour of addressing to-night.