1911-02-06

WESTERN FARMERS' DELEGATION.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to move that the proceedings of the meeting between the farmers' delegation and the Prime Minister, and other members of the government in the House of Commons chamber on the 16th December last, be printed for the use of members and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How soon may we expect that report?


Wilfrid Laurier: Right away.



TRAFFIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to ah article which appears in the February issue of the ' Review of Reviews,' with reference to an agreement said to have been reached between the Railway Commission of Canada and the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. The article is as follows:
It is expected that with the reciprocity treaty there will also be submitted to Congress the text of some sort of traffic agreement with Canada to regulate railroad business over the border. . . . The report of Chairman Knapp, concurred in by Chairman Mabee, and presented to the Secretary of State on the last day of December, contains recommendations of such importance to those of our citizens who are interested in trade and travel across

the border that we herewith summarize its most important points.
Then the article goes on:
The proposed treaty provides for a tribunal to enforce and administer its provisions to be known as the International Commerce Commission and which shall consist of four members, namely, the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the chief commissioner of the Board of Kailway Commissioners of Canada for the time being, a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission to be appointed by the President of the United States, and a member of the Railway Commissioners of Canada to be appointed by the Governor General of Canada in Council. The powers conferred upon and the authority given to this commission in respect of international carriers would correspond to those exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in respect of interstate carriers within the United States.
The provisions of such a treaty should apply to telegraph, telephone and express companies and such companies should be subject as respect to international business to the authority of the International Commerce Commission.
I would like to point to a paragraph taken from the message of President Taft with reference, to reciprocity, which he sent to Congress on the 26th January last. After reciting a few of the matters which had been settled, and which, he says, enabled them to make a reciprocity agreement, he proceeds thus:
An equitable arrangement has recently been reached between our Interstate Commerce Commission and the similar body in Canada m regard to through rates on the transportation lines between the two countries. The path having been thus opened for the improvement oi commercial relations, a reciprocal trade agreement is the logical sequence of all that lias been accomplished in disposing of matters of a diplomatic and controversial character.
I would like to know if that be true, and if such an agreement has been reached between our Board of Railway Commissioners, and the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. If so, by whom was the initiative taken; and if such an agreement has been made, will it be submitted to this House before the conclusion of the discussion on reciprocity, as is proposed to be done apparently on the other side oT the line. Have our Railway Commissioners the authority to make any such agreement without subjecting it to ratification by this House? The whole trend of such an agreement, I presume, is to facilitate traffic north and south instead of east and west.


Mr. GRAHAM.: As I have already stated on several occasions in this House, the question of control of rates on lines running from Canada into the United States, and from the United States into Canada


William Sora Middlebro: has been under consideration, I think, more than a year. I am not prepared to say just who originated the idea of solving the problem by the appointment of an international tribunal. It was first brought to my attention by Judge Mabee, the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The difficulties experienced by shippers on traffic between the two countries are quite apparent at times. For instance, the rate is a point, say from New York to Toronto. It is possible, I presume to get a through rate by the boards acting separately. But what results often is this, that the railway companies on each side charge a local tariff, particularly if there be no competition, and as a result the purchaser of the goods in Toronto is obliged to pay two local rates instead of one through rate. The object of the agreement, if one could be arrived at, was to form some tribunal that could quickly make a through rate that would apply from any point in Canada to any point in the United States and vice versa, so that, so far as control of rates was concerned, there would be a tribunal that as completely controlled the traffic originating in either country going to the other as if the traffic were all in one country. Judge Mabee and Mr. Knapp, head of the Interstate Commerce Commission, had several conferences and they did arrive at a basis that to them seemed satisfactory for the solution of the difficulty, and in a manner to protect both shippers and producers on either side of the line having business on the other side. The report of each of these gentlemen is now in the hands of his government. If approved it will take the form of a treaty. As to the details, so far as I am concerned, they have not been given to the public. But the information which my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) finds in the magazine referred to approximates the truth as to outlining the details. All I can say is, that so far as the Canadian government is concerned, this matter is still under consideration, and no action has yet been taken. But the report of Judge Mabee was made to this government as the report of Mr. Knapp was made to the United States government.


Mr. FOSTER.: Did Mr. Mabee take the initiative in this matter without any consultation with or authorization from the government?


George Perry Graham: No, that is not what I said. I said I was not in a position to say who originally took the initiative; the first I heard of it, Judge Mabee discussed it with me, and he had full authority to discuss it with Mr. Knapp and make a report embodying their views.	[DOT]


William Sora Middlebro: This report, apparently, states that an agreement will be sub-

mitted to the United States Congress when the treaty is discussed. Will it be discussed here when we discuss reciprocity?


George Perry Graham: It will be premature, 1 imagine, to say much about it, as it is entirely under negotiation at the present time. And, as it will be in the form of a treaty, the usual custom and practice as to treaties will be followed in both countries.



RECIPROCITY-INQUIRY FOR PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRADBURYL I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the returns brought down of the petitions and representations for and against the proposed arrangement with the American government. I notice that the petition from Manitoba in favour of admitting vegetables free into Canada is among the papers brought down, but the petitions against admitting them free are not included. Last year I had the honour to present to this House a petition from the Kildonan Association protesting against the admission of vegetables into this country free of duty. I think there was a petition sent to the hon. minister in addition to that. And I understand that a similar petition was sent in the early part of the present session. Does the minister intend to bring these down? I may also mention a petition from the stonecutters along the same line.
Mr. FIELDING.: If any petitions have been received at my department which are not included in the return, they should certainly be brought down. It is quite accidental if they have not been.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the minister if, since our conversation across the floor the other day, he has yet brought himself into a state of mind to obey the order of the House and bring down the correspondence of parties either with himself or the Minister of Customs, or any other member of the government, not any of which has yet been brought down?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not had the opportunity of looking over the returns, but I may say that I gave directions in a general way that anything covered by the order of the House should be brought down. I was informed that there were letters, which, it was thought by my officials, were not intended to be made public, and I stated that, in that case, they should not be brought down. I will give my personal attention to the matter. But I am not able to change the judgment'I gave as to the rule governing cases of this kind. If there is anything not brought down which falls within the rule-and not necessarily the written rule, but the ordinary rule and custom of the House-I will bring it down.


Mr. PATERSON.: In that connection 1 have a telegram, received late Saturday night from Vernon, stating: 'Associated 97
Boards of Trade here are forwarding resolution that duty be not taken off fruit.' I have received similar intimations from others, but my impression is that copies of what I have received have gone to the Minister of Finance as well. If there is anything of that kind, copies of which have not been sent to the Minister of Finance, I will try .and look them up.


George Eulas Foster: We would like to have them complete. The order included all minutes.


William Paterson: It has not been brought to my notice.


Mr. BLAIN.: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether or not serious consideration will be given to any special interest in Canada that may be affected by the proposed reciprocity arrangement should it become law? In the county I have the honour to represent there is a very strongfeeling in respect to these matters. Throughout the western part of Ontario, at the present moment, large sums of money are being subscribed to send delegations to the government to explain the position of specific interests that will be affected if these tariff changes become law. Will the government give serious consideration to the representations of these interests if they are made? I may anticipate by saying that a general answer that the government will listen to all complaints of everybody will not be quite sufficient. I want to know if the government will give serious consideration to these matters, or whether it -will be better for these gentlemen to stay at home on the ground that this proposal -will not- be changed?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will give most serious consideration to all the interests represented, reserving our judgment.


Richard Blain: I anticipated that.



DAMMING THE ST. LAWRENCE.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether or not any further communication lias been sent with respect to the proposed dam across the St. Lawrence river. 1 ask this question because, as I understand it, action taken by the government at the present juncture might have considerable effect.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know about that. The last move we made was to ask for all information on the subject.
I received, a few moments ago, a report of the committee which had charge of the Bill. It will be brought down to-morrow.


Mr. HUGHES.: In the same connection, has the Prime Minister, or any member of the government, information as to any proposal on the American side for the diversion of the waters of the St. Lawrence by



means of a dam between Long Sault island and the mainland, and the cutting of a canal to connect the St. Lawrence river with Lake Champlain waters?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have received no intimation of that kind.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Richard Blain: May I ask the government when I may expect a return to an order of the House of January 16, relative to the large number of appointments made from South Grey during the last few yeaTS?


Mr. MURPHY.: The material for that order has been sought in all the department. Several of them have responded, and I hope to bring down complete returns soon.


Richard Blain: And with respect to Wentworth?


Charles Murphy: Wentworth as well.


Richard Blain: May we expect it within the near future?


Charles Murphy: Within a couple of days.



MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION, OTTAWA.

Mr. MILLER.: Before the orders of the day are called, perhaps the House will not object to listening to a resolution passed in this city at a meeting of the Ministerial Association. I do this in defence of a man who is not able to be here to defend himself.


Mr. SPEAKER.: How is the hon. member bringing that matter up at this stage?


Henry Horton Miller: With the consent of the House.


Samuel Hughes: I respectfully request that the hon. member 'be allowed to proceed, and read his resolution.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot allow that now, under the rules.



RECIPROCITY-STATISTICAL TABLES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance as to whether the statistical tables, to which reference was made a day or two ago, are about ready?


William Stevens Fielding: I have just had word that they are. I think they are within the precincts of the House, and I expect to lay them on the table within a few moments.


Samuel Hughes: 



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 60) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.
George Perry Graham: I think the charter was first given in 1898.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Long before that. Is there a provision that the government may at any time complete this work if they choose to do so?


George Perry Graham: I think there is no such provision in the Act.


Samuel Hughes: Where is the terminus?


George Perry Graham: The starting point is opposite the city of Montreal, and the terminus is at St. Johns, Que.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose, the minister has heard that there is a proposition to run a power canal, not a navigation canal, from the St. Lawrence river, between the Long Sault island and the American shore, to Lake Champlain. Has the minister heard anything about that?


George Perry Graham: No. There is a canal on the south side of the Sault now, that supplies power to Massena, N. Y.


Richard Blain: What will be the probable cost of a work of this kind?


George Perry Graham: It is a company affair,
I do not know what it will cost. It starts from Montreal and goes to St. Johns, a distance of about thirty miles.


John Graham Haggart: This canal covers the line of a canal projected by the late Hon. John Young from Montreal or Caughnawaga to Lake Champlain. It was one of the great schemes that was advocated by Hon. John Young, and has been before the country for the last sixty years. I do not know how it has got into private hands.


George Perry Graham: Going into the matter lately in my department, I found an Act was passed in 1898. From St. Johns it follows the river down to Lake Champlain. I think the idea was to facilitate transportation 'by making a canal and river stretch, via Lake Champlain, from Montreal to the, city of New York.


Richard Blain: Should not this be constructed by the government instead of by a private company?


George Perry Graham: The government has not seen its way clear to take up the proposition yet. Like some other propositions, the company wishes to have its powers renewed ; and the committee thought, after hearing the discussion, that there was no

objection to renewing their powers. The government has not thought proper to take up the project.


Mr. PERLEY.: Has the minister, in giving his consent to this renewal, considered the government control of rates over the canal? Has he looked at the statute to see whether there is anything in it that ought to be altered, so as to give the government control of rates over this canal when it is completed?


George Perry Graham: This is merely a renewal of the powers the company had before. I do not think myself there is any immediate danger of anybody constructing the canal. But as no new powers are given them, no restrictions are placed on them that were not in the original Act of 1898. When looking over the old statute a couple of years ago, I found nothing in it about the control of rates.


Samuel Hughes: Is this going to be something like the Quebec bridge, that a corporation may get control of it, and after a while, ask the government to take it over from them?


George Perry Graham: As the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says a project of that kind has been in existence for sixty years, I do not think, judging from past experience, that it will be hurriedly built.	*


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister keeping it on on the basis of vested rights which have accrued and which he does not like to disturb? He does not vouch for the necessity or practicability of the work or the possibility of its being completed. We may have some British bank taking up this blamed old thing, taking stock and bonds and people may be victimized to a large extent as was the case in Gaspe and other Quebec counties. There is a lesson in that mad riot of ill conditioned speculation, consequent upon the subsidies given to those roads down there, that is that this parliament should be a little careful of how it places public franchises in the hands of private individuals who show no prospect of action and who are probably holding for speculative purposes what belongs or j?0?^ belong to the country in the shape of franchises. I do not want to be hard on an old thing that has been living for 60 years, but surely it will die of old age if of nothing else.


George Perry Graham: It is not my child and I am not particular. I am simply pointing out in the absence of the member in whose name it stands, just about the situation. The House is at liberty to do as it likes_ with the Bill. The committee, after hearing the whole matter threshed out, thought there would be no serious harm in renewing a charter that has stood for 971
years, but if the Committee of the Whole should think better to t it stand I am not concerned.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think we should grant a renewal of one of these old charters in exactly the same terms as the original charter, merely as a matter of form; such charters should be altered to suit present day conditions. Parliament was much freer in granting powers and authorities for works of this kind at the time this was granted than it is to-day, and I suggest to the minister that in renewing this charter after so many years, when nothing has been done, conditions as to control of rates, &c., should be inserted as if it were a new charter.


George Perry Graham: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend says, conditions have changed greatly and we think more, for instance, of water-powers now than they did then. We might let it stand until the hon. member in whose name it stands is in the House.


William Sora Middlebro: In this very Act the company is given power to acquire and utilize water-power for the purpose of compressing air or generating electricity for lighting, heating and motor purposes in connection with the canal, and power to sell surplus power generated, and not required for operating its canal, &c. They have an absolute power and a monopoly apparently to generate electricity from the water-powers there and there is no restriction as to the rates.


Mr. NESBITT.: I understood the Bill was amended in the committee to comply with the suggestions that have been made.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: A number of new sections have been added, but we have not reached them.


George Eulas Foster: It would be a good thing to let it stand in the meantime.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 70) respecting the Canadian Western Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
On section 1,
Mr. HERRON.: This company has a local charter covering almost identically the same ground and the condition has been imposed that they must build thirty miles of the road within one year. Would the Minister of Railways and Canals think it proper to restrict the Dominion charter in the same manner as it might have a tendency to expedite the work?


George Perry Graham: How long has the provincial charter been in existence?


John Herron: About three years.


George Perry Graham: Have they built any of the thirty miles?


John Herron: They have had the charter renewed once.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty about a clause of that kind is that it does not have any effect in making them build. You say that they must build a certain number of miles within a limited time, but the only result has been that they come back and ask for a renewal just the same as if there'had not been any condition of the kind. It is a difficult question to determine how to induce the railway companies to build a little more rapidly than they are doing. My own private opinion is that no clause of this kind will make them build a mile of railway any quicker. When the railway company want to build they will do it. The only alternative is not to renew their charter if such a renewal is interfering with the construction of a railway. The fact that this company came back for a renewal of the local charter instead of building thirty miles of road within a year, proves that the imposition of that condition did not result in expediting the railway. I suggested once or twice to railway companies that we would have to impose some such condition and they said: All right, do not renew the charter for we will only have to come back for another renewal; we cannot build the road in the time stipulated. If my hon. friend wants to do something practical in order to get the railway constructed I am afraid such a clause as he suggests will not accomplish
legitimate excuse for asking for another renewal. It is getting to be a perfect humbug to put in conditions which are never observed and which the companies do not intend to observe at the time they accept a renewal, and largely the members of the committee, I believe as a rule, and the Minister of Railways, judging from the result, do not intend to hold the company to the condition at the time. It is getting to be more or less of a scandal. Year after year we are granting these renewals and it is thoroughly well known that railway companies snap their fingers at us and that we have no way of enforcing the conditions imposed by us. If we cancelled a few of the charters, or if we refused to renew them, we would have a different condition of things altogether.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 61) respecting the Pontiac Central Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company. -Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 105), to incorporate the All Red Steamship Company.-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill No. 106), to incorporate the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
the object.
['I have not the slightest objection.']
Mr. LENNOX.: As long as the minister recognizes that a clause such as this will have no effect and that we will grant renewals just the same he cannot expect such a clause to have any different effect from that which he speaks of. When people come to ask for a renewal of their charter, if we would require them to show reason for their default and grant the renewal only if they were able to show a satisfactory reason and we give them a reasonable time within which to build the railway there would be some sense in putting in this condition. But, if we are going to concur in this practice in every instance and they are going to continue ignoring and defying parliament we had better drop it altogether. My idea is that when a company come for a renewal of their charter they should be asked within what time they can commence to build the road, and having stated that, it would be for the committee to consider whether it was a reasonable time or not. If it appeared to be reasonable and in the interest of the public then grant a renewal and insist in every case when they get their renewal they build the road or come back with some 1
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.!
TR AN SCOXTIN ENT A L RAILWAY- ru s'l'FRX mVTRTON.
* Mr. BORDEN:
What was the total cost up to the 31st day of December, 1910, of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway?


George Perry Graham: 



Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Prom whom does the Public Works Department rent the premises at Fredericton which are used as an office in connection with the survey of the St. John river channel between Fredericton and Woodstock?
2.	On what street are said premises situated?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	When in use for departmental purposes, these premises were rented from A. E. Hanson.
3.	On Queen street.


WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.
Mr. ECREMENT:: 1- What is the increase in the wages of workingmen since 1891 ?
2.	What is the mean increase in the cost of living during the same period?


Mr. KING.: The increase varies so considerably as respects different trades and localities that, the information cannot be given in the form of an answer to a question. Much of the information desired will be found in a special Report on Wholesale Prices 1890-1909 inclusive, issued by the Department of Labour, 1910.


THE MONARCH BANK.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. FOSTER:
1.	When was the Monarch Bank incorporatn wi,i° were. its provisional directors?
2.	Were the preliminary conditions required by the Bank Act complied with, and a certificate applied for or granted by the Treasury Board?
3.	If not, did the government take any steps to ascertain, or does it know if the requirements of section 17 of the Bank Act were carried out, and the amounts paid in by subscribers duly returned to them?
A. Has the government in its possession the list of subscribers and subscriptions to the stock of the Monarch Bank?
Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	July 20, 1905. The provisional directors were: William Samuel Cochrane, of the city of Montreal, Thomas Henry Graham, David William Livingston, Edward James Lennox, Thomas Marshall Ostrom, and Alfred Harshaw Perfect, all of the city of Toronto. (Cap. 125, Acts of 1905; extension one year, Cap. 127 Acts of 1906).
2.	No. No money was paid to the Minister of Finance, and no certificate was granted.
3.	In view of the answer to the preceding question there were no requirements of section 17 of the Bank Act to be carried out. The provisions of section 17 had no application to the return to the subscribers to the stock of the Monarch Bank of the amounts paid by them to the provisional directors.
4.	No.


THE VANCOUVER BANK.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. FOSTER :
1.	When was the Vancouver Bank incorporated, and who were its provisional directors?
2.	What evidence was given that the preliminary conditions required by the Bank Act were complied with, and when was the certificate issued by the Treasury Board?
3.	Has the government in its possession the list of subscribers and subscriptions to the stock of the Vancouver Bank?
A. Will the government lay on the table of the House a list of the subscribers and subscriptions to both these banks?
Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	April 3, 1908, Thomas Wilson Paterson, James Alexander Mitchell, and Frederic William Jones, of Victoria ; James A. Harvey, of Cranbrook ; William Harold Malkin, Robert Purves McLennan and Henry Tracy Caperley, Vancouver, were the provisional directors. (Cap. 166, Acts of 1908 ; extension one year, Cap. 144, Acts of 1909.)
2.	The Treasury Board had under consideration in connection with the application for the certificate a statutory declaration as to the requisite notices in the ' Canada Gazette ' and newspapers, with exhibits of such notices ; original stock subscription contracts ; a list of the subscriptions and allotments made up by Messrs. Clarkson, Cross, and Helliwell, chartered accountants, certifying to $569,500 stock subscribed and $274,815 paid in thereon, exclusive of $40,590 paid in on account of premium on stock ; copy of minutes of organization

meeting of subscribers verified toy statutory 'declaration of the secretary of the meeting ; 'certificate of audit of balance sheet of bank -at time of organization confirmatory of the -figures given above by the same chartered ^accountants ; original minutes of directors subsequent to organization ; statutory declaration toy the general manager as to amount of stock toona fide subscribed ; the amount paid on account thereof in cash to the provisional directors by the subscribers; and the payment to the Minister of Finance of $250,000 under section 13 of the Bank Act. The certificate was issued March 16, 1910.
3.	Yes.
4.	A copy of the list of the subscribers and subscriptions to the Bank of Vancouver will be laid on the table of the House.


RIGAUD POST OFFICE.
Mr. NANTEL :: 1.	Has the contract for building a post
office at Rigaud been made? If so, ivhat is its date?	.
2.	At what price was it made and with
whom?	,
3.	Were tenders asked for this building If so, what is the amount of each tender and the name of each of the parties tendering?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Inadvisable to make public such information until after the contract has (been signed.


PRATT'S SIDING POST OFFICE.
Mr. STAPLES :: 1.	Has the government been requested to establish a post office at Pratt's Siding on the Canadian Northern railway, Manitoba? If so, what requests have been made?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to' open a post office at Pratt's Siding immediately? If not, why not?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: A recommendation was made by Mr. H. E. Hamilton, of Sydney, Manitoba, through Mr. John Crawford, ex-<M.P., on the 28th April, 1909, that a post office toe established at Pratt's Siding. The matter was referred to the inspector at Winnipeg, who in his report stated that he had communicated with Mr. Frank Evans, who was represented to him as a. leading resident in the district. Mr. Evans stated that :
We expected, a store to be built at once, but it will not he built until fall when we will make another application as we cannot get any one to carry the mail at present.
No petition, or renewed application, has since been received by the department in the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: 


SUBURBAN HOPE TOWNSITE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	Under what circumstances did the Dominion land agent at New Westminster accept payment from James Wardle for lot 3a, and lot 8, block 3, Suburban Hope townsite?
2.	What was the date of the payment, and has the money since been returned? If so, at what date?
3.	Has any compensation been paid or offered for improvements made by Mr. Wardle between these dates?
4.	What disposition has since been made or is intended to be made of these lots?
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	The Dominion land agent at New Westminster accepted payment from James Wardle for lot 3a and lot 8, block 3, Suburban Hope townsite as money tendered or offered in connection with an application to purchase lands not yet priced or placed on the market and not available for sale.
2.	$66 paid on lot 3a, 27th May, 1909, $25 on lot 8, 3rd August, 1906 and $20, 27th May, 1909. $111 refunded to James Wardle 14th June, 1910, returned toy Wardle and again refunded to him 23rd August, 1910.
3.	No compensation has 'been paid or offered for improvements if any made by Mr. Wardle.
4.	The department has under consideration the placing of suburban block 3 on the market for sale at public auction later on when deemed advisable. It is intended to investigate Mr. Wardle's improvements, and claim before the land is placed on the market.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911, which, on motion, was referred to the Committee of Supply.
RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES.	.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to lay on the table correspondence with reference to tariff relations between Canada and the United States. In addition to having our own blue-book on the subject, I have sent to the distribution office a number of copies of the American printed agreement with their own statistics, which any hon. gentleman may obtain on application to the distribution office.


THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Haughton Lennox: For a copy of the last advertisement for tenders, and the specification and contract or proposed contract for the erection of the Quebec bridge.

He said: This has been standing a long time, and I would like to call attention to the fact that it does not appear to me to involve the divulging of anything which would he prejudicial to the public interest in any way. The matters referred to will all have to be made public. Owing to statements which have appeared in the public press, it would be very desirable that the House should have further information as to the exact situation at present. I understand that the minister has some difficulty in ascertaining just what kind of bridge should be built. I do not want to press this motion if the minister thinks that it would be contrary to public interest to do so, but I think we ought to have some explanation from him.


George Perry Graham: I see no reason why I should not take up a few minutes in making the explanation my hon. friend suggests. I can see no reason just now why this order should not pass. The situation is this. When the government took over the work of reconstructing the Quebec bridge, it appointed a board composed of three eminent bridge engineers who were to prepare the plans, and be responsible for the construction on those plans. Three eminent engineers were named by order in council:	Mr. Vautelet, of Montreal, Mr. Fitzmaurice, of London, England, and Mr. Modjeska, of Chicago. In the order in council there was a provision that if these engineers did not agree on any point, two other eminent engineers should be called in to advise with them, and the board, composed of the three original members and the two additional ones, should decide the points of difference. On several occasions differences arose and two other eminent engineers were appointed to the board for the time being, and the points of difference settled. But when it came to the time for advertising for tenders, two members of the board were not in perfect unison with the chief engineer and chairman as to the design. It might bg said that there had been a difference of opinion as between the principle of double intersections, and single intersections.


John Graham Haggart: What does that mean?	.


George Perry Graham: That will come out later. The two members of the board who did not agree entirely with the chairman, and chief engineer, as to the design which had been prepared, agreed that tenders should be called on this condition, and a resolution was passed by the board. The resolution provided that tenders should be called on the official design prepared by the chairman, and chief engineer, and that each tenderer would be asked to submit a plan of his own for the erection of a bridge, and
if a better design than the official design were submitted it should be adopted.


Haughton Lennox: That would be the plan of the proposed contractor?


George Perry Graham: Yes, each tenderer would submit a plan of his own. On that condition tenders were called for. Some 35 different propositions were submitted-not 35 plans. These were all submitted by four different tenderers-and by the board. The board's design, called the official design, contained a design with several modifications-numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, I think, with little variations. From the St. Lawrence Bridge Company there were five or six modifications of the one design. A German Company submitted a design of their own as well as a tender on the official design. The Pennsylvania Steel Company submitted a design for a suspension bridge in addition to tendering on the board's design.
Previous to this, during the summer Mr. Fitzmaurice, who had been ill some time, resigned. And his resignation was accepted. Mr. Charles E. Macdonald, once president of the Engineers' Association of New York, a native of Leeds county, now living in the town of Gananoque again, was appointed in the place of Mr. Fitzmaurice. These three gentlemen met and looked over the tenders, and the various propositions. They reduced the number which ought to be considered to the tenders on number 5 of the official design and propositions (a) (b) and (c), if I remember correctly of the St. Lawrence Bridge Company. That company is composed of two companies, the Canadian, in the western part of Ontario, and the Dominion of Montreal, and these two formed a third company for the purposes of this work. There then remained tenders to be considered from the British Empire Company of England, from the German Company, from the Pennsylvania Steel Company, and the St. Lawrence Bridge Company on the official design. And the other propositions, (a) (b) and (c), on their own designs from the St. Lawrence Bridge Company. They tendered on both. No company sent in a tender on its own design without tendering also on the official design.
The question to be decided was as between the tenders on the official design, the lowest of which I have no hesitation in saying was the British Empire Company, and the counter propositions of the St. Lawrence Bridge Company on its own designs. The board recommended to me that a substantial bridge could be erected on eitheT of these propositions. I replied asking them to perform their whole duty, and tell me which one was the better, if there were a better. Two members of the board

reported in favour of the St. Lawrence plans.


Haughton Lennox: That is the board as originally constituted of three members?


George Perry Graham: Yes. Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Modjeska favoured one of the designs of the St. Lawrence Bridge Company, while the chief engineer and chairman, Mr. Vautelet, could not coincide with this, as he thought the official design was full^ as good, or better, and was considerably cheaper. After waiting for some time and consulting with the board as then constituted to see if they would not make an unanimous recommendation, I came to the conclusion that they would not, and so proceeded-a week or perhaps ten days ago, I have forgotten the date- to act under the order in council, adding two other eminent engineers to the board , for the purpose named in the order in council. The chief engineer and the chairman was ill at his home in Montreal, and at his suggestion I sent for Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Modjeska, and they came to Ottawa. Mr. Hodge, a prominent engineer and Mr. M. J. Butler, my former deputy, are named as the two additional members. They are sitting in Montreal to-day working at the question, and I hope shortly to have a decision on which the government can act one way or the other in reference-to awarding the contract. I see no reason why the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) should not pass; and, as he says, if there should be anything in the documents that should not be brought down, I will consult with him. But I think there is nothing.


Haughton Lennox: The minister mentioned that he had no hesitation in saying which company was the lowest tenderer and that the British Empire Company was lower than the St. Lawrence. Are the tenders now known to the proposed contractors? I presume they are.


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: Then, I would ask the minister whether there is any increased width of the bridge? Was the bridge pro-proposed by the St. Lawrence Company not wider than the bridge according to the official design. And also, I would ask the minister-although I will not ask him to go into the matter in detail-if the government has had before it the question of a tunnel in place of a bridge? I know that subject has been brought to the attention of the minister. But whether it has been regarded as a matter worthy of serious consideration I do not know-. Nor do I profess to have any definite opinion on the subject myself.


George Perry Graham: I am sure my hon.,' friend will not expect me to go into de-Mr. GRAHAM.
tails. The contract has not been let, and I think I have gone fully as far as I should go in discussing the matter. I might say that the bridge is to be 88 feet wide, and, as I understand it, both designs conform to that measurement. As to the question of a tunnel that has not been seriously considered. I discussed it some time ago wdth one or two gentlemen who ought to be pretty well informed on the subject. The conclusion I formed, after conversation with these gentlemen was that, the banks of the river being very high, a tunnel would have to be started a very long distance from the river on either side. My own conclusion was that, even if we were beginning de novo as the lawyers sav, a tunnel was not as practicable as a bridge.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I desire to ask the minister a question. A few years ago 1 placed before the House the facts with reference to the height of the bridge. About that time the Board of Trade of Montreal sent in a petition showing the need of raising the bridge, owing to the traffic likely to come up to the harbour of Montreal". If the minister will look into the matter he will find that, unless he decides to raise the bridge a considerable height, the smokestacks of the larger steamers built to-day, some that have actually been completed, will not pass under the bridge. The proposition was placed before the House and while the idea of raising the bridge was ridiculed bv some, the vessels that are built seem to be larger year by year The adjustment of masts after the manner followed in the harbours of some of the larger cities of the old country and on the navigable rivers, could not be carried out very satisfactorily. It was thought by a number of prominent men throughout the Dominion, including many able engineers, that it would be absolutely necessary to considerably increase the height of the bridge. Was this taken into consideration in asking for tenders, or is it the intention of the government to look into the matter? ,


George Perry Graham: I am afraid this will have to be my last appearance in discusing this matter; we might get into something that would be embarrassing if we discussed too many details of a tender that is still under consideration. After full discussion and consideration, it was decided that the distance between high water and the bridge should be 150 feet.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With permission, I desire to say that is the old contract, and I understand that the government were taking into consideration the raising of the level of the bridge. I would ask the minister whether he has taken that into consideration at all.


George Perry Graham: I can only repeat tliat it was fully considered before tenders were called for.
Mr. MONK I desire to affer a word with respect to this matter. I am afraid-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I desire to inform the House that under rule 38 this motion is not one open to discussion. I thought it was the sense of the House that a question might be asked and the minister answer it. Of course, if the House desires to have the matter debated, I have no objection.


Air. MONK.: If it is not debatable, I do not wish to violate the rule.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I allow the question,
and, if it is the wish of the House I have no objection to further discussion.
Air. AlONK. I am afraid that this is an ill-fated enterprise. The House will remember under what circumstances the bridge broke down. There was a plan prepared by the building company, and that-


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point being raised, the hon. gentleman (Air. Alonk) cannot debate the motion, but can put a question. Under rule 38, this is one of the notices that cannot be debated. If it is to be debated, it must be turned over to another order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If I may only ask a question, I will put this:	Has the state of
anarchy that has existed for months among members of the commission as originally constituted been finally put an end to? There has been an importation of new engineers, consultation, additions to the board for the purpose of deciding points, but I understand that there are still radical and important differences between the members of the board as originally constituted. Have they now come to an agreement?
Air. GRAHAA1. As I explained a few moments ago, differences existed until this morning, and perhaps until now, but under the order in council two other members have been appointed to act with the members of the board to settle these differences, and I am in hopes that they will settle them.


[Stage Direction]
Alotion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Air. AlONK moved:
For a copy of the final protocol of agreement entered into at the International Naval Conference held in London, December, 1908, February, 1909, and of the general report presented to the said naval conference on
behalf of its drafting committee, and of all correspondence exchanged between the Imperial government and the government of Canada in regard to the same.
He said: I may give a word of explanation on this motion. At the time of the second Peace Conference at the-Hague, a convention was entered into providing for the establishment of an international court of appeal in matters of prizes (annex 12 to the final act of the second Peace Conference). By article 7 of this convention, it is agreed that this new court, in the absence of treaty stipulations, would decide appeals in accordance with rules of international law; or, if there were no such recognized rules, then according to justice and equity. On the invitation of Great Britain, a conference of the great maritime powers took place afterwards in London in order to define certain principles respecting maritime war. The conference agreed upon a certain number of rules. The result of this meeting is said to have been communicated to the colonial government. That is the reason why I move that that protocol be laid before the House.
Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that there is any such correspondence; but if there is, there is no objection to bringing it down, provided it is not confidential.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
\STEAAI TRAWLING FISHING.
Air. J. H.: SINCLAIR (Guysborough), moved:'
That in the opinion of this House, as the mode of fishing known as steam trawling, prosecuted by ships of different nationalities on the coast of Canada outside Canadian waters, is destructive to fish life, it is expedient, in order to conserve the deep sea fisheries, that negotiations be opened with the view of securing an international agreement prohibiting this mode of fishing in such spawning grounds for deep sea fish, as the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the banks of the North Atlantic adjacent to the coasts of Canada and Newfoundland.
He said:	My purpose in moving this
resolution is to press upon parliament, and especially upon the government, the importance of dealing with this question. I bring it forward with a good deal of confidence, knowing that in the past the government have not given any encouragement or assistance to this mode of fishing. When this matter was first discussed on the coast of Nova Scotia some few years ago, the fishery committee of the Halifax Board of Trade pressed upon the government the importance, in their view, of doing something in the way of in-trcducing this mode of fishing in Canadian waters. The request they made on that occasion was met with prompt refusal from the Alinister of Marine

Having carefully followed the fishing operations carried on by steam trawlers on hoard the trawler 'Wren/ I hare to report that the complaints made against such operations are entirely without just reason. On the contrary, instead of being exceedingly destructive and wasteful, practically everything drawn up in the great net, excepting the dogfish which are entangled in considerable numbers, is utilized and turned to account, and the very destruction of the dogfish is a benefit, whilst the men are entitled to save their livers on their own behalf. I understand that until recently the flat fishes, such as the rougli-dab, were thrown away; but since the establishment of the glue factory at Canso such are now sold to that institution. There is really nothing drawn up in the net which any economical fishing corporation would ever think of wasting, and certainly the captain of the 'Wren' is awake to the interests of the Maritime Fish Corporation in this respect. The bulk of the fish caught is haddock, and it is for them that the trawling is carried on. The weight of the catch of haddock was 27,580 pounds, exclusive of 3,300 pounds of assorted small ones. This numerically, judging by the respective sizes, approximately represents some 6,895 and 1,650 fish. The weight of flat fishes was 325 pounds, of the cod, 150 pounds, and of the hake, 1,550 pounds, or numerically, 100 flat fishes, 25 cod and 100 hake. True, I was dependent on the corporation for these figures after landing at Canso; but based on^my own observations on 'board the 'Wren/ I can vouch for the figures being approximately correct. The total weight of these was 32/105 pounds, and the number approximately 8,770. Besides them, leaving out the dogfish, there were a few silver hake, pollock, skate and gaspereau. and a shad, an angler, and an eel. It is difficult to form an estimate of the number of dogfish caught, but the number was very considerable. Sometimes there would be only two or three, and at other times the net seemed to have swept through a regular school of them; and they are immediately destroyed, their livers cut out and thrown overboard. Besides the true fishes there were a very limited number of squid, saved like other odds and ends, like the angler, skates, &c., for making glue, and there were hardly any other invertebrates except a few worthless star fishes, Ac. I will work the matter out in a more detailed way later, but meanwhile give some broad outlines in a summary way. Occasionally, but very rarely, I saw an insignificant gaspereau or other very small fish thrown overboard; but there is virtually no waste whatsoever. The operations were carried on not closer to the land than four miles, and besides the 'Coquette* no other fishing craft was to be seen.
(Sgd.) ANDREW HALKETT,
Naturalist, Dept. Marine and Fisheries. St. John, N.B., October 29, 1910.
Now, I do not credit this report; it does not appear to me to be an impartial statement.


Mr. FRASER.: Can the hon. gentleman state what period of time is covered by the observations of that officer?


Mr. SINCLAIR.: 


John Howard Sinclair: of any government to control fishing on the high seas, and in answer to a former appeal your government has gone the limit, hut we are of opinion that the government of Canada can deal with this for Canada, by making it illegal to engage in this method of fishing, a method which, to our minds, is more destructive than explosives.
Therefore resolved, that as our Dominion representative, you use your utmost influence to have such legislation passed as will prevent beam or otter trawling in Canada.
(Signed) JAMES LUKEMAN, _
T)poc! (i nri f


ALEXANDER KEATING, '
[Stage Direction]
SpM'PtflTV
Canso, N.S., Sept. 10, 1910.
The fourth point I make is that trawling depletes the fishing grounds. It follows that if large quantities of undersized fish are taken that will naturally deplete the grounds. I am quite aware that this is also disputed. For example the Fish Traders' ' Gazette,' of London, which is looked upon as one of the most influential papers in the trade in the world, published a few days ago a statement referring to the fishing industry in the past year, from which I shall quote one paragraph :
It is not expected that the weight of the fish caught will show any appreciable change either* way or the other when the official figures are available, but it is noted with satisfaction that many of the North Sea grounds have produced improved supplies; while several new though restricted areas for trawling have been discovered by local fishermen.
Mr.   J@: Cowie, in the report of the Fisheries Department for the year 1910, says that steam trawling has not had the effect of depleting the North Sea. I wish to say a few words on that statement, ibut let me read what he did say so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Here is Mr. Cowie's statement ;
I have always maintained in the press and otherwise, that trawling within limited sea areas is most destructive, and, apart from the fact that the many line fishermen, who depend for a living entirely on what the baited line captures, have some rights, held that the compelling of the steam trawler to keep to the open sea and the offshore grounds is a wise and necessary measure for the protection and insurance of the fish supply, from inshore grounds.	.
At the same time, I cannot agree with those who assert that trawling, if long continued offshore, as well as inshore, is destined to deplete the sea of food fishes.
Notwithstanding the alarming prognostications of a- sea denuded of fish life, and ruined and idle line-fishing fleets, put forth at the recent international conference at Washington, United States of America, as the results expected to attend the use of the otter trawl on the Atlantic ' banks ', the facts and figures concerning trawling in the comparatively narrow North Sea, where the method is so oid, and the fleets so large, do not at all lend themselves to such alarmist views.


John Howard Sinclair: England, Newfoundland and France, aed it is not to be expected that these fishermen would be willing to give them up without a struggle. The fishermen do not come here as suppliants, they do not ask for any special favour, all they ask is that they will get a square deal for themselves and for the business by which they make a living. The fishermen of Canada have been accustomed to look after themselves The method that has been adopted in this country in regard to this industry for generations by which the fisherman is captain of his own vessel and master and owner of his own business has tended to produce a virile and robust type of men. If you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members of this House, could see, as I have seen, the fishermen engaged in winter fishing on the coasts of my own constituency, on a winter morning, when the thermometer is around zero and the whitecaps are on the water, steering in open boats for the open sea to spend the day in the prosecution of their calling, regardless of the cold, regardless of the sudden gales prevailing in those stormy waters, you would understand the force of my statement that this line of business tends to produce a virile and robust type of men. During the last few years a good deal of oratory has been indulged in in regard to the importance of maintaining the naval supremacy of the British Empire. Let me say that the best contribution we can make here in Canada to the naval supremacy of the empire is to stand by our fishermen.
I venture to say that no other part of the British Empire, or, I think I could say no other part of the world, can produce a finer or more robust body of seamen than the men who tramp the decks of our fishing vessels. These men are hardy and adventurous ; nor are they lacking in courage. Every year adds to the list of brave deeds done by these men who frequent our coast waters engaged in the fishing industry. Permit me to give an example recently published in the Boston ' Post ' :
Every now and then a splendid deed is done that makes the sun seem very bright and life well worth living in this throat-throttling era of competition.
Every athletic profession has its opportunities for heroic daring, but possibly none greater than those who go down to the sea in little vessels. Here the Gloucester fishermen have an enviable record.
The other day, a sailor on the fishing schooner ' Athlete ' was swept into the sea while trying to secure a sail in a howling gale. To breast the waves in a dory seemed the madness of suicide, but in a minute the crew was engaged in a desperate struggle to see who should man the rescuing dory. Two sturdy fishermen won out and managed to launch the shell. The man they tried to save was found dead, killed by floating wreckage. With the greatest difficulty the heroes regained their schooner.


John Howard Sinclair: Such a defiance to danger and death makes the blood of all men run redder and beat quicker. There is no need of pessimism when we breed such men.
Similar incidents of bravery of this kind can be told in connection with a blizzard that took place on tire coast of Nova Scotia on the 6th of January last year when the little haddock fleet at Dover and Whitehead was driven to sea in a wintry gale, and when tossed by the storm, the sails frozen and the vessels accumulating ice until they were almost ready to sink, brave men risked their lives to save their comrades. Here is another item that I clipped from a local paper published a few days ago:


CANSO MAN TO GET MEDAL FOR BRAVERY.
[Stage Direction]
Wm. Sullivan, of Canso, N.S., is to receive from the French government by way of the United States government and its consular service, a reward for Iris heroism in the saving of the crew of the French vessel f L. A. B. in July, 1909. Mr. Sullivan will receive the bronze medal, which is emblematic of the highest honour for bravery which the Drench government bestows upon a civilian. Ihis medal was forwarded from Washington to John E. Kehl, United States consul at Sydney.
I do not know why this medal came through the United States government, but probably this man was working on board an American ship at the time. Stories like the foregoing are told around the firesides in Nova Scotia every year on the return of the Banking fleet. The record of many of these vessels carrying on this hazardous business has been handed down from father to son for generations. Year after year the hungry sea claims its toll. Every spring the sailors leave with high hopes, and the best of good cheer, but when the storms and the fog have done their work some of the ships are sure to return with flags at half-mast. Our (people have paid dearly for their proprietary rights in these Bank fisheries, and the families are very few on the coast of Nova Scotia who have not lost relatives in these waters. Not even the miners follow a more hazardous calling- It has been said that it costs a life for every 100,000 tons of coal mined, and the fish we eat must be won at an equally dreadful price.
Now, we are deeply interested in this matter in the maritime provinces, -because we not only man our own fleet but, to a large extent, that of New England as well, and it would be a calamity to the maritime provinces if anything should happen to drive the bank fishermen off the sea. No nation ever yet became a great maritime power without first building up its fisheries. The fishing fleet of Great Britain is to-day the greatest fishing fleet in the world, and it is the basis of Britain's naval power and her commercial sea-power as

well. Canada owns to-day the greatest fisheries to be found in the world, and the question is whether we can preserve and hand them down to those who come after us. I am stating it mildly when I say that our fishermen are alarmed at the influence this mode of fishing is likely to have on their business-not only the deep sea fishermen hut the inshore fishermen as well. I had the honour, last year, to present petitions signed toy 1,800 fishermen on the coast of my county who are in sympathy with the deep sea fishermen on this question. Resolutions have come from fishermen's unions and associations all along the coast asking that some action be taken in regard to this matter. I do not regard this as unnecessary or needless alarm. The depletion of the fisheries is, of course, the most important thing. I know that it will be contended that it is necessary to prosecute this mode of fishing in order to keep up the constant supply in the market. It is also contended that the sea is large, and that no method of fishing that we can adopt will destroy the fish. It is true, the Atlantic ocean embraces a very large area, but it must not be forgotten that those portions of it frequented by fish, and where the fish shed their spawn embrace a comparatively small area, and so it is quite possible, by improvident methods of fishing to destroy the fishery. International conventions have taken place for the purpose of conserving the forests and our other natural resources of this continent. International arrangements are now in force to protect tire sealing industry of the coast of Alaska. I submit that the best breeding ground of cod-fish and haddock in the world is important enough to call for international negotiations to settle this question of steam trawling. I submit, that we should, without delay, endeavour to obtain some arrangement by which we can secure an international agreement prohibiting trawling in the spawning grounds, which, I take to be the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Banks. I have no way of saying how these regulations could ibe secured, but I think that it could be done. The United States, I understand, is in the same position as ourselves, and the sympathy of the government at Washington ought to be with the Canadian government in respect to this matter, they having a large fishing fleet on th© sea which is disturbed as ours is, by this method of fishing. It is not for me to dictate to the governments of Canada and the United States, but, as they are equallv concerned, if thev will act together, they should be able to secure such international arrangements as will preserve this great industry, and do justice to the men who 'are engaged in it.
Mr. W. CHISHOLM (Antigonisli).: Mr. Speaker, coming from the maritime prov-98
inces as. I do, and representing a county with 90 miles of coast line or so off which is one of the best fishing grounds in Canada, I need not apologize to the House for taking up a little of the time devoted to this discussion. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has gone so ably and exhaustively into the discussion of this matter that it might be supposed that it should be content with simply expressing my acquiescence in what he has said. But when I tell you that this trawler, the 1 Wren,' has been operating off the coast of Antigonisli for a portion of each season for three years past, which operations have been much to the dissatisfaction and injury of local fishermen, I make bold to hope you will excuse me if I presume to discuss this matter at a little greater length, and even though, in discussing it I should find it necessary to go over again some of the ground covered by my hon. friend.
The importance of the fisheries is generally recognized. We are spending hundreds and thousands of dollars every year in endeavours to conserve our natural resources. We spend large sums in the protection of our fisheries, in the establishment of hatcheries, and a dozen of ways to promote our fisheries. In the city of Quebec a meeting was held a few days ago of eminent Canadians and others to advocate the conservation of our natural resources. They are doing a great work. I claim that in the fisheries of Canada we have the greatest heritage that any country ever possessed ; and it is the duty of this government and of the Canadian people to see that that heritage is handed down to posterity without any serious diminution. There is an idea prevalent among the fishermen, and indeed among us all, that we are justified in taking present advantage of every opportunity to utilize the natural resources in which our country abounds, and without having any consideration for the future. That sentiment I submit is an unfair and a dishonest one. The idea prevails that we have a right to get all we can out of our fisheries, irrespective of future results. We hear it sometimes said : What has posterity done for us? We will make-all we can out of our present resources. As I have said, I think that is an unworthy and unpatriotic sentiment. I claim it is the duty of the government to take steps to conserve these valuable fisheries, and that we should transmit them unimpaired as we received them.
My hon. and learned friend (Mr. Sinclair), has gone over the history of trawling pretty well. He has informed the House that there are over 3,000 of these trawlers operating in the North Sea. We hear the argument made sometimes that since these trawlers have been operating on the coast of Great Britain for a period of 125 years, there cannot be any very



serious or harmful results from trawling. 1 propose to trace the history of trawling in the old country, and to call your attention to some investigations that have been held by the authorities, and to show the evolution of opinion that has been going on in the old country with respect to trawling.
I should also quote the findings of royal commissions, appointed to investigate this matter, and show how opinion has changed with regard to the matter. I do not quote these resolutions, .because I endorse the views therein contained so far as they may be an apology for, or defence of trawling. At the same time they were expressed, there was a strong approval of the custom ; *but as time rolled on, and as the number of trawlers increased, that opinion seems to have changed in the old country. At that time trawling was pronounced to be ' the source of the greatest and most progressive supply of fish other than herring to the principal markets of the country.' To-day it is generally recognized that the practice of trawling has been injurious to the fishing industry, injurious both to the fisheries themselves and to the line fishermen. I may say that the shore fishermen have been practically driven out of business altogether. In the city of London, the proportion of fish caught by trawlers to that caught by hand lines, is something like 10 or 12 to one. The result of trawling has been that the line fishermen practically abandoned the field to their enemy, the trawler. Latterly, they have been making efforts to recover their ground in certain waters along the east coast of Scotland, and other parts of the United Kingdom, and the result is, that the line fishermen are now beginning to regain a part of what they have lost and are hopeful that in a short time they will be able to prosecute with advantage the industry that seemed once to have about disappeared. The history of trawling in the old country is the history of a prolonged fight between the line fishermen and the men engaged in this destructive method o,f fishing. The hostility of the line fishermen has been so great that it was scarcely safe for any prominent man to express any sympathy with the trawlers. There have been demonstrations against these trawlers in Aberdeen and other towns on the east coast of Scotland, and the way they took to show their hostility was to conclude their demonstrations with that irrefutable argument of burning in effigy any person to be in sympathy with the trawlers. Now I wish first to refer to a report of a royal commission that was published in 1863. It was appointed to investigate certain complaints of the fishermen who asserted that their industry was being destroyed, that the spawning grounds were injured, and that a large number of imma-Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
ture fish -were caught, with the result that tlie fisheries were becoming exhausted and threatened with extinction. This commission was composed of such eminent men as the Kt. Hon. G. Shaw-Lefevbre, Sir James Caird and Prof. Huxley. Here is what they say regarding the waste 'by destruction :
Waste by the destruction of young fish takes place in the course of the practice of all modes of fishing, and is to a certain extent inseparable from them. The waste which occurs in the course of beam trawling in the open sea and in all kinds of sweep net fishing has certainly not affected the supply of fish in many localities, and is not proved to have affected it in any. With respect to inshore fishing, although the evidence so far as it is conclusive, appears to prove thaj. the taking of small and immature fish, has not as yet produced any serious effect upon the fisheries, it is undoubtedly possible that by improved engines the destruction of fry might reach such a pitch as to show a large, instead of as at present, an insignificant ratio to the destruction effected by the natural enemies and by conditions unfavourable to their existence.
That report was made in 1863, when trawling was not carried on to the same extent that it has been in later years. But even then you will observe that report states that, whilst it was denied that destruction was taking place, to any very appreciable extent, yet there is an admission that there is a great deal of waste; and a further admission that whilst the taking of small and immature fish has not as yet produced any serious effect upon the fishery, it is possible that such will be the result ultimately. Subsequent to 1863 other commissions reported, but I will only call attention to that which was appointed in 1883, the president of which was Lord Dalhousie. In this report the Royal Commission go on to say :
We are unable to come to the conclusion that trawling is the sole cause of the decrease of fish in inshore waters. In so far as it may contribute to any decrease, we think it can only be as part of a system of overfishing and not because of the wasteful destruction of spawn, fish food or immature fish.
There is an admission of injury; they admit that trawling produces a decrease in the quantity of fish, but they are unable to come to the conclusion that trawling is the sole cause of the decrease in the inshore fisheries. You will observe that the commission admit that there is a decrease in the inshore waters, that the decrease is noticeable, and that they attribute it to the system of over-fishing. I do not care what it is attributed t'o; what we are after is the result, and the result is that there has been a diminution in the quantity of fish. Blackwood's Magazine for May, 1885. has an article on this subject,. and the very fact that it is in Blackwood's Magazine justifies

me in quoting it. It refers to the report of the Trawling Commission of 1883 on the fish supply. There is a reference to the destruction of immature fish, but before I come to that I might refer to the destruction of spawn. One of the arguments used against the trawlers is the injury to the spawning ground and the destruction of spawn. According to the finding of the Royal Commission, that is not the case. The opinion that such is the case is based upon misapprehension, for it is a fact, that the spawn of fish generally is found, not upon the bottom, but floating on or very near the surface. The ripe uninjured ova of cod, halibut and most of fish is not found on the bottom. The principal exception to this is in the case of herring, the spawn of which goes to the bottom, so that the operations of the trawlers would not seriously affect the spawn. One would think they might, perhaps, affect the spawning ground, but the finding of the commission is that they do not seriously do so. There is a slight disturbance of the ground, but this is very temporary, and normal conditions are soon restored. Now, to come to the question of the destruction of immature fish, I find in this article in Blackwood's to which I have already referred, the following:
If evidence of reputation were to be trusted, the trawlers would come off badly on the charge of destroying immature fish. The had name that they have incurred in this respect is perhaps due to the work of the small trawlers alluded to in the beginning of this paper, who on many parts of the coast work iclose inshore, and probably do destroy a large amount of fry. Although, throughout the evidence taken by the commission, it is clearly the belief of the fishermen that this evil prevails to a very large extent, they do not seem to have produced any really conclusive proofs of its existence. ' In the experiments of Professor McIntosh

Prof. McIntosh is a professor of St. Andrews university, one of the greatest scientists of Scotland. He conducted a series of investigations from 1885 to 1895, in. a trawler placed at his disposal for the purpose, called the * Garland,' and wrote some works on the subject, one of them ' Resources of the Sea.' He is quite an authority on fish and the operations of trawlers.
-hi the experiments of Professor McIntosh, the immature fish registered as caught in the trawl were mostly of the less valuable hinds. The quantity of young haddock and whiting taken was inconsiderable, the immature specimens of these fishes being generally found in the mouths of the larger kinds a state of things that makes the trawlers their avengers rather than their murderers. It seems likely that below a certain size the fry escape altogether through l5eT fne^hes of the trawl-net, as Professor McIntosh states that it was rare to capture dabs under 51 inches in length, and that in using the small trawl close inshore in St.
Andrew's hay, none of the smaller fiat fishes with which that region abounds were taken. Tins absence of immature fish in large quantities from the trawl-net was fully borne out by the trawlers themselves; and it seems clear that, at any rate in the districts visited by the commission, there is no wasteful or unnecessary destruction of food-fishes committed in this way.
This refers to .the commission of 1883, and it would appear from reading it that the charge against the trawlers was very much exaggerated. As I said before, I 'do not agree that the charge that is made to-day against the trawlers is very much exaggerated, but if these assertions were made at that time 1 would think that they would be much exaggerated, because conditions have changed since then. The number trawlers then was comparatively lim-J' There was not the same intensity of fishing if 1 may so describe it, then as there is now. I am quoting this tor ^ the purpose of showing the change which has been going on with respect to trawling. My hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) referred to the report of Mr. Halkett to the effect that there has been no great destruction at all of fish m the operation of the ' Wr'en.' In that report it is claimed there is no real waste or destruction of fish except dog fish. I quite agree with the remarks of my hon friendf from Guysborough, and I cannot understand how Air. Halkett could arrive at such a conclusion. It does seem almost incredible that no small fish were found in the trawler on the occasion of Prof. Hal-kett's visit. It strikes me that Prof'. Halkett must have started out, well fortified by his instructions from the department, feeling as strong as Samson, but when he got on board the trawler he nfust have mel some Delilah, before whom he gave way. I do not think that the report of Prof. Halkett should be given very much credit now He may, when he works the thing out, as he promises in his interim report to do, be able _ to explain some of the seeming inconsistencies of the report. But he is not alone in his praise of trawlers. He has company in the person of Mr. Alexander Milliken, General Inspector of Fisheries for Scotland, who does not agree that trawling is a bad thing. With the case that has been made against the trawler, it is surprising that anybody can be got to defend it, but here is a man who not only defends it' but commends it. He says, in his report to the board m 1907:
Having in view the fact that these fish (referring to catfish, marks and other fishes) were rarely caught by lines, and their destructive powers amongst other fish such as herrings and haddocks, it can be seen what an immense benefit it is to the general prosperity of the fisheries to have such large quantities of these destructive fish captured annually ^\hich were formally allowed to roam at sea until they die of old age.

Thus Mr. Milliken seems to think that trawling is a good thing because it destroys some of those fish that roam the sea and kill fish that are of merchantable value.
I am sure none of our fishermen in Nova Scotia will adopt this view. This recalls to my mind the story of the Scotchman "and the bagpipes that was told in this House at the earlier part of the session by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). A Scotchman was sick unto death, in the hospital and the doctor was called in. The doctor examined the phar-macopoea, but he could not find anything to suit the case. He decided upon a novel remedy and suggested that a Highlander be brought to play the_ bagpipes, walking up and down the hall in the ward beside the patient's room. Next morning the doctor returned to the house and met the nurse who looked very serious, and he said:	'How is Sandy?' The answer was:
4 Oh, Sandy is all right, but all the rest of the patients are dead.' This is very similar. Prof. Milliken would allow the trawlers to operate in order that they may destroy those voracious fish that roam the sea, but he forgets that the other fish are being interfered with and destroyed at the same time. In a word the trawler kills the hen that lays the golden egg. Now, I have read to you the report of the Royal Commission of 1863, and that of the Royal Commission of 1883. To summarize these reports: In the report of 1883 it was alleged that there had been a destruction of spawn. The finding was that such was not the case, that that allegation was based upon a false assumption, that false assumption not taking into account the fact that spawn, as a rule, float near the surface. Than there was the allegation of the destruction of immature fish. The finding was that there was no evidence of the wasteful destruction of immature food fishes. There was the allegation that there was a disturbance and exhaustion of fishing grounds. By disturbance I mean that the fish are frightened away from the fishing grounds or the fish go away for a shorter or longer period, but' that they may return later on. Exhaustion means that the grounds are fished out. As to disturbance and exhaustion, this report of the commission of 1883 finds that the number of fish in inshore and narrow seas may be seriously diminished by the use of trawlers. If in the narrower seas there is exhaustion because of the operations of trawlers, it naturally follows that in the broader seas, in the high seas, where you have a large number of trawlers operating, the same result, is inevitable. It is only a question 'of degree. Then there is the allegation that the injury done by the trawlers to the food of fish is insignificant.
A select committee on Sea Fisheries was Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonisli).
appointed in 1893. It was appointed ' to consider the expediency of adopting measures for the preservation and improvement of the sea fisheries in the seas off the British Isles including the prohibition of the capture, landing or sale of undersized sea fish
and other like regulations, international or otherwise.'
Evidently an impression was beginning to prevail among the fishermen and others that something was required for the preservation of the fisheries, that the fish were in danger. This committee proceeded with its investigation, and there seems to be great contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses who came before them. The evidence of those in the trade, those engaged in fishing with trawlers, conflicted with that of the professional and scientific witnesses in regard to the decrease in the quantity and size of fish caught in the North Sea. The naturalists of the Marine Biological Association, Messrs Holt and Calderwood, and other witnesses whose testimony was of a technical character maintained that there was a decided depletion in the North Sea fisheries. The evidence of those in the trade was to the effect that there was virtually no destruction, and no serious diminution in the quantity of fish. The finding of this committee was:
There is no indication of a falling off in the number of herrings to be found off our coasts.
There is no evidence of important diminution in cod and haddock.
A considerable diminution in flat fishes, as soles and plaice, which must be attributed to over fishing by trawlers in certain localities.
I cannot understand why there should be a finding with respect to herring, because they are not ground fish at all, and are not affected by trawling unless it might be that a decrease in the quantity of herring might follow an undue disturbance of the grounds where the bait was found.
In 1900 a select committee was appointed on the Fisheries Bill. They found:
That 'it is proved beyond doubt that there is a very serious diminution in the supply of certain kinds of flat flsh, particularly in the North Sea.
That in default of a remedy, the consequence to the flat-fish industry will be disastrous.
That one of the causes of this diminution of supply is undoubtedly the destruction of inshore fish.
The committee in the conclusion of their report UTged:
That the subject of the diminution of the fish supply is a very pressing one. That no efforts should be spared to arrange for international treatment of the subject generally.
Whilst in these reports it is denied that trawling particularly destroys spawn or wastes immature fish, or injures the spawning ground to any great extent so far as

the outer waters are concerned, yet it is admitted on all sides that in the inshore fisheries there has been a decrease both in quantity and quality.
I wish to call your attention to a finding in one of these reports with reference to the falling off in the bays and harbours where trawling has been largely carried on.
Continuous fishing with such an effective implement as the steam trawler within a limited area may sensibly diminish the number of fish.
_ Now, what occurs in the limited area is bound to happen in the broader area if you increase the number of those effective implements.
At the beginning of investigation made in 1883, a series of questions put to Coast Guard officers of the United Kingdom elicited answers that in 52 districts out of 85 there was a falling off in the quantity of fish taken and in 45 of these where there was falling off trawling in some shape carried on.
At Scarborough, Aberdeen and St. Andrews' catches fell off greatly pointing to danger of exhaustion if continued.
James Farquharson, fishery officer for Banff, in a report dated January 5, 1907, after stating that line fishing returns for that year compared favourably with those of previous year, adds that cod and haddock show a considerable increase in quantity and concludes:
, Fishermen are of opinion that the increase is partly due to the absence of trawlers in the Firth.
J ames Ritchie, Findhorn, district, in a report dated January 3, 1907, says:
There was little cod fishing done in the Moray Firth by line fishermen as that species ot fish was very scarce. Fishermen, however, are hopeful that the fishing may improve if trawling is prohibited in the Firth.
Inquiries in Denmark, Holland and Germany elicited the reply that they had like conditions.
I have before me extracts from the evidence taken before a special committee to inquire into the conditions of the fishing industry of the United Kingdom, under date of April 1, 1908. I find that Mr. G. Alward, connected with the fishing trade all_ his life, gave evidence. He lived at Grimsby since 1856. He was the owner of several fishing vessels, and was connected with National Sea Fisheries Protection Association for twenty years and member of the executive thereof the greater part of that time-an expert.
Q. Is it your opinion that the fact that you do find these small fish on the grounds where you previously got large fish is due to what we might call the intensity of fishing, the big fish having been killed?-A. That has something to do with it. Of course, in the North Sea, as you have probably had placed
before you, the theory put forward-and I think there is a great deal of truth in it, is that the reason why we get so many small fish on the east side is that the larvae float into it, driven by the currents, and find a suitable location, and live on, whilst in the middle of the North Sea, the probability is that a large portion never get into that side of the tide and die.
Q. (To Sir Reginald McLeod). Is it your impression there is a decrease in the quantity of fish -obtainable on the banks in the North Sea?-A. I think that is well established, and that it extends over many years -going back say thirty years.
Q. Would the fact that you have been able to maintain the fish supply be due to the circumstance that you are now fishing over a wider area, and with more elaborate and effective engines?-A. That is so.
Q. So you think some steps should be taken shortly-the sooner the better-to avoid intensity of fishing?-A. Well, some step-I do not know exactly what step you could talce unless you resort to those farther grounds, and that I think is what we are doing. Personally we are doing that now; we are drawing off froin the old grounds a number of those big ships and going to far-off grounds, so that we are giving the North Sea somewhat of a rest.
Q. And that rest, coupled with the checks which you have suggested of the destruction of immature fish, may effect the purpose in your opinion?-A. Yes, it may.
We lamented the foot that we were landing so much of that small fish and I think that induced us to be more severe on the question of stopping the catch.
These reports show clearly that during the past 25 years there has been a gradual change of opinion going on in the old country on this matter until a stage has now been reached when both the fishermen and the people generally are asking for measures to be taken for the protection of the fisheries. As the hon. member for Guys-borough has pointed out, the government has shown its sympathy with the shore fishermen in various ways. In the first place, when the Halifax Board of Trade asked that the government should assist in bringing out some of these trawlers from Scotland, the government promptly refused to do so. This is shown by the following letter from the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Hon. R. Prefontaine, to-Mr. C. H. Mitchell, the chairman of the Fisheries Committee of the Halifax Board of Trade, in reference to that proposal:
June 5, 1905.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the matter of the introduction of steam trawling in Atlantic waters of Canada, I have an official report before me, and I do not see that any encouragement could be field out to steam trawl firms to operate in our waters. You are no doubt aware that to that destructive method of fishing has been attributed the destruction of valuable fisheries off the shores of Great Britain, and prohibitory laws have been enforced in inshore areas.
Outside the three-mile limit trawling cannot be prevented, but I am not disposed to

favour it in territorial waters or grant assistance to firms adopting that mode of fishing.
Tours faithfully.


E. PREFONTAINE.
[Stage Direction]
C. H. Mitchell, Esq.,
Wood's Wharf, Halifax, N.S.
This letter shows that the government, instead of encouraging the use of steam trawlers, has taken strong ground against them; and I am quite sure that if the Marine and Fisheries Department can go further than they have gone in restricting this method of fishing, it will do so. If the department has exhausted its jurisdiction in Canadian waters and trawling can still go on beyond the three-mile limit-and this is a matter that every constitutional lawyer must admit-then the only thing that remains is the adoption of some international regulations.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
William Chisholm: Before six o'clock, I was referring to the work of some of the Royal Commissions appointed to investigate this question of the destruction of fisheries by trawlers and drew attention to the change of public opinion in the old country regarding the destructive effects of steam trawling. I pointed out that, in the earlier days of the prosecution of the fishing industry by trawling there did not appear to be the same alarm as developed itself later. At present it is generally conceded that the system of steam trawling is a destructive one. It is admitted on all sides that the inshore fisheries have suffered considerably by reason of this method of fishing, and it is only a question of degree and to what extent it shall be allowed to go on until you have the same conditions in the outer waters as now exists in the inshore waters. In the old country, it is recognized to-day that there has been a great falling off in the inshore fishing, more than any one anticipated in the earlier days of steam trawling.
Objection may be made that the natural enemy of fish is the fish themselves and not men. It is quite true that we know comparatively little of the laws which govern the relations between the different species of fish and of the causes which produce the migration of fish at certain times and the gathering of them together in large shoals at other times, and which leads to the dispersion of these shoals at other periods. Nor do we know much of what becomes of the spawn, or what becomes of the fry, but it is admitted on all sides that the quantity of fish usually taken by man is infinitesimally small a3 compared with the destruction in the sea caused by the fish themselves prey-Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
ing on one another. There is a continual warfare going on amongst the various species and descriptions of fish the one against the other. The moment the spawn is shed it is attacked by numerous small fish, then when it is hatched it is attacked by larger fish. Herring is attacked by the dog-fish and sharks. These are again attacked in turn by the various larger fish, and it is a case all around of the great feeding on the little. Still there is a proper proportion maintained and nature does provide for the maintenance of a proper equilibrium between the different classes; but when you go beyond the line and by artificial means interfere too much with nature, the result is bound to be destructive. We have found that frequently on our rivers, streams and lakes. Where there is over-fishing in any of these the time will come when nature will not be able to keep up the supply, and there is great difficulty in supplementing the loss by restocking. The time to lock the stable is before the steed is stolen, and the time to protect our fisheries is now. True there is at present very little danger from steam trawling, and I hope there will be very little danger so far as depletion goes on this side of the Atlantic. Our natural conditions are different and, as pointed out bv Mr. Cowie, the season on this side in which this steam trawling can be carried on, is comparatively short and there is time for nature to replenish herself. Still there is danger, and the question is what is the remedy. Some argue this method of fishing should be absolutely forbidden. The Dominion government has power to prohibit any Canadian engaging in it. That may be very true, but will that' help out the situation? There are some 30 or 40 French trawlers operating off the Grand Banks and a couple of trawlers operating in the United States. Are you going to deny to Canadians the rights which other people enjoy? If the passing of legislation forbidding Canadians from engaging in the business could prevent steam trawling altogether, that would be satisfactory, but it would be very ineffective when other countries are allowed to engage in this business. It is argued that the evil can be prevented by prohibiting the landing in Canada of fish caught in trawlers. That is a pretty strong argument, but I do not know how it would work out when practically tested. It would certainly lead to great complications with other countries. It might lead to reprisals on the part of these other countries, and I fear might not he productive of the good result desired. The only effect such prohibition would have would be that the fish would be landed, say in St. Pierre or Newfoundland or the United States, and the trawling would go on just the same. Of course the fishermen on the

Canadian side would not see the fish landing and that might relieve their minds to some extent, but the trawling would go on just the same. To forbid Canadians from engaging in that business while others were allowed the right would be of no effect. The same thing was tried in the old country. The Moray Firth was there closed to British trawlers, but the result was that in a short time the English ships went to Norway, floated the Norwegian flag, and came to the Moray Firth, fished outside the three mile limit and landed their fish, so that the only persons affected were the Scotch trawlers. The evil of trawling went on just the same. Prevent our Canadians from trawling and they will do what was done in the Moray Firth cases. They will register their trawlers in some foreign port and then fish with impunity outside the three-mile limit. So the evil cannot be remedied by prohibiting our own citizens from engaging in the business.
As regards forbiding the landing of Canadian fish caught in Canadian waters, I do not think, as I said before, that remedy would be very effective. Notwithstanding the strong feeling in the old country at present against trawling, they have not gone so far as to say that fish caught by steam trawling shall not be permitted to be landed. In 1908, the British parliament passed legislation entitled, ' The Prohibited Areas Extension Act '. Section 1 of that Act provides:
From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful to sell or land in the United Kingdom any fish caught by the method of fishing known as steam trawling, or other trawling within the areas in which such methods of fishing are prohibited by the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, and by laws made thereunder.
It will be observed that this Act did not prohibit the landing of fish caught by steam trawlers generally, but only fish caught in these prohibited waters, the idea being to conserve these prohibited waters. But they did not deem it wise to pass such legislation as would totally prohibit the landing of fish caught in trawlers, and I do not know that it would be opportune or *wise to pass such legislation here.
What then is the remedy? The order in council of the 9th of Steptember, 1908, prohibits fishing by means of trawling within the three-mile limit, and in the bays and harbours of Canada, but unfortunately that does not help our inshore fisheries. Off the shores our fishermen set their trawls from two to six miles, ibut as soon as .a steam trawler appears, off the coast our local fishermen are obliged to withdraw their trawls because they do not want to take any chances of 'having their gear worth a couple of hundred dollars or more, destroyed. True, there are not many
instances of a steam trawler destroying the hook and line trawl, but the reason 13 that the local fishermen take the precaution of not setting these when the steam trawler is at work. They are, however, prevented from pursuing their honourable avocation, and I say a great hardship and injustice is done to them.
'The remedy suggested by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) seems to be one that will go very far towards alleviating the situation so far as the shore fishermen are concerned. They are a body of men far too important to be treated with indifference and are well worthy of the eulogies paid them by my hon. friend. They have a right to exist just as well as the steam trawler.
While the shore fishermen have no objection to the trawlers prosecuting their industry, if it is carried on in such a way that there is no danger of destroying the inshore fishermen's gear or injuring the fisheries generally, at the same time, they ask, and ask reasonably, that they also should be allowed to live. This is a case of live and let live. They do not object to the steam trawler offering to take fish to be supplied fresh to the Montrealmarket, at all seasons of the year, which is the argument put forward by the Maritime Fish Corporation, the owners of the 'Wren,' yet they say :	Let us live also. A
regulation ought to be passed whereby the shore fishermen can carry on his avocation, the avocation of his fathers, an honest and honourable one, while the steam trawler carries on its work if it wants to and provided there is no danger of permanent injury to the fisheries by the trawlers doing so. That, of course, as pointed out by the hon. member for Guysborough can only be accomplished by international regulations. And there is every reason to hope that this state of things will be brought about. Trawling is not popular. It is not popular in the old country, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Guysborough. Not only Great Britain,, but the continental countries as well, are passing severe legislation against it. In the United States it is equally unpopular. It can easily be shown that it involves danger to the fisheries of the country. I have every hope therefore that the other nations would join Canada in an effort to pass regulations to restrict the operations of the trawler. I understand there is an agitation on this subject in Newfoundland and that the government there has taken up the matter. So, it -would appear quite feasible to bring about international regulations respecting the manner of conducting this industry. There is a precedent for it. In 1839, there was a convention between France and Great Britain and that convention passed regulations for

the control of the fisheries. It is true, we have no jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit, but there is no reason why the several nations interested should not make an international arrangement, by which the deep-sea fisheries could he preserved and the local fishermen protected. This convention of 1839 defines territorial waters as being within the three-mile limit. But it made regulations regarding the conduct of the fisheries. It permitted trawl fishing within the limits of the tw7o countries. It forbade trawl fishing in certain waters, while herring and mackerel fishing are going on. It provided that trawlers should keep three miles away from boats engaged in fishing with drift nets for herring or mackerel, and went so far as to provide that where trawling was going on, and herring or mackerel boats commenced fishing there, the trawlers should leave and get away three miles from them. Now, if some such regulations could be adopted by this country, the evils complained of by our shore fishermen would at once to a very large extent vanish. And surely, it is not too much to ask that the steam trawler should keep far enough away from the shore fishermen to enable the shore fishermen to carry on their work without danger of their gear being destroyed.
The fisheries of our shores, as the hon. member for Guysborough pointed out, are the richest in the world. The steam trawlers of the old country have to drag the net for a period of four or five hours, but on our shore they can only drag it, I understand, for 45 minutes,-Dr. Oowie says one hour, but I believe that 45 minutes is really the time before it is filled and has to be hauled up. That shows how much richer the Canadian fisheries are than the fisheries of the old country We have a heritage in our fisheries which we should make every effort to conserve and we have in. our fishermen as fine a class of men as can be found anywhere. A class of men who are deserving of the best attention of the government. And I have every confidence that the government will endeavour to have international regulations adopted that will preserve the shore fishery. For, as I have already said, this government has shown every sympathy with the shore fishermen. When an application was made by several firms in Scotland for assistance to carry on this industry of steam trawling, that assistance was promptly refused, because the government believed that the effect on this industry -was to devastate the industry. Later on, the board of trade of Halifax asked that assistance be given to the trawler that was to come out from the old country, sent by the Ross Trawling Company. I read before six o'clock the letter from the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
to Mr. Mitchell, in which the government promptly refused to render assistance. ,1 have had to do with the department since 1908 in connection with this trawling. For,, as I said before six o'clock the ' Wren ' has been operating every season for the past three years off the shore of Antigonish, and I have heard many complaints on the part of the fishermen and have had many remonstrances from them, to make to. the government. I have invariably found the Department of Marine and Fisheries at all times desirous of seeing that the order in council, the law prohibiting trawling within the three-mile limit should be enforced. In 1908 it was represented to jne that the trawler was operating within rthe three-mile limit. I wired to the department, and promptly there was a telegram sent to the commander of the government steamer ' Petrel ' at Georgetown, as follows:
Ottawa, October 12, 1908.
C. G. S. ' Petrel,' Georgetown, P.E.I.
You are to watch the imported trawler ' Wren ' and to see that she does not infringe the law against in-trawling within the three-mile limit. Report all possible information for the benefit of the department. You will remain in commission until further orders. Acknowledge.
C. E. KINGSMILL, Rear Admiral.
Later, in 1909, it was again alleged that the trawler was operating within the three-mile limit. It is all very well to say we have an order forbidding trawlers operating within three miles of the shore, and that anybody can enforce the law, but the difficulty is, in proving the case. But let me say right here the only effective way of guarding against encroachment is to have a government cruiser constantly on the watch of the trawlers. Prevention is better than cure in such cases. The fishermen along our shore were persistent in maintaining that the trawler was operating within the three-mile limit. From what I could gather I believe that this was the fact. A prosecution wras instituted against the Captain of the ' Wren ', and he was convicted of violation of the law and was put in jail. That goes to show the disposition of the department. On the 23rd of September, 1909, I wrote to the Minister of M&rine and Fisheries calling his attention to the fact that it was alleged that the trawler ' Wren ' was operating within the three-mile limit. On 28th September, Rear Admiral Kingsmill wired the captain of the ' Constance ' to proceed to the Antigonish shore, and on the 8th of October, 1909, he writes confirming his telegram and adds:
You are therefore to keep as close a watch as possible upon her movements and do this in an unnoticeable way and with as little publicity as possible.

And last year complaint was made by the [DOT]fishermen. And, I find here, among the papers brought down a letter dated August 25, 1910, from the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Johnstone, to the deputy minister of the naval service:
This department would therefore be exceedingly obliged if you would be good enough to arrange to have the fisheries protection cruiser on that portion of the coast carefully follow the operations of the ' Wren J and see that no invasion of the law is permitted by her.
It has been alleged in certain quarters that the government has been encouraging and subsidizing trawlers. I read these letters to show how unfair that charge is. Instead of assisting them, the department has shown every possible desire to protect the interests of the fishermen. They have exhausted their jurisdiction to the extent of prohibiting by order in council, this method of fishing in our territorial waters over which alone we have jurisdiction, and 1 feel quite confident that if any international arrangement can be brought about for the protection of the shore fishermen, it will be done.
That such international arrangement- can be brought about, I have no doubt. That the interest of the local or shore fishermen will be duly safeguarded in the making of such arrangements. I have every confidence in. It is, therefore, with very much pleasure I support the resolution of the hon. member for Guysborough.


Austin Levi Fraser: I r'se mainly to give my endtrsement to the views of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). The importance of this question has been pretty well set out by that hon. gentleman and by the last speaker (Mr. Chisholm), of Antigonish, and I do not think that anything I can say can add much to its weight. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and a great many of the officers of his department, I think, are pretty well alive to the importance of the maritime provinces fisheries. We hear much of the conservation of natural resources, and we wish that the fisheries, the great natural resource of the maritime provinces should also be conserved. And while I must say there is room for improvement, I trust the department will see to it that this great menace to the fishermen of the maritime provinces which has been mentioned here, the steam trawling business, now in its inception, will be dealt with at once and effectively. It is without doubt destructive, and is a serious matter to the fishermen. I have my information from the fishermen themselves, with a great many of whom I come into contact, and they unanimously express great objection to this method of fishing. They say that it is ruinous. Now, I do not know whether the
department is fully alive to the disastrous effects of this method of fishingbut from the report that was read here this evening I think they cannot be well informed. It would appear that this officer of the department who was sent down there condemned his own report, because he says he takes his information from the corporation that has been referred to. He was sent down there with certain authority to examine the question and report upon xc, but instead of doing so, he finds a judgment, and says that he takes his information from the captain, or the corporation of a certain fishing concern in Nova Scotia. Now such a report must be entirely valueless to the department. I did not catch the name of the officer. But I would ask the minister to weigh that report and if, as I understood the hon. member for Guysborough to say, this officer got his information entirely from the corporation that was engaged in the steam fishing, then the report must be valueless. But I can assure the minister that my information comes direct from the fishermen, and I know that when this method ol fishing came into operation they were alarmed, and they have been alarmed ever since, because they consider that method destructive. The hon. member for Guysborough also read a report from a British commission on these matters, which I think is conclusive as to the destructive nature of this method 'of fishing. Now there was a man whose name was mentioned here, I think it was Cowie, and if I am not mistaken he was himself engaged in the steam tra-wling business. He reports apparently that steam trawling was not destructive. His report would be of the same value as that of the corporation who reported to the official of the department.
I think Mr. Cowie was engaged in steam trawling, and if my memory serves me right, this is the same Mr. Cowie who received certain sums of money from this government for making certain investigations-the minister will correct me if I am mistaken. But according to my memory, Mr. Cowie received large sums of money for performing certain services for this government some years ago in relation to the fisheries in the maritime provinces. I would strongly urge upon the minister to take direct evidence from those engaged in the fishing, and I think he will find that this method of fishing is fraught with a great deal of harm. As to the mode of regulation I am unable to make any suggestion to the government. Another matter I would like to mention is the recent regulations made at Washington, by which American fishermen are allowed to come within the three-mile limit, or within 1,000 yards of the shore, and set cod and herring traps. As I understood the Min- # ister of Justice the other day, he said that any one, whether coming from the United

States or from any other part of the world, could come within a thousand yards of our shores and set cod or herring traps. Now if that is the case, I believe that our fisheries will suffer a great deal of harm, and our fishermen also will be injured.


John Howard Sinclair: The Minister of Justice explained clearly that this regulation to which my hon. friend refers has reference only to the treaty waters, to waters on the north side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and I think the Magdalen Islands and part of Labrador. But it has nothing whatever to do with the_ waters of the maritime provinces.


Austin Levi Fraser: I was not quite sure about it. Then this regulation only affects the treaty coasts.
|Mr. BjRODEUR. There should be no misunderstanding in regard to so important a question. The agreement made with the United States the other day covers only the treaty coasts, namely, part of Labrador, from Mont Joly to Blanc Sablon, and the Magdalen Islands, that is to say, coasts which are part of Canada, and which were subject to the treaty of 1818. In virtue of that treaty American fishermen have the right to come and fish only in those parts of Canada. But so far as other parts of Canada are concerned, they have no right at all to come and fish in them.


Austin Levi Fraser: Another thing is that under the new regulation, as I understand it, American fishermen can come in here and fish within the three-mile limit the same as Canadian fishermen, on paying a license of a dollar a year.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend is referring to the reciprocity arrangement, it does not touch the fishing privileges at all, it deals with the exchange of commodities. In the particular matter to which the hon. gentleman refers, the effect is that the modus vivendi which has been in operation now for some time, is continued, with the payment of a nominal fee. In the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty it was proposed that if free fish could be obtained the conditions of the modus vivendi should be granted to them free of charge. We have provided, not to grant them free, but to charge a nominal license fee of one dollar per annum.


Austin Levi Fraser: I would urge upon the government to take into serious consideration this whole question of steam tra\Vl-ing, and to obtain their information from reliable sources. I think our fisheries deserve to be protected as well as any other of our natural resources such as timber and coal. The member for Guysborough * stated that the largest number of steam trawlers on the coast was twenty. Since then I think the number has been inereas-Mr. FRASER.
ing, and the situation now demands the immediate attention of the government.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: 
William Chisholm: Are you prophesying for yourself?


Adam Brown Crosby: No, but I can prophesy for the hon. gentleman, because of the speech which he made to-night. I need not fear the fishermen very much. Now, the hon. gentleman said that the government passed a minute of council. He had very great sympathy with the government, but
he did not seem to have very much sympathy for the fishermen. If he can get the government out of trouble the poor fishermen may look out for themselves. He did not seem to care anything about the fishermen. But he said that they had passed an order in council forbidding beam trawling. What else did they do? They permitted trawling up and down the straits anywhere provided it was outside the three-mile limit. But the hon. gentleman knows that they could not operate their trawls four or five miles out without interfering with the shore fisheries of Antigonish or Guysborough. Does not this hon. gentleman know that these fishermen fish outside of the three-mile limit, and that' it is there that they find their best fishing grounds? Sometimes the fish come close into the shore, and at other times they are outside of the three-mile limit. These steam trawlers may go up and down the coast and destroy the shore fisheries. My hon. friend read a lot from reviews and quoted a lot of resolutions passed by everybody but the people of Canada, but the people of the maritime provinces, whose opinions he should have presented to the House. I challenge him here to-night, I defy him to contradict the statement, as I challenge the hon. member for Guysborough, that there is not a fisherman in the maritime provinces who is not against this. They are unanimous, not a single fisherman favours it, and I challenge either of these gentlemen to get up and say that I am mistaken in that view.


William Chisholm: Who says to the contrary?


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. gentleman dare not say to the contrary, but he argues very much against that view, as I will be able to show. That being the case, was it not up to this government, in the interest of the people engaged in the fishing industry, that there should be no such thing as a steam traivler permitted in the maritime provinces? Was it not up to this government not to pass this minute of council, not to allow them to fish outside of the three-mile limit, but to prevent them from fishing in Canada at all? If they had done that would they not have saved the fishermen of the maritime provinces? The hon. member for Antigonish and the hon. member for Guysborough know something about the men who control this steam trawler * Wren.'


John Howard Sinclair: No.


William Chisholm: No, you are mistaken.
Mr. CROSBY'. Never mind, then; we will let that go for what it is worth.


John Howard Sinclair: It would be interesting to know who control the ' Wren.'


Adam Brown Crosby: I know that the Whitmans who support my hon. friend very strongly are the most interested, they buy the fish.


John Howard Sinclair: I confess I did not know that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am quite satisfied my hon. friend knows very little. I know that the Whitmans who are great supporters of my hon. friend buy the fish, whether they are interested in the steamer or not. My hon. friend from Antigonish seemed to have an idea that there was a scarcity of fish and indicated that it was necessary to have steam trawlers to supply that deficiency. I would ask any hoh. member if with fish, netting the fishermen from one half cent to two cents per pound, there is anything in the cost of fish that would necessitate new methods of catching them?
I do not think that any fisherman in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or Quebec will say there was ftny necessity for steam trawlers because we have to pay too much for our fish. The hon. members who have spoken must admit that the introduction of steam trawlers would destroy the livelihood of the fishermen of the maritime provinces. They would destroy an industry carried on by a class of men as brave as any in Canada, These men, in order to gain a livelihood, take greater risks than men in any other industry in the world unless perhaps the mining industry.
Hon. members have given at great length statistics relating to fishing in England, Ireland, Scotland and Norway, but we are here to govern our own people, to govern Canadians, and if we can do that well we are discharging our duty because these are the people most interested. The hon. members did not give us anything that was stated by the fishermen of Antigonish or Guysborough, you would think there was no one there to speak to them. The fishermen of our maritime provinces are unanimous in believing that no steam trawlers should be allowed. Therefore, I think these hon. nrembers should make some special effort to satisfy, and do justice to these men. The only way you can do justice to them is iby a minute of council or by a vote of this parliament preventing the use of any steam trawler in the maritime provinces.
As to the preservation of the fisheries on the Great Banks we have a splendid class of men who perhaps do greater fishing on these banks than any other class. \Ve want them to be protected, and of course, it would be impossible for us to pass any legislation here that would be effective without concurrent legislation of other nations interested, particularly the United States and France, except in the ways proposed by the hon. member for Guysborough. ' Mr. SINCLAIR.
But the bon. member for Guysborough might go further and make his resolution, prevent the purchase of fish caught bysteam trawlers whether inside or outside the three-mile limit. We know as a matter of fact, all the fishermen in the maritime provinces know, that these fish are caught within the three-mile limit. My hon. friend can talk about a telegram from this admiral to the next one, but it is only waste of money, and we have to pay the bills ; the steam trawler goes on and brings the fish in just the same. [DOT]
A word with reference to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. On the coast of Nova Scotia our fishermen fish the whole winter through without any protection whatever. I would suggest to the Minister of Marine -arid Fisheries that he should have a few of the ships under control of his department parole the Bay of Fundy and the coast of Nova Scotia, in order to succour fishing vessels that may be overtaken -by sudden gales. In the United States during the last few years they have employed their revenue cutters in patrolling the coasts in this way. This year they have had ten patrolling the coast from Cape Hatteras north. They published statistics last year showing that these vessels -had saved hundreds of lives and millions of dollars worth of property. I can see no reason why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should not have some of his steamers patrolling east from Halifax and others west from Halifax, particularly in stormy weather so that there may be some encouragement to the fishermen, and some hope that they may he brought safely to shore in case they are overtaken by storm. I am -quite in accord with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Guysborough, and with all that -he has said in supporting it, Nothing can he said to augment his argument. My only objection to the resolution is that it does not go far enough, and I would appeal to the hon. member for Guysborough and to the hon. member for Antigonish to use all their influence to induce the government to stop the sale in Canada of fish caught by steam trawlers. Then we shall have what our fishermen desire -and must h-ave if they are to have justice.


Mr. STANFIELD.: In justice to the hon. member for Guysborough, I feel it my duty to state that he communicated to me on Saturday that he intended to bring this resolution up; so that if there is any fault it is my own.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few observations on the subject before the House, which is one of unlimited importance to the maritime provinces and to Canada as a whole. I take a great interest in this * subject, and that interest is intensified

by the fact that 40 per cent of the people of the county which I have the honour to represent are directly or indirectly interested in fishing. I therefore desire to call the attention of the House to the importance of the industry to this country. We find that the number of men engaged in the fishing industry in Canada is something like 69,000, that the value of the fish and fish products of last year in Canada was in the vicinity of $30,000,000, and that about $17,000,000 of capital is invested in the industry. These figures show the very great importance of the fishing industry in Canada, and therefore, it is the duty of every member of this House to do what he can to preserve that industry in every respect. I understood the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby), to find fault with the government for not having done more to prevent the operation of beam trawlers within the three-mile limit. As I understand, the government passed an order in council in 1908 prohibiting .the use of the beam trawl within the three-mile limit, and in doing this, they exhausted their jurisdiction. I think it is conceded by members on both sides of this House, that they could not do more than that. The hon. gentleman says that beam trawlers have not been prevented from operating within the three-mile limit. I may say that I have had some experience in that regard. I -was notified by the fishermen that beam trawlers were operating off the coast of Inverness. I at once telegraphed to the department, and in reply to my request one of the boats of the Government Protective Service was sent there and could very quickly redressed that grievance had they followed up those trawlers in their operations. I am informed they did not do this as they might. With regard to the effect of the operation of steam trawlers on our fishing grounds, from all the information I can gather, it is destined to have the most destructive consequences so far as our fisheries are concerned. To show the great interest that is taken in this subject in the province of Nova Scotia, I may state that the local government of Nova Scotia then passed a resolution in April, 1908, asking this government to use all its power to prevent these trawlers from operating around the coast of that province; and every fishermen's union and several maritime councils in the province passed resolutions to the same effect. This shows the great interest taken in the question by the people of Nova Scotia generally. The operation of the beam trawler is particularly injurious to the inshore fishermen. These men, who engage in hand-line fishing, trawl fishing and net fishing, set their gear anywhere from three to ten miles from the shore. We can imagine long lines of trawls set along the shore, nets of varying lengths set at various distances from
the shore, and lobster traps set three or four miles from the shore would fare when in the course of beam trawlers in operation. Even if the beam trawler never comes within the three-mile limit, a large portion of this gear extends beyond that limit, and when the beam trawler sets out shortly before dark and steams along these fishing grounds, we can imagine the result. It would be the same as it has been in the old country. The inevitable result is the destruction of all the fishermen's gear set in the ground where the beam trawler operates. It is in anticipation of this destruction that the fishermen suffer most. When they know that a beam trawler is going to visit their fishing grounds, they are obliged to remove their gear to the shore. This means that their avocation, at least for the time, is gone. They are thus discouraged and will in many cases abandon fishing for^ all time. I have had strong representations on this subject from the fishermen of my own county. I do not intend to heap any encomiums on the fishermen as was done by other speakers to-night. It is not necessary to do so. The world knows their many deeds of bravery, their trials and hardships. If I did, I might be charged with throwing boquets at them in anticipation of something that may occur within the next couple of years. I may say, however, that I was met by a delegation of fishermen from along the coast of Inverness a few days before I came to this House, after Christmas, and they represented to me that the conditions there were such that if the beam trawler is allowed to continue to operate along that coast, the 40 per cent of our people who are dependent on fishing must turn to something else to eke out a livelihood. With regard to the effect of the beam trawler upon the feeding grounds and the spawning ground, I know that there are reports on file to the effect that thev cannot cause very great evils in this respect, but I attach a great deal of importance to the opinions of the fishjrmen, I have great confidence in their powers of observation, because they are people who devote their whole time to the fishing industry, .which to them is their only means of livelihood, and consequently they cannot fail, possessing as they, do at least an average amount of intelligence, to have the most accurate knowledge regarding the fishing and spawning grounds I am bound then to accept the honest representations of these people. When I tell you that these engines of destruction are capable of gathering even the large anchors of ships, as they have done in the last year, (and carried them to the port of North Sydney), you can imagine how the bottom over which these monsters operate must be tom up. Assuming for a moment that this takes place and I think there is no doubt about it.

what must we conclude? We cannot come to any other conclusion than that the ground travelled over by these engines must be so disturbed that the fish will no longer be found there. That at any rate is the opinion of the fishermen, and I am bound to respect their views, as the views of men who have watched the movements of the fish in such cases, and I am bound to accept their opinions on .questions of nature. It may be said that a large number of steam trawlers have operated in the North Sea for a great number of years without any noticeable depletion taking place there; but, as the hon. member vfor Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out a little while .ago, in order to keep up the average supply of fish it was necessary for these trawlers to go away down to the coast of Africa, and as far north as the ice will allow them to operate. It was only by these means that they could keep up the average supply of fish. They operated, not only in the North sea, but practically from the Arctic to the southern coast of Africa.	I have pointed out
that the result of the operation of these steam trawlers is to root up and harrow the bottom. In reply we are told that where this is done by a large number of trawlers, there has been no depletion. Well, we cannot compare our small fishing grounds with those large areas in the old country but from the Arctic to the coast of Africa. Take 15 or 20 trawlers' and operate them on one of those banks on our coasts and imagine them travelling over these banks four or five months in the year, it will not take them long to cover quite an area, in fact a large fraction of our small inshore boats will be gone over, and you may take it for granted that the area they cover is going to be destroyed for quite a while. That is the opinion of fishermen, and I will accept that opinion against the reports of any scientist or anybody else with regard to this phase of the question.
Let me refer now to the destruction of small fish. We are told by one of the officers sent down to our coast that there is absolutely no destruction of the small fish by beam trawling. But this officer, Mr. Halkett, I understand, made only one visit to the fishing grounds. It is known to men who know anything at all about fishing, that there are certain sections of fishing grounds frequented by the large fish and certain other sections frequented by the small fish. Would it be a very great stretch of the imagination to think that the owner of one of these boats would steer clear of the ground generally frequented by small fish, and go to those grounds where large fish were generally found, and thus give this government inspector the opportunity to say that no small fish were destroyed. In any event I do not see that Mr. Halkett could have obtained a very thorough grasp Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).
of his subject by merely going out on one trip, and then making his report.- I have often gone out in a fishing boat myself, and I invariably found that a considerable fraction of the boats' catch was small unmarketable fish. This being the case, surely it is not reasonable to suppose that beam trawlers do not catch quantities of this kind of fish when they are found by all other means of fishing. When on this question of small fish, let me say that I do not see why we should not have a reasonable proportion of small fish just as they have in the old country. But the trouble is we have not any statistics to show what proportion of small fish are caught whereas in the old country they have.- In the evidence given by Mr. G. L. Alwaxt before the committee on the fishery investigation appointed by the British government in 1907, to look into this question of steam trawlers, he said that in January, 1902, 19,230 cwt., of immature fish were brought into the port of Grimsby; in March, following 23,770 cwt., were brought into the same port; in April, 34,000 cwt., and in May, 32,000 cwt., or in all 109,000 cwt., brought into Grimsby in these four months. It is most unreasonable to suppose that we in Canada do not have at least .a reasonable proportion of small fish, and if we have the same proportion as in the old country, we can easily see the destruction wrought by steam trawling.
I have just a word or two to say with regard to the operations of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit. I am of the opinion that the steam trawlers do operate within that limit. On more occasions than one that famous beam trawler the ' Wren,' and another whose name I do not remember, operated off the coast of Inverness last year. This steam trawler would come about dark, move along aimlessly, and just as soon as night fell would drop their nets, and steam on. That I have from the fishermen of Inverness, who have watched their movements. From their statements I am satisfied that their steam trawler did operate within the three-mile limit. I have strong representation from the fishermen asking the government to send one of their cruisers down there to follow the operations of this steam trawler. That is what the fishermen want more than anything else. They recognize that this government has exhausted its jurisdiction so far as preventing the operations of steam trawlers is concerned, and what they ask the government to do now is to send down one of their cruisers to prevent that steam trawler from operating within the three-mile limit.
As far as the area outside the three-mile limit is concerned, I am in accord with the hon. gentleman who preceded me. The only remedy we can hope for is of an international character. I am satisfied there are

no other means we can use, and I am in great hopes that international regulations can be secured and that soon. As I have on several occasions said, the fishing industry ox Canada depends upon some regulations of an international character by which the steam trawler will be kept away from the coast, and I trust and believe that the government-will exhaust every means within its power to have such international regulations as will for all time settle this burning question, and thus save our fishing industry fcr our own fishermen rather than for steam trawl corporations.


Mr. J. GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay.) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a constituency comprising within its limits a large number of fishermen, I beg leave to say a few words in support of the resolution submitted to the House by my hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair).
The fishing gear and engines, to which he referred were brought to my attention within the last two years by. fishermen in my constituency, several of whom have not the means to secure them. These fishing engines are surely harmful and their use is likely to deprive fishermen of their means of livlihood. Apart from those trawlers which have just been mentioned, there are also what is called trap nets, used largely by fishermen from the United States. These people engage in the waters of the St. Lawrence provided with such immense traps, and often times prevent those fishing by hand from getting a living for themselves and their families out of these same waters.
Representations have been forthcoiping to me that I should approach the Minister of Marine and the government in this connection and voice the well grounded grievances of the people of the north shore of the St. Lawrence from Natashquan eastwards.
I am not in a position to express an opinion as to the actually mischievous nature of the fishing engines mentioned; I have no personal experience in this connection. But if any credence is to be given to the unanimous reports of the fishing community settled over a distance of five hundred miles along th.e north shore of the St. Lawrence, I think I am warranted in calling on the Minister of Marine to inquire into the question, with a view to amending the regulations in regard to licenses, in such a way that the poor man may be in a position to earn a living side by side with those in more affluent circumstances.
It is stated that fast American schooners, provided with trap nets, have been observed operating along the coast, within forty feet from shore, directly opposite the fishermen's houses. Such enormous quantities were being caught, that the boats could not hold them; nevertheless they
would throw any surplus overboard, rather than let these poor fishermen have any for charity's sake.
Considering these hardships, I deem it incumbent on me to request that the Minister of Marine should inquire through his officers as to what is going on in those parts, so as to find out some means of protecting the people living along that shore. After all they are Canadians. They are not all electors for the time being, but I trust they will be before long. They are Canadians of all origins, who have been settled in those quarters for hundreds of years and have developed a considerable trade in fish. On account of recent developments in carrying on the industry, these good people are liable to lose their only means of subsistence, as they are unable to compete with such powerful engines of destruction as those referred to. An attempt is made to justify the use of such engines on the ground of the needs of the general fish market. There is something in that; however, consumers would not feel the inconvenience of dispensing now and then with fish to the same degree as the poor fisherman would that of dispensing with bread.
Complaints are being forwarded from the maritime provinces. People in that part of the country which I represent have requested that I should voice their grievances before the government. That is what I have done. I have apprised the government of their views by means of records which I have in person laid before the Minister of Marine. If such representations are worthy of attention, regulations should be enacted at once with a view to protecting the poorer class against the richer, and especially against outsiders, mostly Newfoundlanders and Americans who come and fish in our waters, while Canadians are made to suffer therefrom. Under the circumstances the government should see to it as soon as possible, and find some means of protecting our people against outsiders, while at the same time, keeping aloof from any international entanglements.


Mr. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Guysborough for having brought to the attention of the House this important question of steam trawling in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and on the banks of Newfoundland. This question has attracted the attention of the department ever since the first steam trawler came to our shores. It was in the month of June, 1908, if I remember well, that the first steam trawler appeared on the coast of Canada. Only a few months elapsed when the department, on representations which were made especially by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. COMMONS
Sinclair), found it advisable to take action in the matter. I recommended to my colleagues to pass regulations prohibiting the use of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit. That regulation provides:
That His Excellency the Governor General in Council in virtue of section 54 of the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, is pleased to make and does hereby make the following fishery regulation:
The use or operation of vessels known as steam trawlers, operating beam, otter or other trawls for the purpose of catching fish is prohibited within the three-mile limit and in the bays and harbours of Canada.
This regulation was immediately put into force and we have taken the necessary steps to provide that it should be absolutely observed. Some violations of the regulations did occur on the part of the steam trawler which was then operating on the coast of Canada. Instructions were immediately given to the^ commanders of our fishery protection service that the vessels of the service should follow this steam trawler in order to see that the regulations were rigidly observed. As there were vio* lations of the regulation, we took these people before the court, and, if I remember rightly the captain of the vessel was convicted and even sent to jail. That shows that the department was anxious to prevent these steam trawlers from operating in the bays on the coasts of our territory.
That shows what is the policy of the government. I may say further that the policy of the government has always been to obtain some international regulation under which these steam trawlers could be prohibited from operating to the detriment of our shore fishermen. When I was in England in 1909, I had occasion to take up this question with the imperial authorities. It was on the occasion of the Imperial Defence Conference, and Newfoundland's representative was Sir Edward Morris, the Prime Minister. Sir Edward Morris and myself discussed this question with the authorities of the Colonial Office, and we pressed on His Majesty's government the desirability of obtaining an international arrangement for the regulation of the fisheries on the banks. Our object was to obtain an international arrangement with France and the United States, because those were fire only two countries who were engaged to any extent in fishing on the great banks. At that time France already had a certain number of steam trawlers operating on the banks, and the number was increasing. According to statistics I have in my hand in 1907 there were 9 French steam trawlers on the banks, and in 1908 this number had increased to 29: so in one year there was an increase of 20 steam trawlers sent from France to fish on the great banks. I had occasion also, Mr. BRODEUR.
when in Europe, to meet some people in France who were interested in steam trawling, and I found that public opinion was divided in regard to it. In the northern part of France, by which I mean that region including the ports of Dunquerque and Boulogne, the fishermen were mostly in favour of the steam trawlers. But in the southern part of) France, south of Finis-terre, all the fishermen, if I may judge of the view's I heard expressed by a member of the Chambre des Deputes, were absolutely opposed to the steam trawlers. The other country wre had to deal with was the United States. Up to the present year, I think the United States have sent no steam trawlers on the great banks or into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, but I am now informed that during the present year a couple of steam trawlers have been despatched from Gloucester or Boston, and more are likely to visit our banks. That shows, Mr. Speaker, that the steps which were taken by Sir Edward Morris and myself in 1909 to induce the imperial government to take up the question with these two countries, wras a step in the right direction, was a step which, if I may judge from the discussion we have had to-day, commends itself to the good opinion of both sides of the House. I may add that since then some communications of a confidential nature have been exchanged between this government and the imperial government on that question, and it is now engaging the serious consideration of the imperial government. Therefore, when mv hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) states in his resolution that steps should be taken, he is stating what has already been done by the Canadian government.	,
Now there are some objections which occur in considering the question of prohibition, or of regulation of steam trawlers outside the territorial limit. The first objection we met with was as to how far the territorial jurisdiction of Canada extended. There is no doubt that within the three-mile limit our jurisdiction is unquestioned; but outside the three-mile limit we have no jurisdiction. But how far have we- jurisdiction in the bays? You are aware that for some years the question has been agitated in Canada and in the United States as to the extent of our territorial jurisdiction in the bays. In the case of a bay only six miles wide there is no doubt about our jurisdiction; but in bays wider than that, the question arose whether foreign fishermen could come in and fish outside the three-mils limit on each side of the bay. However, that question has been settled so far as the United States is concerned, and in a way which I am sure is satisfactory to the Canadian people. The Hague award stated that certain bays were absolutely within our jurisdiction and our

territory; as respects others, a recommendation was made that some regulation should be passed not including those bays as part of Canadian territory; and as respects others also some boundaries were fixed. So this first objection which was met in discussing the question is now decided in our favour by the Hague award. It has been said that the method of steam trawling is a great improvement upon the old mode of fishing. I do not propose to discuss that question now at any length. I may say, however, that it is considered advisable that in all matters with regard to the fisheries we should adopt absolutely the same principle. For example, we have to make regulations in some cases to limit the catch of fish. Take the regulations we have passed with regard to purse seines, with regard to traps, with regard to pound nets. In many cases we have adopted regulations to prohibit the use of certain fishing methods because they were too destructive, in order to preserve our fisheries, and in order the more effectively to regulate them. We have been adopting all sorts of restrictions in order to preserve the fisheries. Take the issue of licenses, the close seasons, the size of mesh, and the gears, which I have just mentioned and which gears have been prohibited in order to prevent a too active catch of fish. Then, take steam trawling; although this is an improvement on the old system, I should say that if this improvement is still of such a nature that it could be considered as exposing our fisheries to depletion, we should take the necessary steps to prevent the use of such engines. That is what we have done in the regulation that I have just mentioned, and that is what we have done in the representations which have been made to the imperial authorities in order to bring about a conference (between the different countries interested. We have to consider three main points, first, the conservation of the fisheries; second, the interests of the fishermen, and third, the requirements of the fish trade. The conservation of the fisheries is certainly a thing which appeals to most people interested in the preservation of our natural resources generally speaking. We spend large sums of money in order to protect our natural resources, and we, at the same time, take all the necessary steps in order to preserve those natural resources. The fisheries are certainly one of the best natural resources that we have, and I think it would be a pity if all the steps necessary v ere not taken to preserve those fisheries.
Nothing too good can be said in favour of the hardy fishermen who daily expose their lives in order to get their livelihood.
very beautiful and interesting picture of the work and devotion of these men has 99
been presented by my hon. friend from G-uysborough, and I do not intend to say very much upon this point because he has done it in so excellent a way. But, I may say that we should always keep in our minds in the framing of our regulations and the making of our laws, the interests of those fishermen, and that is the reason which induced me to recommend to my colleagues, as I did in 1908, the prohibition of steam trawling, which I described a few minutes ago. I must admit that the requirements of the fisheries should equally not be lost sight of. The requirements of the fisheries are very important and it is acknowledged that the government, in framing these regulations, should also look to the preservation of that interest. In connection with that, I think it is only a matter of justice to read to the House a letter which was addressed to me by the manager of a company which owns the steam trawler the ' Wren.' This letter is dated about a month ago, and it reads as follows:
Maritime Fish Corporation, Limited,
St. Nicholas Building,
Montreal, December 12, 1910. Hon. L. P. Brodeur,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Re steam trawlers. My attention has been called to a resolution proposed by Mr. Sinclair, member for Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, which is to be brought before the House of Commons, and I have been directed by the board of directors of this company to place some information before you relating to the advantages attached to this mode of fishing, with a view to developing the fisheries of the Atlantic coast.
This company purchased from the Pioneer Steam Trawling Company in May last the steam trawler ' Wren,' and prior to the time we took over this trawler, very little had been done, and the steamer was not operated for commercial purposes.
To develop a steady and uniform supply of sea fish to the inland cities, this company decided it was absolutely necessary to improve upon the methods of fishing pursued in Guysborough county, realizing the Department of Marine and Fisheries were doing their share towards the development of this industry. P/ior to this time the fish dealers in the larger centres of Montreal and Toronto were dependent upon Portland and Boston for their supplies of fresh haddock and codfish, which was purely through lack of organization on the part of any company to give the dealers a steady supply. In previous years for many weeks the dealers were without fish, and at times had to pay exorbitant prices from the United States markets. We are glad to state that from May 1, 1910, the trade have been largely supplied with fresh fish from the Atlantic coast, taken by the steam trawlers operating out of Canso. This was owing to severe storms along the coast for several weeks in the month of September, and for one week at the latter part of September the



Canadian markets were absolutely and wholly supplied by steam trawler fish at from three and one-half to four cents per pound delivered in Montreal, whereas the quotations from Boston and Portland during the same period were seven and one-half to eight cents per pound.
Steam trawlers are being operated out of Grimsby and Aberdeen, Scotland, to a very large extent, and at the present time clubs of fishermen realizing the advantage this mode of fishing has, are now owning and operating these steamers. I inclose copy of a clipping taken from the Gloucester ' Times/ dated November 29, in which it refers to the third steam trawler of a proposed fleet of vessels launched in the United States. Since that time I am informed another steamer has been ordered, and if we in Canada are to compete with our friends on the other side of the border, we must have modern and up-to-date appliances.
Furthermore, from information I have been given, some thirty-five French steam trawlers operated last season on the Atlantic coast, and I cannot see that it is fair to propose legislation prohibiting Canadians from being on an equal footing with other nations.
To further illustrate to you the advantages afforded to fish merchants and fishermen operating along the coast, this company has paid to the fishermen one-half cent per pound more for their fresh haddock landed than in any previous year during the same. months, and the product instead of being dried or salted as it lias been in the other years, was largely disposed of in the fresh and smoked state, and the fishermen through this means have received cash for all the product offered immediately landed, whereas in other years where they were dependent upon foreign markets, the product has been held awaiting favourable market conditions.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) ALFRED H. BRITTAIN, Director and General Sales Manager.
This letter is certainly of some importance and I thought that for the benefit of the discussion, I should read it to the House. Of course, I do not agree with everything that is included in it because 1 think that we could very easily get a supply of fish at all times. Of course, we must give some consideration to the representations which are made in that letter. My correspondent has alluded to what the department has been doing in order to encourage the sale of fresh fish on the markets of Ontario and Quebec. We thought that it was a very serious handicap for our fish trade that in former years the markets of Montreal and Toronto were almost entirely supplied with fish coming from the United States.
The information I had, however, was that while this fish was virtually caught in Canadian waters, most of the business on the coast was carried on by American fishermen, who were taking our fish to the American markets, Gloucester and Boston, and from there were distributing it to dif-Mr. BRODEUR.
ferent parts of th.e United States and Canada; and it is a remarkable thing that during many years we were obliged to pay duty on our own fish, that is to say, fish caught in Canadian waters, transported to Boston and Gloucester, and then shipped from there to the Canadian markets of Montreal and Toronto. It was thought that some steps should be taken to put an end to this state of affairs. My colleagues appropriated a certain sum of money which was devoted to facilitating the transportation of fresh fish from the maritime provinces, or from the Pacific coast to the interior of Canada. I am glad to he able to state that this policy has produced very good results. I find that in 1906 there were imported into Ontario and Quebec from the United States 1,968,572 pounds of fish. In 1908 this amount was reduced to 1,180,543 pounds, and in 1910, in the last fiscal year, the amount imported was only 751,569. That shows that in spite of the increase in our population, in spite of our large consumption of fish, because the consumption has increased largely in the last few years, there has been a large reduction in imports. Why? Because we have paid to the express companies and the railway companies a part of the cost of transportation of fresh fish in cold storage and paid one-third of the cost of the transportation of fresh fish by express. Now, all the fish which is consumed in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, in fact in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, comes from the Atlantic provinces of Canada, being transported in the way I have just described. This policy has been very beneficial, and I hone that within a short time it will not be necessary for the government to continue to subsidize the transportation of fresh fish, because people will have become accustomed to eating fish and to receiving it direct from the maritime provinces. This shows the result of the policy adopted by the government. I do not believe that this result is due to the use of steam trawlers, but simply to the improved facilities which have been given for the transportation of fresh fish.	,
How shall this question of international agreement be considered? Perhaps it would be advisable for me to refer for a minute or two to the arrangements or agreements which exist in Europe upon that question. Since 1839 there has been an agreement between France and England as to the fisheries on a certain section of the Channel waters bordering those two countries. This agreement provided for the regulation of the length of beam, and the size of the mesh, and prevented anv trawler fishing near a herring or net fishing boat in such a way that the objection made to-day to the use of steam trawlers on the ground that, thev were destroying the fishing gear of herring fishermen or fishermen using

set trawls, are entirely overcome. The regulations under the agreement are framed in such a way that it is absolutely impossible for any steam trawler to interfere in any way with the ordinary fisherman, and to destroy his gear. In 1882 the North Sea Convention was made. To this convention Great Britain. Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden were parties. This agreement defines, first, what are territorial waters, adopting the head line theory for which we have fought so many years with the United States, and which was at last recognized by the award of The Hague tribunal. It states, also, that within such territorial waters no boat can fish except with the authority of the country adjoining these waters. It also provides that the trawl fishermen are not permitted near drift net or long line fishermen, and even that when fishermen come to fish with nets the steam trawlers must leave the bank and go and fish elsewhere. This was the agreement embodied in the North sea convention, which certainly should form the basis of any agreement which may be reached between Great Britain, the United States and France. Under this North Sea Convention and in virtue of the powers which England possessed, laws were passed in 1885 empowering the Board of Fisheries of Scotland to prohibit the use of steam trawls in territorial waters; to-day, with the exception of one place, steam trawling is absolutely prohibited in the territorial waters of Scotland. Later a regulation was passed prohibiting the landing in Scotland of fish caught by steam trawlers. But, unfortunately, and I call the attention of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) to this point, instead of helping to preserve the fisheries, this regulation has worked detrimentally to the interests of the other fishermen. In fact, the foreign fishermen who took their fish outside of the three-mile limit were prevented from landing them at anv Port in Scotland, and they had to go to Grimsby or some other port in England where the regulations did not apply.
The hon. member for Halifax suggested that we might have some law or regulation prohibiting the landing in Canada of fish caught by steam trawlers. I am afraid that such a regulation would work detrimentally to our own fishermen. At present they have the advantage of sending fish from the maritime provinces to the inland cities of Canada ; but the effect of prohibiting the landing of fish caught by steam trawlers, especially at seasons when they could not be caught by the other fishermen, would be that the New England fishermen would catch the fish off our coasts, carry it to the United States, and then sell it to us as American fish, and we would have to pay the duty on it. The Americans would 99i	*
have all the benefit of that situation to the detriment of our own fishermen. Therefore, I think we had better try to reach an agreement with the United States and with France upon some such regulation as that which exists in Europe by virtue of the North Sea Convention. If the total prohibition of steam trawlers could be agreed upon by these countries, it would be the best thing that could happen to us. But if it should be impossible to reach such an agreement, I think the next best thing for us would be to try to get an agreement such as I have just mentioned.
My hon. friend from Guysborough and other speakers have referred to the report made by Mr. Halkett, the naturalist of the department. Perhaps it is only just to Mr. Halkett, who is certainly a very good officer, in whom I have always had full confidence, that I should read" his report. It is not a definite report, but only a summary of his observations. He is going to prepare a report, which will give concisely and precisely all his observations in connection with his trip on the ' Wren.' Unfortunately, Mr. Halkett has not been well for some time, he is now absent on sick leave, and his complete report has not yet been prepared. But as soon as he returns, he will be asked to prepare that report, and I shall be glad to bring it down with the other papers. In his summary report, he says :
Having carefully followed the fishing operations carried on by steam trawlers on board the trawler 'Wren/ I have to report that the complaints made against such operations are entirely without just reason. On the contrary, instead of being exceedingly destructive and wasteful, practically everything drawn up in the great net, excepting the dogfish which are entangled in considerable numbers, is utilized and turned to account, and the very destruction of the dogfish is a benefit, whilst the men are entitled to save their livers on their own behalf. I understand that until recently the flat fishes, such as the rough-dab, were thrown away; but since the establishment of the glue factory at Canso such are now sold to that institution. There is really nothing drawn up in the net which any economical fishing corporation would ever think of wasting, and cer-tainlv the captain of the 'Wren' is awake to the interests of the Maritime Fish Corporation in this respect. The bulk of the fish caught is haddock, and it is for them that the trawling is carried on. The weight of the catch of haddock was 27,580 pounds, exclusive of 3,300 pounds of assorted small ones. This numerically, judging by the respective sizes, approximately represents some 6,895 and 1,650 fish. The weight of flat fishes was 325 pounds, of the cod 150 pounds, and of the hake 1,550 pounds, or numerically 100 flat fishes, 25 cod and 100 hake. True, I was dependent on the corporation for these figures after landing at Canso; but based on my own observations on hoard the 'Wren,' I can vouch for the figures being approximately correct. The total weight of these was 32.905 pounds, and (he number approximately 8,770. Besides leav-

ing out the dogfish there were a few silver hake, pollock, skate and gaspereau and a shad, and angler and an eel. It is difficult to form an estimate of the number of dogfish caught, but the number was very-considerable. Sometimes there would be only two or three, and at other times the net seemed to have swept through a regular school of them; their livers are out out and they are immediately destroyed and thrown overboard. Besides the true fishes there were a very limited number of squid, saved and other odds and ends like the angler, skates, &c., for making glue; and there were hardly any other invertebrates except a few worthless star fishes, &c. I will work the matter all out in a more detailed way later, but meanwhile give some broad outlines in a summary way. Occasionally, but very rarely, I saw an insignificant gaspereau or other very small fish thrown overboard, but there is virtually no waste whatsoever. The operations were carried on not closer to the land than four miles, and besides the 'Coquette' no other fishing craft was to be seen.
(Sgd.) ANDREW HALKETT,
Naturalist, Dept. Marine and Fisheries. St. John, N.B., Oct. 29, 1910.
This report, as we see, was sent direct from the maritime provinces, and I think that before condemning it, we had better wait until we have Mr. Halkett's full report, which no doubt will give the reasons for these figures, and the circumstances w'hich attended his visit on the ' Wren.' It is urged that the department should make some further experiments of the same kind in order to corroborate this report of Mr. Halkett. I am glad to accept the suggestion, and I shall he glad to give instructions to Mr. Halkett or to some other officer of the department to make further observations on the subject.
I wish to say a word wdth regard to the report made by Mr. Cowie some years ago and which was published' as an appendix to the report of the Marine and Fisheries Department for 1908-9. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has referred to some figures which are given at page 378 by Mr. Cowie in order to show what has been the catch of fish in Scotland, and in the North Sea, and surrounding districts during a number of years. I *think it only just to Mr. Cowie that I should refer to his valuable report. We may not agree entirely with what he says, but no doubt his services have brought a great deal of information which we all welcome. Mr. Cowie gives the following figures as to the catch, and the number of trawlers from 1898 to 1906:
Trawlers. Cwt.
1898	
119	778,7311899	
207	980,3261900	
232	1,078,1611901	
256	1,325,0721902	
275	1,165,0171903	
250	1,566,8701901	
270	1,705,6331905	
266	1,715,1811906	
271	1,870,517


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said that those figures do not show whether they represent only the catch in the North Sea or whether they cover also more distant territories. Those figures show the catch, not only in the North Sea, but also in Iceland, Faroe, and some other places. The observation has been made that those figures are not conclusive because they do not show whether the fish were caught in home waters- or far away. I may say, however, that I have these figures before me, and they show that in 1904 from the home waters there were brought into Scotland 1,150,440 cwt.; in 1905, 1,066,306 cwt.; in 1908, 1,385,978 cwt.; in 1909, 1,390,833 cwt. As to the other places such as Iceland and Faroe, the quantities were as follows:
Faroe. Iceland.
1901	
77,151	23,2091905	
173,311	96,2611908	
23,138	279,0351909	
67,073	161,719
But those last figures do not contra-vert the fact, which was stated by Mr. Cowie also in the same report, that the quantity of fish caught in the home waters has not been decreased, but has increased from 1,150,441 cwt., in 1904 to 1,390,833 cwt., in 1909. I think it only fair to Mr. Cowie that I should put those figures before the House in order to show that he is not at all prejudiced or biased in favour of steam trawlers.


Mr. JAMESON.: When was the report made?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the 2nd of February this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it a fact that separate statistics are kept for the_ North Sea and outside waters? I read this afternoon a statement made by one of the representatives at a meeting in London in which he said it would be very desirable to _ make a change in the keeping of the statistics so that we could tell what fish were caught in the North Sea, and what in other waters.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: trawlers. The Dominion government has failed to take action in this regard and we condemn the local government for failure to effectually urge the protection of our fishermen and express the opinion that an international treaty should be promoted and such other steps taken as may effectually deal with the question.
I read this merely to show that this subject has been a very live one for a considerable time. As far back as 1909 representations had been made from different sections of the province of Nova Scotia urging that steps should be taken to combat this danger as a menace to the fisheries, and on the occasion referred to, these representations found expression in the resolution I have just read.
Now, the damage which these beam trawls do, consists not only, as I have said, in destroying the spawning ground by tearing up the bottom, but also in ^he injury done to the fishermen who use what are known as trawls, consisting of long lines of fishing gear, to which at intervals shorter lines are fastened. These trawls are quite expensive, arid have to be kept in suitable condition for operation. Anything which tangles or breaks them involves considerable loss to the fishermen in straightening out the trawl and repairing it. This means loss of fishing, and consequent loss of profit to the fishermen. The subject is one which calls for prompt and vigorous action on the part of the government, as a result of this steam trawling, an intolerable condition has developed in certain waters in and about the maritime provinces. I am informed that recently one of these trawlers has entered the Bay of Fundy, and has been, or is about to prosecute its operations there. I am confident that the people who have been fishing in the Bay of Fundy will be very much opposed to this invasion, I cannot urge too strongly on the department the necessity of early and energetic steps to cope with this threatened evil. Now the department has known of this condition for some time, and we cannot help asking ourselves what the department has been doing. It seems that as far back as 1909, from the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this evening, this matter came under his personal observation, and he went so far as to discuss it with the Prime Minister of Newfoundland at the imperial conference in 1909. But thereafter, apparently, nothing has bqen done, the matter has been allowed to drift. To-day we find ourselves actually in the same condition as we were in 1908, so far as regards any steps taken by the department, I may say that I observe in the report of the department for the year 1908-9 some reference to the subject of steam trawling. There is a casual reference on Mr. JAMESON.
the part of the deputy minister in his report to the minister, appearing at page XXI, where he says:
The invasion of steam trawling off Canadian shores has been introduced this season, 1908-9, by an imported trawler named the 'Wren,' which vessel was brought to this country by a Halifax company.
Immediately urgent representations were made to the department on behalf of the shore fishermen strongly remonstrating against the operations of the vessel, the objections advanced being that large quantities of small unmarketable fish were taken and wasted, and that she was destructive to the gear of the hand liner, as well as of the grounds resorted to by them for fishing purposes.
So serious were the complaints against steam trawling immediately following its introduction, that the department procured an oiMer in council dated September 9, 1908, a copy of which is quoted. Then follows the order in council which reads:
His Excellency the Governor in Council, in virtue of the provisions of section 54 of the Fisheries Act, chapter 45, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, is pleased to make, and doth hereby make the following fishery regulation:
The use or operation of vessels known as steam trawlers operating beam, otter or other trawls for the purpose of catching fish, is prohibited within the three-mile limit and in the bays and harbours of Canada.
The report then goes on to say:
The action of the department in procuring the order in council which prohibited this method of fishing within the three-mile limit and the bays and harbours of Canada did away with any question of encroachment on the territorial waters.
Now although this statement was made in the report of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, we learn from the member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm), tonight, that such had not been the case, that even within the three-mile limit, these trawlers are still at times prosecuting their work, and that serious injury to the fishing interests had resulted^there-from. But the main thing which we note here is that as far back as 1908, the government had actual knowledge of the conditions existing in this respect, and apparently knew that some steps were necessary in order to mitigate injury or to prevent damage, and they took the course which has been stated in the report I have read. But in the same volume, issued by the minister for the year 1908-9, we find another interesting report, which was evidently considered of sufficient importance to take a place in the volume. This report is made by John J. Cowie, an officer, if not an adviser, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as appendix No. 20, page 373, in the report of the minister. On page 384 he makes a

statement which I will read to the House, because taken in conjunction with the action of the department and with the statement of the deputy minister, it seems a little startling, not to say inconsistent. He says:
With regard to the framing of laws for the restriction and regulation of beam and otter trawling in Canadian waters, I luay he allowed to say that, in my opinion, all that is really necessary is the keeping of trawlers outside the three-mile limit along the coast, and outside of the ten-mile limit in hays, with rules providing that no trawler shall fish within at least three miles of any boat or vessel which is in the act of fishing for herring or mackerel, or within three miles of any vessel anchored for the purpose of line fishing, so that line fishermen shall not live in constant fear of having their fishing gear swept away and destroyed.
Those rules, dealing with extra territorial waters, would, of course, have to be mutually agreed to by the countries interested to be of any use. There need be no fear of trawl fishing ever depleting the sea here.
I draw particular attention to that last statement.
The conditions on this side of the Atlantic are altogether different from those on the other. In European waters, in the comparatively narrow North Sea, excessive fishing goes on from January to December by an immense fleet of trawling and other vessels, and in spite of this, the total landings, as has been seen, are actually increasing rather than diminishing. In Canadian waters, on the other hand, and even on the Grand Banks -and this should be kept in view when placing restrictions on trawling here. Owing to climatic conditions there is an enforced close time of at least three months in each year, during which little or no fishing of any kind takes place, and during which even the operations of steam trawlers would be practically stopped. Indeed the Gulf of St. Lawrence, that immense fish breeding area, is practically closed to fishing from December to May, 59 that the fishing grounds, even if excessively worked on during the open season, would, owing to the long rest, soon become replenished. It is, therefore, inconceivable that trawling can develop to such a degree on this side of the Atlantic as ever appreciably to diminish the extraordinary abundance of certain classes of fish such as cod and haddock in the waters of Canada, and I think we may rest assured that its fisheries will remain a splendid heritage for all time.
I quote further from page 377:
I think it is now beyond a doubt that trawling has come to stay here, and although its development will, of necessity, be slow, nevertheless, looking to the time when Canada will have many more millions of people within her borders than she now has, when railway rates have been reduced, and the distributing facilities will have been increased to keep pace with the expanding trade, I believe there will be seen a fleet of Canadian steam trawlers running in from the Atlantic grounds with daily supplies of wholesome fresh food fish.
Mr. Cowie is evidently reconciled to the continuance of steam trawling. He is an officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and as such his words carry weight and may be said to reflect the views of the heads of that department, for they have not been repudiated by the minister.
I must say that, taking into consideration this statement of the expert of the department-I do not know whether he is merely an expert or whether he is something akin to a prophet because he seems to be usurping the functions of a prophet when he says that the fisheries upon the Atlantic coast are not going to diminish- together with what I might call the remissness of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in not taking more active steps towards devising some means for the protection of the fishermen, and the fisheries, I cannot do otherwise than come to the conclusion that the minister himself is not very much impressed with the necessity for taking any such step as that. The minister, in referring to this said in effect that unless total prohibition could be obtained the best thing to do would toe to arrive at an agreement based on the North Sea Convention. I think that was the statement that the minister made. He is not in his place so I cannot ask him whether it is or not. I do not understand what he means by that except it be that unless the different countries, France and the United States, for example, are willing to unite with Canada and agree to certain regulations which will prevent the operation of these steam trawlers outside the three-mile limit, he does not know that Canada can go any further than to prevent the operation of them within the three-mile limit. In other words, nothing further can be done than that which has already been done. The minister seems to me to take an erroneous view of the matter when he says that it would place Canadian fishermen and the fishing interests at a disadvantage to take a step, with regard to the framing of the regulations, which would actually prevent the landing of fish caught by these trawlers at Canadian ports. He says that it would work out in this way, that while Canadians would be debarred from the privilege of operating these steam trawlers, Americans, under the new regulations with respect to the charge for the modus vivendi licenses, if the agreement now under consideration should pass, would come to our ports, take these fish outside the three-mile limit, carry them to the American markets and Canadians would be debarred from sharing in that profitable business. I am led to say in reply to this that, if my memory serves, a somewhat similar condition confronted the administration of the department of Marine and Fisheries a number of years ago prior to 1896. The question

was whether or not parse seining should be permitted. I believe that the fishery branch of the Canadian government, made several attempts at a conference with the United States with respect to this, and while the government of Canada contend that purse seining should be prohibited the government of the United States was not prepared to go as far as that, the result being that they could reach no agreement. Canada decided that in so far as Canada was concerned purse seining was to be disallowed. Regulations were passed which did prohibit the use of purse seines by Canadian fishermen. The United States have since agreed to this in the treaty waters. I think that to-day the question is : Is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries doing all that he should do? It is no use for us to go to others and say 'we want you to agree to certain stringent regulations * unless we are able to say that we ourselves have set our house in order. It is not worth while to ask the United States government to agree to something that we have not done ourselves, I object altogether to the United States having anything to do with the policy of the Canadian government with respect to the fisheries. It seems to me that there is too much of this deferring to the United States when it comes to dealing with our own fisheries. We are having too many joint agreements with them, too many international commissions with respect not only to our fisheries but to our waterways. Now, it is our railways. Practically we have come to the point where it is a question of the United States arranging our tariff for us. All these things should be worked out on Canadian lines, and I think the government of Canada should set a high standard if they want others to follow. I do not believe that the Canadian fishermen would find any fault with the government for saying that steam trawling should not be permitted, and I think the Canadian government should take every means it possibly can to prevent the operation of steam trawling in Canadian waters and outside of Canadian waters, and to do that by preventing the ships from landing their fares at Canadian ports.
The minister referred to a question which is a somewhat interesting one, when he stated that in the year 1907 the department had arranged to give certain assistance to the transportation of Canadian-caught fish in order to bring the fish into the upper Canadian market. Prior to that, he stated, the Americans practically controlled the fish market in central Canada. He quoted the following figures:	In 1906, Canada imported from
the United States 1,968,000 pounds of fresh fish; in 1908, under this new arrangement whereby Canadian fish got into the Canadian market, its import had fallen to Mr. JAMESON.	.
1,180,000 pounds; in the year 1910 this had fallen to 761,569 pounds. This statement gave the minister a good deal of satisfaction and I think there is every reason for satisfaction in that regard. But the minister omitted to state one very important thing which had led up to this condition. He should have gone a little further and explained that in the year 1907 the government of Canada increased the duty on fish from half a cent to one cent a pound; making it the same as that charged by the United States. It was that very measure, together with the assistance in the payment of the transportation charges which gave the Canadian fishermen on the Atlantic coast, entrance into the Canadian market as far as western Ontario. I remember that in the year 1906, when the commission known as the tariff commission, consisting _ of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) visited Nova Scotia, I had the honour of appearing before them at the town of Middleton representing the fishing interests of the county that I have now the honour to represent in this House. I then pointed out to the Tariff Commission that the fact of the United States having a duty of one cent a pound on fish as against our half cent a pound gave them control of our upper Canadian market, and that it was largely supplied from Portland, Gloucester and Boston ; also that the transportation rates were very high and that the chance of getting Canadian-caught fish in the upper Canadian market under the then existing conditions was practically nil.
I was pleased at a later date to see that the government had taken the steps to which I have alluded, and I wish to point out the results in the way of increased shipments from the maritime provinces to our Canadian markets. At page LXXVI of the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for 1909-10, I find the following figures showing the shipments of fresh cod and fresh and smoked haddock in the last
years:-	Cod, Fresh	Haddock,Year.	or	Fresh andGreen.	Smoked.Lbs.	Lbs.1900	.... Nil.	7,560.6251901	.... Nil.	8,691,6691902.. 	.... Nil.	7,751,8831903	.... 504,500	10,060,2831904	.... 1,238,985	9,875,7001905	.... 1,876,000	14,216,3841906	.... 2,170,695	18,246.8661907-08	.... 6,895,900	15.259,5351908-09	.... 5,432,100	11,845,6191909-10	.. .. 4,354,871	13,557,442
Within the last three years, although there has seemingly been a reduced catch (to judge from these figures) there has

been a tremendous increase in the quantity of green and partly cured fish, which has come into the upper Canadian market from the maritime provinces, a trade which has been of very considerable advantage to those on the Atlantic coast, who have secured that market.
I wish, in closing, to give to the House a description of one of these steam trawlers and its methods of operation. I shall quote an extract from the New York ' Syren,' quoted by Mr. M. H. Nickerson, M.P.P. for Shelburne in the local legislature in 1909. The extract reads:
The second largest trawler built this year by Messrs. Cochrane & Sons, of Bologne, was launched recently from their ship-building yard at Selby, the ' Canada ' by name. She is described as the largest trawler afloat, and, in fact, is five feet longer than the ' Notre Dame des Dunes.' Her principle dimensions are 156 feet long, 26 feet broad, 15 feet deep moulded, and she will be fitted with powerful triple expansion engines by Messrs. Amos & Smith, of Hull, having cylinders fifteen inches, 25 inches and 42 inches by 27 inches, with a large boiler 15 by 10, and 180 pounds pressure. She has been specially constructed for the Newfoundland fishery, having large trawl winches to contain 1,000 fathoms of warp on each drum. She has also steam windlass, electric light throughout, isolated fish rooms, and in every respect has been fitted up in the most up-to-date manner for deep-sea fishing. Messrs. Wales, Dove and Company's well known bitumastic enamel has been applied to the bottom fore and aft ballast tanks, cabin, engine and boiler spacongs, bunkers, fish room, feed tank, forecastle, store rooms and plates. We understand that Messrs. Coehrane & Sons have in hand a similar vessel for Portuguese owners. Mons. J. Huret is probably the owner of the ' Canada.' He has a number of trawlers engaged in the bank fishery.
The operation of the trawl is thus described:
This trawl was an immense bag of netting, say 100 feet in length and perhaps longer in some of the latter devices, with a very wide mouth or opening on each side of which there was a board, a short wooden wall, resting on the bottom, and between them were stretched two strong ropes forming the upper and the under edge of the mouth, to which the twine was attached. There was a rope from each of these boards to a drum, to the bow and to the stern of the ship. The whole apparatus is dragged slowly along over the bottom while the ship is under headway. The same action caused the mouth to open wide, ~ while the netting took in the fish. It could easily be seen that this device would enclose a multitude of ground fish, such as cod and haddock, and like varieties wherever found. When it bagged them it was hauled up by a powerful steam winch and the contents taken on board. When the catch was large the weight of the huge mass killed the fish and often coral and sharp stones were mixed with the fish, which only helped to bruise them more. The worst feature about it was that it destroyed a large
number of small fish, which, on account of their size, were not saleable, but if allowed to grow would be saleable. It was like cropping the field before the harvest was ripe, something which would be deprecated on land was looked upon as a great stroke of business at sea.
That was in the spring of 1909, and I understand from the minister that since 1908 the number of French trawlers around Newfoundland has increased from 8 to 29, so it will be seen that this method of fishing is in vogue to an alarming extent; that wealthy interests are building up this business, that it is working to the detriment of the small individual fishermen, that the fisheries are being injured by it, that the spawning grounds are being disturbed and damaged, that the fishermen are having their gear destroyed, with consequent loss of time, that in every respect this trawl fishing must be a constant source of embarrassment to the fisherman and of injury to the fisheries.
I cannot use words stronger than those used by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) in urging on the government the necessity of taking some steps which will effectually prohibit the operation of these vessels in Canadian waters and the landing in Canadian ports of fish caught by them. If we take that stand we will meet with the approval of fishermen throughout the maritime provinces. It may be that a large interest here and there will be prejudicially affected, but I believe that on the whole the end will justify the means; that the fisheries will be conserved and that the interests of the fishermen, which are worthy of the best consideration which can be bestowed on them by this House, will be benefited. The government should protect the poor and hard-working fishermen; the men who are rich enough to build expensive steam trawlers can always protect themselves. I urge on the minister and the House that some steps be taken to protect the Atlantic fisheries of Canada by preventing the landing of fish caught in the trawls at Canadian ports and prohibiting within the three-mile limit the operation of these steam trawlers. The minister has the fisheries protection service fleet at his disposal for that purpose, and under the order in council of 1908 he has power to prohibit their operations. We have the statement of the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) that these vessels have been operating within the three-mile limit and altogether we have a position that calls for prompt and energetic action on the part of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I trust that such action will be taken.


John Howard Sinclair: I am greatly pleased with the wav my resolution has been received by the minister and by the hon. members who have spoken. I was sorry

my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) should feel that I had not treated him courteously.


Adam Brown Crosby: I beg to apologize. I did not know at the time I made that statement that notice had been given to the Conservative whips, and I am quite willing to apologize. I thought we had a right to know in advance that this was coming on, and was not aware that notice had been given.


John Howard Sinclair: I am quite satisfied with my hon. friend's explanation. This resolution was placed on the Order Paper on the 22nd of November, and it was, of course, open to every member to find out on what day it would be discussed; and, as a matter of fact, the whip of the party asked me if I intended going on with the discussion, and I said I did. I supposed that hon. gentlemen who were interested in the resolution would keep themselves posted in this respect. Permit me for a moment to make reference to the remarks of my hon. friend from Kings. P.E.I. (Mr. Fraser), about the new regulation under which American vessels are allowed to obtain a license for $1 in place of the old rate. My hon. friend seemed to infer that that meant that the American vessels have obtained some fishing privileges which they had not before ih Canadian waters. As I understand the regulation, that is not the case. They have exactly the same privileges that they had formerly under the old license, the only difference being that whereas under the old regulation they paid $1.50 a ton in order to get a license, now they will pay the nominal sum of $1 in order to get a license. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) was somewhat excited in his speech, and showed himself anxious, or at least willing, to make this a political question. I would be sorry if we had any polities in a question of this kind. I think we ought to be able to agree on some regulation that would meet the circumstances, and I will gladly join in any reasonable proposal which my hon. friend can make that I would consider effective. I regret, however, that my hon. friend finds it- necessary to blame the government in this matter, because really the government is not to blame. It has dene everything that we could have asked it to do so far. It has prohibited absolutely the use of the trawler in Canadian waters. It has exhausted its jurisdiction so far as that is concerned.


Adam Brown Crosby: Did not my hon. friend hear the hon. member for Inverness state that the trawlers were operating within the three-mile limit along the coasts of his county? And is he not in favour of the absolute exclusion of steam trawlers by not permitting them to sell their fish in the maritime provinces?


John Howard Sinclair: 


John Howard Sinclair: I have not had any such complaint from my constituents. I keep myself very well posted with what is going on in connection with the fisheries of my county, and I can state that the ordeT in council prohibiting the use of trawlers within the inshore waters has been fairly well kept on the coast of my county. Not later than last September I had a meeting at which nearly all the fishermen of Canso were present, and we discussed this matter, but no one made the statement that the trawler had been working within the three-mile limit, and there is no such complaint in any of the petitions from my county that are on file.


Adam Brown Crosby: Are the fishermen of the county of Guysborough perfectly satisfied with the condition of things at the present time?


John Howard Sinclair: No, they are not satisfied. They would like to drive the trawlers off the shore altogether, and I sympathize with them in that desire, and if my hon. friend can show me any practical way in which we can control this matter better than we have been doing I shall be glad to assist him.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have suggested a way in which it can be controlled-by the government prohibiting the sale of fish from these steam trawlers in the maritime provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a proposal that may be worth considering, but the hon. gentleman has not answered the minister's objection to it, that it would simply drive the business to the United States. By doing that you cannot stop the fishing; *you can only stop the sale on the coasts of Canada, and the consequence would be that these trawlers would catch the fish outside the three-mile limit, take them to Boston, and from there ship them to Canada. .What we want is not to stop the sale of fish in Nova Scotia-that is a very poor proposal-but to stop that method of catching fish. We do not want to drive the fish past our own coast and build up the markets of some foreign nation.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will answer the Minister of Marine and Fisheries now. I believe the fishermen of the maritime provinces know more about their business than either the hon. member for Guysborough or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and therefore I take their unanimous decision in favour of absolutely excluding from the maritime provinces the steam trawler, or the beam trawler, and I ask my hon. friend if the people of his county do not desire to prevent the steam trawler selling a pound of fish in the maritime provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, you have heard the answer the hon. member has made to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and if you are satisfied with his logic I suppose you will be convinced. The hon. member also made a proposal which I suppose will be regarded by the Halifax 'Herald' of to-morrow as a brand-new proposal coming from himself; that is, that a patrol boat be put on the coast in order to protect the fishermen from the sudden storms that come in the winter season. My hon. friend is not very well posted as to what is going on along the coasts of Canada, or he would know that some weeks ago a patrol boat was placed at the point where most of the winter fishing is going on. I refer to the steamer ' 33,' which has been doing patrol work at Canso. My hon. friend comes to-day with his proposal, after this boat has been put on the patrol grounds by the government, and has done certain work, and he brings in this proposal as if it were now made for the first time.
The hon. minister said that some further investigation should be made, and some officer should be sent on board these vessels to make an investigation. I do not think that will be effective. We shall have to do something more. We would require to adopt the same system as is adopted in Great Britain, and do some experimental work ourselves. The government should take steps to find out for themselves how many of these fish are undersized and whether this trawling system is really a destructive method or not. I question if they could get at the correct facts by sending an officer on board one of these ships. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) seems to want to improve my resolution by saying that these trawlers should be prohibited from all the grounds on which fishing is carried on. I would be quite willing to agree if I thought a resolution would be effective; but the reason why I confine myself to what is described as spawning grounds, is that I wish to have a resolution adopted which will be acceptable, not only to the Canadian government, but to the governments of the United States, and Great Britain and France. If we can point out to all these that it is important in the international interests that the fish should be preserved by protecting the spawning grounds, we might get their consent to regulations for that purpose. My idea is that, in confining the resolution to the spawning grounds, it is more likely to be accepted by foreign governments than the one suggested by my hon. friend. I think the hon. gentleman ought to be more cheerful, a^d give credit to the present government for what it has done for the fishermen. I shall not take time just now to go into that matter, because that would be a
very long story, but both my hon. friend and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) are well aware what a splendid record this government has had in the last fourteen years with regard to the fishermen. All my hon. friends have to do is to travel along the coast, and see tne large number of breakwaters built to protect the fishermens' boats, expenditures, I may say, which were very severely criticised by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Let them consider again the large number of lighthouses erected, and the large number of buoys placed in the different harbours and bays, and the number of wharfs built and steamship subsidies to carry the fish to market. The fact that a freight train has been put on the road between Nova Scotia and Montreal to carry fish at low rate and high speed is something my hon. friends ought to 'bear in mind. All these things have been of the greatest benefit to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.
I regret that my hon. friends should look at this from a political standpoint, but I am glad to know that they will unite with me to-night in the vote, and I hope that something material will result. I trust that we may succeed in obtaining international regulations which will prohibit steam trawlers from operating in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the banks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. ROCHE.: I beg to move that resolution (No. 12) which stands in the name of the hon. member for St. Antoine's division, Montreal, (Mr. Ames) be discharged, as my hon. friend would prefer to discuss the question raised in this motion, in the reciprocity debate.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the slightest objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence between any department of the government and Mr. W. T. R. Preston, Trade Commissioner in Holland regarding the Netherlands Land Company, since the date of the last resolution adopted by this House, calling for the same at the present session; also a copy of the official document issued by the government respecting the high regard in which western farm lands are held by some of the principal loan and investment companies.- Mr. Monk.
For a copy of the curators' reports in the cases of all banks for which curators have been appointed.-Mr. Foster.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Halifax), that we shall take this up on Thursday instead of to-day.
Tuesday, February 7, 1911.