1916-03-30

ANNUAL STATUTORY SALARY INCREASES.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I beg to move that the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 27th instant, relative to the yearly increase in salary to certain officers, clerks and employees of the House, pursuant to section 37 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, be approved.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I suppose this does not include any new appointments?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 75, to amend the Canada Shipping Act. He said: The introduction of this Bill as considered necessary in consequence of the very extensive use of gasolene and oil engines in boats in Canada. Under the present law, any boat that is over fiv'e tons in size and carries passengers is required to have a certificated engineer .and a certificated captain. There are a laTge number of .motor boats over five tons that are being used for passenger service in Canada at the present time and"! am advised by the technical officers of the department that it is not necessary for the safety of the public that these boats should be compelled to carry both a certificated engineer and a certificated master. There is a provision in the law at present that no person shall act in the double capacity of

master and engineer of any steamboat. It is proposed to amend the section, so far as regards boats that do not exceed sixty-five feet in length, and provide, under regulations to be made by the department, that it will be sufficient to have one man who is both a certificated engineer and a certificated captain. Any man who possesses both certificates will be allowed to command the boat, and also to act as engineer. The present Act makes provision for engineers' certificates in the case of boats driven by steam only, and it is proposed to make some changes so that a special certificate may he granted to an engineer in charge of a boat driven by a gasolene, oil or combustion engine.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	What amount of money has been advanced
to the Quebec Harbour Commission since the 1st October, 1911; on what dates, by whom, and in virtue of what authority were such advances made ?	-
2.	What is the amount of the interest due or in arrears on such advances since the 1st October, 1911?
3.	What amounts of such interest have been paid by the said commission since the 1st October, 1911, and at what dates?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Total authorized for advances on loan by 3-4 George V, Chapter 41, $3,500,000; total authorized for advances on loan by 4-5 George V, Chapter 47, $2,000,000; making $5,500,000.
Advances made on account of above as follows:
June 5,	1913	$220,000July 8,	1913	
218,000July 26,	1913	
286,000Aug. 27,	1913	
293,000Sept. 22,	1913	
448,000Oct. 16,	1913	
432,000Dec. 1,	1913	
186,000Jan. 13, 1914	
272,000Mar. 9,	1914	
257,000April 11,	1914	
225,000May 18,	1914	
123,000June 22,	1914	
235,000July 13,	1914	
111,000Aug. 5,	1914	
100,000Aug. 12,	1914	
100,000Aug. 23,	1914	
100,000Sept. 1,	1914	
220,000Sept. 17,	1914	
256,000Sept. 30,	1914	
92,000N6v. 3,	1914	
147,000
Dec. 11, 1914. Mar. 2, 1915 June 11, 1915, Aug. 21, 1915, Aug. 25, 1915. Sept. 18, 1915 Oct. 16, 1915. Nov. 6, 1915 Dec. 29, 1915.
57.000
229.000 8,000
243.000
52.000
46.000
48.000
85.000
59.000
Total	$5,148,000
2 and 3. Interest on these advances is due on January 1 and July 1 in each year. On July 1, 1915, the interest due was $217,660. This amount was paid in full on the 29th October, 1915. On January 1, 1916, interest to the amount of $85,744.68 became due. This amount has not been paid.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-FREIGHT CARS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: How many freight cars are at present out of repairs on the Intercolonial railway between Ste. Rosalie, P.Q., and L6vis?


Mr. REID:: The Canadian Government
railways own 14,860 freight cars, of which 60 are' stored between Ste. Rosalie and Levis, awaiting their turn for repairs in shops at Chaudiere and Riviere du Loup.


MILITARY HOSPITAL COMMISSION.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Are the members of the different military hospital commissions, established by Order in Council of the 30th June, 1915, throughout the different provinces of the Dominion, paid by the Government?
2.	If so, what is the salary of each of them.


Mr. KEMP:: 1 and 2. Order in Council No. 1540, dated June 30, 1915, created the Hospital Commission, appointing twelve gentlemen as members of the Commission. Order in Council No. 2412, dated October 12, 1915, changed the title of the Commission to the Military Hospitals and Convalescent Homes Commission and appointed four additional members. As a result of an Inter-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa, October 19 and 20, 1915, each of the provincial governments has appointed a commission to act in co-operation with the Federal Commission.	.
No members of the Military Hospitals Commission receive any remuneration for their services. They are entitled, however, under the Orders in Council, to $10 per day, plus actual railway fare, while attending the meetings of the Commission or while otherwise specially engaged in the conduct of its affairs.


*COMMONS
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is Camille Feller a recruiting officer for the Militia Department?
2.	If so, at what place is he employed?
3.	From what date has he been in the employ of the department?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	How many recruits has he enlisted since his appointment?
6.	What amount of money has the Government paid him since his appointment?
7.	Is Camille Feller a naturalized British citizen? If so, since when?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN OVERSEAS FORCES.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	On deciding to enlist 500,000 Canadians
for overseas service, did the Government act of its own volition, or was that decision arrived at after conference with the British authorities, that such a force would he required from Canada?	[DOT]
2.	Has anything happened since that decision was arrived at to induce the Government to change Its mind as to the number to be enlisted?
3.	How long will the Government, if it persists in its decision, propose to take to enlist equip, train and have such a force ready for transportation ?
4.	How long has it taken for Canadian troops to be ready for action from the date of enlistment?
5.	What is the force now enlisted?
6.	How many are in England, at the front and in Canada, and at Bermuda, respectively?
7.	What is the total expenditure to date for war purposes?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The Government has always taken pains to ascertain the views of the Imperial authorities, particularly the views of the War Office, with regard to these matters.
2.	No.
3.	The time required depends upon conditions which cannot at present be foreseen. Reasonable regard must be had to the necessities of agriculture, and the other industries of the country.
4.	The period varies. Six months may be taken as the minimum for infantry, but other arms of the service require a longer period before they are ready to go to the front.
5.	290,000 of all ranks. This figure makes no reduction on account of casualties.
6.	In Great Britain and at the front there are approximately 112,000 men; in Canada, approximately 135,000; casualties of every description number 22,000, and wastage 21,700; making a total of 290,000.
7.	Approximately $187,000,000 to the end of February, 1916.


FLAX EXPERT.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has a Mr. Bramhill been appointed by the Department of Agriculture, or any other department of the Government, to the position of flax expert since the 1st of January last past?
2.	If so, what is his age and qualifications for such position?
3.	Has he ever, and if so, for how many years been engaged in the production of flax?
4.	Has he ever, and for how many years, been engaged in the manufacture or sale of flax or any of Its products or commodities?
5.	By whom was he recommended for the position?
6.	What salary does he receive?
7.	What are his duties?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Mr. G. G. Bramhill has been appointed by the Department of Agriculture, his services to begin on the 1st of April, 1916.
2.	Age 25. Graduate Ontario Agricultural College, specializing in cereal husbandry, plant breeding, plant improvement or selection. Has had experience organizing farmers in corn breeding and selection and along various other lines of work as district representative of the Ontario Department of Agriculture in Lamb-ton county, Ontario. In this connection he showed himself an energetic, resourceful and capable officer and won warm approval of local council and ef farmers generally in that county. He also did work among flax-growers in that county, hence has practical knowledge of growing flax as well as the scientific knowledge of the lines of work necessary to improve methods of flax production in Canada, and to do something towards organizing the work of the farmers in this connection.
3.	He has never been especially interested in flax production otherwise than as indicated above in connection with his work as district representative.
4.	Never. .
5.	Mr. J. H. Grisdale, B. Agr., Director of Experimental Farms.
6.	He is to receive $1,800 per annum.
7.	He will be expected to familiarize himself with the whole flax question in Canada, carry on investigation work in connection with fibre production, fibre manipulation and grading and with the utilization of flax straw where the crop is grown for grain in large quantities, as in western Canada.
159TH BATTALION SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.


George Perry Graham: Will the wives of the men who joined the 159th Battalion at North Bay in September,

1915, or previous to tlhat date, receive the separation allowance from September, 1915, to January, 1916?


Albert Edward Kemp: Not if the men in question were billeted in their home town. The question, however, cannot be well answered unless the names of the men are given.


J. T. LINDSAY.
George Perry Graham: Has Mr. J. T. Lindsay, of North Bay, been appointed to any position in the Militia? 11 so, what is the position, and what is the salary?


Albert Edward Kemp: No.


SHELL CONTRACTS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, in the
course of the debate upon the motion by the right hon. leader of the Opposition for an investigation into the operations of the Shell Committee, I used the following language :
Now, what course does the Government propose to take with regard to the motion which my right hon. friend has proposed to this House? As far as the Shell Committee is concerned-I shall speak afterwards of another matter-our proposal is this. We shall direct the attention of the British Government in detail to every charge, allegation and rumour brought up in this house or elsewhere by my right hon. friend, or by any of his supporters with regard to the Shell Committee. We shall further inform the British Government that if an inquiry is thought advisable, we are prepared to co-operate with them to the fullest extent, and to issue any commission, take any proceedings, pass any legislation, and do any other act for the purpose of making that inquiry as full, thorough, and complete as they deem advisable. But without their consent or approval, we do not propose to enter upon an investigation or inquiry into such expenditures by the British Government.
And further on I spoke as follows:
If, however, he or any of his followers has a charge to make against any member of the Government with respect to the Shell Committee, or with respect to anything else, let him or his followers stand up in his place, and on his responsibility as a member, make that charge, and it will be investigated thoroughly and completely.
Again I said:
But there is something else to be said, and I repeat that, if my right hon. friend, or any of his followers, has any charge to make against a member of the Government in regard to any of these matters, let him make that charge in distinct and understandable terms, and he will have the investigation so soon as he so desires.
Again I said:
So far as our own affairs are concerned, so far as the actions of the members of the Government are concerned, these stand upon a different basis, and as to these I shall be prompt to accept any challenge that my right hon. friend or any of his followers may see fit to make in this House.
If a member of this House desires to make a charge against any member of the Government, or any member of the House, the proper coursq is for him to rise in his place, make a personal statement on his responsibility as a member of the House, and conclude the statement with a charge.
This has not been done, and thus the course which I am' about to announce is, strictly speaking, not demanded by any action which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken.. No one of them has risen'in his place and taken the responsibility of making a charge in the sense above set forth.
The hon. member for Richmond, N.S. (Mr. Kyte), however, made statements late on Tuesday evening as to the connection of the Minister of Militia, with certain contracts entered into by the Shell Committee, and as to enormous profits or commissions arising out of these contracts to certain companies which he mentioned. It is alleged that Mr. J. Wesley Allison had a very large interest in those profits or commissions, and it is suggested that through his influence with the Minister of Militia the Shell Committee were induced to make the contracts in question. The Minister of Militia and Defence had previously stated to the House his close relationship to Mr. J. Wesley Allison, and his great confidence in that gentleman.
Having regard to these considerations, I think it desirable that an inquiry should be made into the fuse contracts made by the Shell Committee with the American Ammunition Company and the International Arms and Fuse Company, and the cartridge-case contract made by the Shell Committee with the Edwards Valve Company.
Upon careful inquiry I cannot find that any of the other contracts, out of which it is alleged by the hon. member for Richmond that J. Wesley Allison obtained profits or commissions, were made either by the Shell Committee or by any department of the Government of Canada. However, as it has been alleged that the Shell Committee made a contract with the Providence Chemical Company of St. Louis, that alleged contract will be included.
I therefore propose to recommend to His

Royal Highness the Governor General that a. Royal Commission shall issue appointing one or more judges to make a thorough investigation into these four contracts and all matters connected therewith.
Since preparing the above statement, I have communicated with the two gentlemen whom I desired to appoint to the commission, and I have received their consent to act. They are Sir William Meredith, Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, and Mr. Justice Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Two counsel will be appointed by the Government to act with the commission and to assist them. One of those counsel will be named by the Government; the other will he named by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. .
Yesterday I addressed the following cablegram to the Minister of Militia and Defence :
Ottawa, March 29, 1916.
Hughes, London.
. Following is synopsis of Kyte's statement in Shell Committee debate last evening. (Begins) :
On May twenty-fifth American Ammunition Company was incorporated. Minimum capital one thousand dollars and maximum one million.
' On June nineteenth last a contract was made between the Shell Committee and this company for the purchase of two million five hundred thousand fuses. It was signed by E. B. Cad-well as president of company, by General Bertram for Shell Committee and ratified and confirmed by General Hughes quote in accordance *with authority duly conferred upon me by His Britannic Majesty's Government unquote. There was to be an advance of dollars one million forty-one thousand six hundred on execution of agreement and dollars five hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred during first four months to assist company in financing contract. On June tenth, nineteen fifteen, ten days previously, an agreement had been made between B. F. Yoakum, E. W. Bassick and Cadwell reciting that Shell Committee had agreed to purchase two million five hundred thousand fuses from a manufacturer to be designated by E. B. Cadwell and Company, that Yoakum, Bassick and Cadwell and Company were together instrumental in negotiating and effecting said contract that Cadwell and Company Yoakum and Bassick were together entitled to receive as their commission for negotiating and effecting said contract the sum of one million dollars in the whole being at the rate of forty cents per fuse. The agreement went, on to divide this amount four hundred and seventy-five thousand to Yoakum two hundred and seventy-five thou-sant to Bassick and two hundred and fifty thousand to Cadwell and Company. The total was to be received by Cadwell and Company in first instance in trust for ail. Yoakum and Bassick agree to continue to use their"best endeavours to bring about the execution and delivery by said Shell Committee of said contract for two million five hundred thousanld fuses. Following or annexed to this an agreement signed by the American Ammunition Company by E. B. Cadwell, president to cause

to be paid to Cadwell and Company forty cents per fuse in accordance with the foregoing agreement if the contract for two million five hundred thousand fuses in such agreement mentioned is granted to us in acceptable form by Canadian authorities. At some date prior to January nineteen fifteen J. Wesley Allison and Eugene Lignanti had entered into an agreement to use their best endeavours for their mutual profit to procure as brokers contracts for supplies of exports to certain European countries. Later Benjamin F. Yoakum became associated with them. In September nineteen fifteen apparently because it was decided that Lignanti should withdraw, an agreement was made fixing the terms upon which certain commissions and profits* should be divided among them. This agreement recites that Yoakum procured contract of June nineteenth for American Ammunition Company from Shell (Committee and declares Lignanti entitled to fifty thousand dollars out of payments by company to Yoakum. Kyte asserts Allison and Yoakum were to share together in amounts remaining after Lignanti was paid. Then he alleges another contract procured by Yoakum from Shell Committee for Edward Valve Company to furnish five hundred thousand cartridge cases and that twenty thousand dollars commission less two thousand five hundred paid to Lignanti was to be divided between Yoakum and Allison. . Kyte also alluded to many other transactions in which Yoakum and Allison were to receive and divide commission of very large amounts but on inquiry none of them are found to relate to Shell Committee. (End synopsis.) I propose issuing Royal Commission forthwith to investigate fuse and cartridge case contracts and it is necessary that you return immediately for purpose of inquiry.
Borden.
To this I have received the following reply:
London, March 30, 1916.
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Please state to House on my behalf that I nave no improper connection with contracts referred to, or any other contracts. If any suggestion to the contrary is made I respectfully demand full investigation by the judicial tribunal presided over by Sir Charles Davidson. I shall sail first available boat.
Sam Hughes.
I also addressed yesterday a cable to Sir George Per ley giving a synopsis of Mt. Kyte's statements in the House in the same words as the synopsis cabled to General Sir Sam Hughes, and concluding as follows :
\
The minister's relation to Allison as described by himself in Parliament is so close that, although the expenditure is by the British Government and although such inquiries are unusual during progress of war, I feel it my duty to have Royal Commission issued forthwith to inquire into matters relating to Shell Committee above outlined, namely, fuse contract with American Ammunition Company and cartridge case contract with Edwards Valve Company. Please inform Colonial Secretary.
Borden.

I omitted to mention in that despatch one of the contracts to which I have alluded, so I despatched to Sir George Perley this morning a further message:
Ottawa, March 30, 1916.
Perley, Dominion.
London.
Referring to my message of yesterday the commission will include inquiry into contracts made by the Shell Committee with the International Arms and Fuse Company and a contract of which we can find no trace alleged to have been made by the shell Committee with the Providence Chemical Company of St. Louis for picric acid. Please inform Colonial Secretary.
Borden.
To neither of these messages to Sir George Perley have I yet received any reply.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to say to my right hon. friend and to the House that the proposal which he makes is absolutely unacceptable. If there is to be an inquiry, as he admits there ought to be an inquiry, that inquiry is to be made in this high court of Parliament. When Parliament is sitting no other court is acceptable. Therefore I ask for the resumption of the discussion upon my motion.


Robert Laird Borden: We will appoint a day to resume the discussion. I was not at all sure that any efforts the Government might make would satisfy my right hon. friend; but I am more concerned with the question as to whether this proposal will satisfy the people oif this country. I am absolutely convinced that it will satisfy them. I have announced the appointment of two judges whose names, I believe, will command confidence throughout the length and breadth of this country, and I have given to my right hon. friend the right to name one of the counsel to assist that commission. If that does not satisfy him I am -sure that any efforts on my part would be absolutely incapable of affording satisfaction to him.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There is a way, and that is to grant a committee. That is all I ask; nothing less and nothing more. I again ask to have the discussion on my motion resumed.
-Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I will inform my right hon. friend -later as to that.


GENERAL CURRIE AT ST. JULIEN.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: 
WAR SUPPLIES-SHELL BOXES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GAUVREAU:: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Customs. I have received, complaint to-day to the effect that shell boxes manufactured in the United States are entering Canada free of duty, to be filled with shells and returned to the United States for subsequent shipment to Russia, one of our Allies. If this is a contract given by the Russian Government I have nothing to say against the -boxes being imported into Canada without paying d,uty; but if the contract originates with a Canadian firm I do not see why these boxes should come into Canada to the injury of the workingmen of this county, and pay no taxes. Is the minister aware of the fact, and what does he intend to do about it?


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first I have heard of this -matter. I will make inquiry and let the hon. member know at a future sitting of the House.


PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING , LIQUORS.
Robert Laird Borden: I would be prepared to -go to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of taking -a vote on Order No. 25, if it is desired; that is, the prohibition motion. I move that the House proceed to Public Bills and Orders.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is it merely for the purpose of taking a vote? I curtailed my remarks very much the other night owing to the lateness of the hour, -as it was desired to take a vote that night, tout I h-ave since received so many important communications from various parte of Quebec that I -should like to give at least a list of the municipalities from which these have been sent.


Robert Laird Borden: If it would meet the wishes of my hon. friend, he could perhaps avail himself of that material on the discussion of the Bill of the Minister of Justice.


Charles Marcil: Will the Bill of the Minister of Justice be called to-day?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not intended to take it up to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope the debate will not he curtailed. There are several members who desire to speak, because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has caused some confusion, and they wish to have an opportunity to explain their views in regard to the whole question, and the relative merits of the two motions.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better go on now.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House proceeded to the consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. Stevens as amended by the following amendment of Mr. R. B. Bennett:
That this House recognizes the great advance made during the past twenty years in the several provinces of Canada through the enactments of laws for promoting temperance and for prohibiting or restricting the liquor traffic.
That the restriction and regulation of the liquor traffic cannot be efficiently accomplished except through public opinion fully supporting enactments passed for that purpose.
That as public opinion varies in the several provinces it is desirable that such enactments depending for their efficient enforcement upon public opinion Should in the first instance be determined by the respective legislatures of the several provinces.
That up to the full measure of provincial jurisdiction the subject should in the first instance he dealt with by the respective provincial legislatures.
That this Parliament should at the present session enact legislation to prohibit the transportation of intoxicating liquor into any province for any use or purpose which is or may he forbidden by the law of such province.
Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), which I bad the honour to second, I have received from various parts of the province of Quebec important resolutions which I think it is only fair to the House that I should communicate to them, because in the present circumstances very much importance is attached by the hon, member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to the fact that the province of Quebec has not officially accepted prohibition. That

was given by him as one of the reasons why the Bill of the Minister of Justice should be introduced, claiming that the proper course to follow was to leave the question of dealing with the liquor traffic to the various provinces, rather than to have legislation by the Dominion Parliament. When the Alliance representatives and others interested in prohibition met in Ottawa at the time of the last gathering here, it was proposed to ask in .the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver that this prohibition be for the period of the war and for three years afterwards, during the reconstruction period. That was eliminated from the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver on the advice of certain people who thought it was more advisable to leave that part of the question to be dealt with by the Government, as circumstances might alter .cases. In the province of Quebec, the Anti-Alcoholic League had taken the position that for that province prohibition during the war period and for three years after the war would be unacceptable, and the Anti-Alcoholic League of Montreal, both English and French sections, transmitted to a large number of municipalities in the province the text of a resolution so drafted, asking the authorities to have it adopted. I want to communicate to the House a list of the municipalities which have adopted it, so as to dispel any impression which may exist here that, because the Legislature of Quebec has not adopted prohibition for the province, the feeling in that province is opposed to prohibition. When 916 municipalities out of 1,120 have of their own free will adopted prohibition and banished licenses from their limits; when in the whole district of Quebec, outside of the city of Quebec, there is not a single license; and when, if the liquor law of the province of Quebec could have been amended so as to enable a poll to be opened in every polling district in the city, the saloon would be banished from the city of Quebec; the House will understand that the feeling in favour of prohibition during the war, and for three years after the war, is very strong. The law of	Quebec is so	framed now that when a local option contest takes place we have only one poll in each municipality; therefore it is impossible to ask for a vote in the city of Montreal or the city of Quebec. That is what happened at St. Hyacinthe, a town of
12,000	or 13,000, where it took four days, I think, for the vote to be completed, and the provincial police had to be called in to

maintain order on the first day of the vote, the crowd at the -poll was so great. In the city of Three Rivers, the second largest city which adopted prohibition, and by an overwhelming majority, there Was also only one polling booth. lit is remarkable that during the last two years in every locality in the province of Quebec where a vote took place prohibition was carried by an overwhelming majority, with the single exception of St. Hyacinthe, where the women ha<^ no vote, and the town of Longueuil, which went weit by a small majority. In every other municipality in the province of Quebec where a vote was taken during the last two years prohibition was carried by an overwhelming majority. In the county of Pontiac the majority was over 1,000. That is a constituency of mingled French and English people. In Argenteuil the majority was up in the hundreds-, the tow'n of Lachute giving only four wet votes out of 300. And so it was all through the districts of Montreal and Quebec and the Eastern Townships and the district of Three Rivers. The impression prevails that the city of Montreal and the island of Montreal are strongly opposed to prohibition. That is a great mistake. I presented here the other day the petition of the town of St. Laurent, in Jacques Cartier, on the island of Montreal, signed by several hundred people, asking for prohibition during war time, and, in the list of resolutions and petitions which I shall have the honour to read a large number of parishes in the city and the various municipalities of Montreal are included. The feeling in favour of prohibition is very strong indeed. If a vote w'ere taken in Montreal to-morrow it is doubtful how it would go, but to imagine that prohibition would be rejected is a great mistake. The vote can not be taken in the city of Montreal under the provincial law, because we would have .only one polling booth. With the 130,000 voters in that city, polling would be practically impossible. But I know that a promise has been made on behalf of the local, Government that at the next session the law will be amended so as to have a polling booth for every polling district, and the vote will then be taken in Montreal. Bo I have no doubt that when this Parliament meets again at least eight, if not nine, provinces of the Dominion will have gone in for prohibition. Only one or two now remain non-prohibition, and-, in the province of Quebec a vote will be taken before another twelve months elapse, and then the Domin-148
ion Government will be in this position. So that, unless the Government create a federal district in Ottawa, the Dominion will be in this position, that eight out of nine provinces will have banished liquor so far as lies within their power. The people, during this war time, have taken a different view of this liquor question from that which they held before. People who were opposed to prohibition two years -ago, now favour it, because of the peculiar conditions through which the country is passing. The province of Ontario has afforded -an example in -that respect. Both political parties have joined hands, -and prohibition is now being brought in without a referendum. The liquor people realize full well that if a vote were taken, a prohibition measure would be carried by an overwhelming majority, if for no other than war reasons.
I do not wish to insist any longer upon the merits of prohibition, but I desire to say that the sentiment of Quebec is not opposed to prohibition to the etxtent which was sought to be shown 'in this House. An unfortunate statement was made- by one of my colleagues from the province of Quebec when he said that the clergy of the province had exercised an undue influence over the voters of that province, as regards prohibition. I have read a report of a Dominion Alliance meeting held in Toronto last night at which Mr. J. A. Roberts, secretary of the Dominion Alliance in the province of Quebec, -was one of the speakers. He explained the -attitude of the Roman Catholic clergy of the province of Quebec, gave them full credit for the great work they had done during recent years in favour of temperance, and contradicted the statement that any undue influence had been exercised. The olergy of the province of Quebec have taken up the cause of temperance, and have sought, toy every legitimate means, to impress upon the people the -awful curse, that liquor had been to many people throughout the oountry, and the necessity for those who are free from its evils to make a sacrifice for the good" of others during the exceptional period through which we are passing. I think that Statement iis due-to the clergy in the province of Quebec. The people of that province know exactly what the position of -the clergy has been, and they realize that it has been altogether in the public interest.
The following resolution has been adopted very generally throughout the province of Quebec:



That this Council does approve of the proposed prohibition of alcoholic liquors, of all descriptions, during the period of the war, and for three years after its close, for the restoration of the country from the effects of the war, and that copies of this resolution shall be sent to our member, to Sir R. L. Borden, Sir W. Laurier and Hon. Charles Marcil, M.P.
This resolution has been adopted by: Municipal council of St. Ephrem d'Upton, municipal council of St. Augustin, municipal council of Salaberry Grandison, Ligue Anti-alcoholique de Montreal, 51 petitions; municipal council of Yamachiche, St. Jean Baptiste Society, Immaculee Conception section, Montreal; municipal council of St. Joseph de Maskinonge, municipal council of town of Magog, municipal council of St. Sylvere de Nicolet, Poultry Association of Maniwaki, Cercle Agricole de Maniwaki, Temperance Society of Maniwaki, Temperance Society of St. Georges de Henryville, municipal council of St. Germain de Grantham, Cercle Agricole of parish of Isle Bizare, council of parish of St. Ursule, council of parish of St. Joseph, council of village of St. Joseph, council of village of Massueville, council Of parish St. Mathieu St. Maurice, council of Notre Dame du Mont-Carmel, council of St. Boniface de Shawinigan, council of town of Bedford, Temperance Society of parish St. Peter, Montreal; council of town of Me-gantic, council of parish of St. Nazaire d'Acton, Amti-AJcohoJique (League of Lon-gueuil, council of Stanbridge station, council of St. Narcisse, Champlain, council of village Angers, council of L'Ange Gardien, council of St. Bonaventure d'Upton, council of village of Boucherville, The Presbytery of Toronto, council of West Shefford, council of St. Alexis des Monts, council of Ste. Prudentienne, Shefford, council of St. Alexis de Montcalm, council of village of St. Pie, council of Charlemagne, council of Stanbridge, council of St. Camille, Co. Wolfe, Section Dollard, St. Jean-Baptiste Society, Montreal; Montreal Protestant Ministerial Association, Anti-Liquor League, province of Quebec; Women's Christian Temperance Union, New Richmond; council of St. Joseph, Riviere des Prairies; council of Ste. Helene de Bagot, council of St. Michel de Rougemont, council of St. Joseph de Maskinonge, council of township of Dorchester, council of St. Alexis des Monts, council of parish St. Francois du Lac, council of West Shefford, council of St. Augustin, council of Stratford, council of Stanbridge, council of St. Luc de St. Jean, council of Emburton, council of Dery, Compton County; League of the Sacred Heart, 
Artisan's Society, Charlemagne branch; council of St. Camille, Wolfe County, and council of St. Bruno of Chambly.
The following petitions in favour of prohibition during the war and for three years afterwards were received by this House from the electors of the following places: St. Bruno, St. Camille, St. Sylvere, Dery, Cote des Neiges, Ottawa East, St. Elie de Caxton, St. Hynes, Bagot County.
The following petitions were received by the House praying for the passage of an Act to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic liquors in Canada during the continuation of the war and for a period of three years after the termination of the war:
Reverend E. Gravel and others, of L'Avenir, county of Drummond and Artha-baska; Joseph A. St. Germain and others, of Ville St. Laurent; M. Ledoux and others, St, Simon de Bagot, county of Bagot; Joseph Chamberland and others, of St. Patrice de Magog, county of Stanstead; L. D. Mathieu and others, of St. Therese, county of Terrebonne; D. Methe and others, St. George de Henryville, county of St. Jean d'Iberville; C. A. Robert, M.D., and others, St. Ephrem d'Upton, county of Bagot; Rev. J. A. Ladoucer and others, Baie Shawene-gan, county of St. Maurice; Arthur Gendron and others, Notre Dame de Sorel, county of Richelieu; Eugene Lachaine and others, of Lac Megantic, county of Megantic; Arthur Baril, Jr., and others, of Maskinonge, county of Maskinonge; Reverend P. C. Bou-lay and others, of St. Damase, county of St. Hyacinthe; Ulric Veronneau and others, of St. Jean Baptiste de Rouville, county of Rouville; Felix Cloutier and others, of St. Paul de l'lsle aux Noix, county of St. Johns, Rev. L. J. Lafortune and others, of Boucherville, county of Chambly; Antoine Leveille and others, of St. Pierre, Montreal; Ovila Lapierre and others, of L'lmmaculee Conception, Montreal; Rev. J. H. Barsalou and others, of St. Damien de Bedford, county of Missiquoi; J. A. Chi-coine and others, of St. Charles, county of St. Hyacinthe; E. Langlois and others, of St. Pie, county of Bagot; C. Leclerc and others, of Sherbrooke, county of Sherbrooke; Joseph Paquet and others, of Mont Carmel, county of Champlain; G. Lacasse and others, of Katevale, county of Stanstead; Richard Lessard, H.P., and others, of Ste. Ursule, county of Maskinonge; Joseph E. Peletier and others, of Shawinigan Falls, county of Three Rivers and St. Maurice; Napoleon Boileau and others, of lie Bizard,

county of Jacques Cartier; Rev. J. E. Heroux and others, of Shawinigan, county of Three Rivers and St. Maurice; George Laferte, mayor, and others, of Massueville, Rev. Charles Proulx and others of Labelle, county of Labelle; Rev. Joseph Labelle and others, of St. Cecile de Masham, county of Wright; Rev. Joseph 0. Labonte and others, of St. Janvier, county of Terrebonne; Rev. O. Lacerte and others, of St. Prosper, county of Champlain; Joachim Duhamel and others, of St. Nazaire d'Acton, county of Bagot; Emery Senecal and others, of Charlemagne, county of L'Assomption; Rev. Felix Legendre and others, of Burbidge, county of Wright; Rene Paquette and others, of St. Jovite, county of Terrebonne; Rev. A. Con-stantineau and others, of Papineauville, county of Labelle; A. Lauzon and others, of St. Vincent de Paul, Montreal; Arthur La-france and others, of St. Etienne de Gres, county of Three Rivers and St. Maurice; Dosithe Gossette, mayor, and others, of St. Narcisse, county of Champlain; Rev. P. Mongrain and others, of St. Mathieu, county of Rimouski; Rev. J. A. Dufresne and others, of Windsor Mills, county of Richmond; Frangois Blouin and others, of Ste. Anne des Plaines, county of Terrebonne; Rev. M. Beauregard and others, of Waterloo, county of Shefford; Rev. A. St. Amour, of Roxton Falls, county of Shefford; Rev. J. A. Bonin and others, of St. Joseph de Sorel, county of Richelieu; Rev. Edmund Grenier and others, of St. Germain de Grantham, county of Drummond and Ar-thabaska; Amedee Sevigny and others, of Notre Dame de Ham, county of Richmond and Wolfe; Rev. J. B. Aubry and others, of St. Placide, county of Two Mountains; and H. F. Flynn, mayor, and others, of Maniwaki, county of Wright, all of the province of Quebec; and Armand Desy and others, of Lafaivre, county of Prescott, province of Ontario. Reverend A. Benoit and others, of Ste. Angele de Monnoir, county of Rouville; Reverend J. B. L. Gagnon and others, of St. Alexis, county of Montcalm; Ulric Bisaillon and others, of St. Luc, county of St. Johns and Iberville; Reverend J. T. R. Lafleche, and others, of Ste. Anne de la Perade, county of Champlain; Magloire Proulx and others, of Angers, county of Labelle; Reverend A. Corbeil and others, of the Parish of St. Joseph, Montreal; Victor Bellerive and others, of St. Barnabe, county of Three Rivers and St. Maurice; J. B. Robert and others, of the two municipalities of the Parish of St. Michel de Rouge-1484
mont, county of Rouville; A. E. Dionne, mayor, and others, of Stratford, county of Richmond and Wolfe; Albert Sirard and others, of West Shefford; W. S. Bullock, M.L.A., and others, of Roxton Pond, county of Shefford; Evariste Ferland and others, of Chartierville, county of Compton; Reverend J. C. Rochon and others, of St. Augustin, county of Two Mountains; Agenar Brien, mayor, and others of St. Paul l'Er-mite, county of L'Assomption; Reverend P. D. Filion and others, of Ste. Lucie, county of Terrebonne; Reverend P. Lesage and others, of St. Alexis des Monts, county of Maskinonge; Emile Pelletier and others, of St. Francis-du-lac, county of Yamaska; J. A. Lemieux and others, of the parish of Ste. Famille, Ottawa East, province of Ontario; A. Brouillette and others, of Bury, county of Compton; Reverend Henri Bernard and others, of C6te des Neiges, county of Jacques Cartier; Reverend A. Champagne and others, of St. Bruno, county of Chambly and Vercheres; Reverend L. J. Pelletier and others, of St. Camille, county of Richmond and Wolfe; Reverend N. Des-coteaux and others, of St. Sylvere, county of Nicolet; and Hermenegilde Forest, mayor, and others, of St. Bonaventure, county of Yamaska; Reverend N. P. Belanger and others, of St. Theodore d'Acton, county of Bagot; Reverend Albert Forget and others, of Bouchette, county of Wright, all of the province of Quebec, severally.
I have other petitions which have come from all parts of the province of Quebec showing that all classes and nationalities in that province are in favour of prohibition during the war period and for three years thereafter for the purpose of reconstruction. I wish to read one communication from my own constituency showing that in that remote portion of the province of Quebec the feeling there is also favourable to prohibition. This letter reads:
Quebec Provincial Woman's Christian Temperance Union.
New Richmond, Que., March 20, 1916. The Hon. Charles Mareil, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-Please accept the sincere thanks of the members of the New Richmond Woman's Christian Temperance Union for your work in behalf of federal prohibition.
Not only the members of our Union, but all friends of temperance work in Canada, have been cheered and encouraged by your noble speech in the House of Commons.
Tours truly,
K. H. Montgomery,
Secretary.

I have a communication from the Presbytery of Toronto, which, having been published already, it is not necessary for me to read it. I have also a communication from the Ministerial Association of Montreal, showing that the English-speaking people generally in that city are strongly in favour of this measure. I have also received a resolution adopted by the Conservative Association of Westmount, a place from which liquor has been entirely banished. West-mount is looked upon as the most progressive part of the city of Montreal, and it is the part inhabited by the English-speaking people. We are proud of Westmount, from which liquor has been entirely banished. The Westmount Conservative Association has ad,opted a unanimous resolution asking for prohibition during war time and the reconstructive period after.
However, I suppose, now that the decision has been taken, it is useless for me to speak at any further length on this question, but I was anxious, in justice to the people of the province of Quebec, to show that they are strongly in favour of prohibition, that aheady 900 municipalities have gone in for it, that they have asked for nothing better than to have it adopted, that in the whole district of Quebec, outside of the city itself, they have adopted it, that the city of Quebec will adopt it as soon as polling facilities can be arranged to have a vote taken, and that the same thing will happen in Montreal.
I did not want a slur to be cast upon the province of Quebec by having the impression go abroad that when the 4 p.m. English-speaking provinces of the Dominion were going in for prohibition, not only for economic, but for moral reasons, the province of Quebec was standing aside, or was lukewarm in the matter. Far from that being the case, I am convinced, that if the opportunity were furnished to people of the province of Quebec they would adopt prohibition by an overwhelming majority, not only in the districts of Quebec and of Three Rivers, and in the Eastern Townships, where it has already carried, but even in the district of Montreal itself. I think that will come later on. I shall not discuss the merits of this Bill introduced by my horn, friend the Minister of Justice; I shall reserve any remarks I have to make on that subject until later.


George Perry Graham: I wish to say a word. Had I known that the resolution moved by 
my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was to be voted upon the other evening I would have been here, an<} would have voted for his resolution and against the amendment. However, as the amendment has carried, I do not feel that I would be justified in' voting against the resolution as amended. While not going as far as the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver, it certainly is a step in the right direction, and will enable the provinces thoroughly to carry out any law they may see fit to enact on the subject.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was not present in the House on Monday last, when the motion was before the House, but if I had been present I would have voted for the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and against the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). As the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary was adopted, I am now prepared to support it, as there is nothing else upon the Order Paper, but I would have preferred to have supported the motion as it originally stood.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I have only one word to say in connection with the vote which will be taken, and that is that I will vote, if I am in the House-although I must leave in a few minutes-for the resolution as amended. I voted against the amendment because I thought the amendment did not go far enough. I was in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). As the majority of the House saw fit to amend the resolution and to place in its stead the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and leave only upon the Order Paper this half measure, and as I consider that a half measure of temperance is better than no measure at all, the same as a half loaf of bread is better than no bread at all, I must, not with pleasure but because I am unable to do anything else, support the motion as amended.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I hoped to have had an opportunity to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and 1 did vote, when this question was up the other day, against the amendment, because I stood in the same position as my bon, friend from Shefford (Mr. Boivin). The amendment, to my mind, did not go far enough. This question of the

prohibition of the liquor traffic is a question that belongs to us in this House. We cannot throw the responsibility on the legislatures, which, as we all know, do not possess the power to prohibit the manufacture and importation of intoxicating liquors. It is true that a number of provinces have attempted to prohibit the sale, but constitutionally they have not the power. The amendment, and the Bill of the Minister of Justice-I presume the Bill will follow the amendment-do not even profess to prohibit the manu.'aciure of intoxicating liquors in provinces where prohibition l.ae been adopted, and they are defective to that extent. If the amendment went so far as to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in every province where public sentiment was in favour of it, and had voted for it, there would be an additional reason for supporting the amendment; but I understand that it does not go that far. There is no doubt to my mind that public opinion' in this country is strongly in favour of absolute prohibition. I have always hesitated somewhat on this question, fearing that public opinion was not behind it sufficiently to justify my voting for absolute prohibition, 'but I feel satisfied that a great change has taken place in public sentiment on this question during the last year or two. For proof of that, we have only to observe what is happening in the various provinces. As we have already been reminded, Prince Edward Island has adopted prohibition; Nova Scotia joined the ranks a few days ago; Ontario, the premier province, is falling into line; Manitoba has already adopted it; Saskatchewan too, to a 'limited extent, and I understand that prohibition was brought in force in Alberta by a popular vote of some 26,000. So that six of the nine provinces composing the Confederation have already declared in favour of prohibition, which shows conclusively that public sentiment at the present time is overwhelmingly in favour of absolute prohibition. If the Government was amenable to the [DOT] view of the people of Canada, they would adopt the resolution, but it appears they are not willing to go that far. For my part, I propose to support any temperance measure brought down, on the principle, as the hon. member for Shef-ford has said, that half a measure is better than none at all. I fear, however, that what is proposed is not even half a measure. I have not yet had the opportunity to sift it thoroughly, but from what I have seen of it
it seems to me to be a gold brick, and of very little use. It does not even prohibit the sale by merchants in an outside province. It provides that a merchant must not send liquor into a dry province, but no penalty is provided for selling it. That, to my mind, is the real question. A merchant who exports into a dry province should be liable to prosecution. It would be very easy for a merchant to evade this Bill by simply handing over the work of transporting the liquor to somebody else; the truckman who carries the liquor away from the shop will be the one to pursue if the Bill remains in its present form. I think the Bill is very little good,,but in the hope that it may be improved in committee, and satisfy to some extent the public sentiment of the country, I shall support it. I very much regret that I have not the opportunity to support a measure that would bring about absolute prohibition of the liquor traffic in Canada.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent):: I also
wish to join with previous speakers in saying that I should have been glad to support the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), if I had been present on Monday. But as that resolution is off the Order Paper at the present time, I shall gladly support the Government measure, as it is the only one now before us that seeks to advance the cause of temperance.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I had thought that I should have had an opportunity for expressing my views on prohibition by voting on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and not being fully acquainted with Parliamentary procedure, I was surprised that we were not given that opportunity. I want now to place myself on record as being in sympathy with a measure for absolute prohibition, and if it is impossible to record my vote in that way, then I am in favour of the prohibition measure brought down l)y the Government. I believe that measure, if properly enforced, and with co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces, wdl be of some assistance, probably of great assistance in maintaining the cause of prohibition in the different provinces.
Mr. J. A. MicMILLAN (Glengarry): Like the other members on this side of the House, I was rather at sea the other night as to what stand I should take. I was certainly in favour of the resolution


of the hon. member for Vancouver, but being denied the privilege of supporting it, I did the next best thing .and voted against the amendment. I have very good reasons for feeling that the resolution introduced toy the toon, member for Vancouver should 'be supported and become law, for I am situated very much like the people of Ottawa will be if Ontario goes dry. They are close to Hull, which I am afraid will be Hell, when Ontario goes dry. The county of Glengarry, where I live, is dry, but we are close to licensed hotels in the province of Quebec, just a few miles away. There are some hundreds of soldiers in my town at the present time, and there are most deplorable sights after every pay day. I'f the measure did no more good than to dry up the hotels on the Quebec border, I think it would be worthy of the support of every hon. member of this House.


Mr. E. PROULX (Prescott) :: I voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) the other night, as I thought it brought the matter before the House in a more tangible form .for the present than the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and furthermore, because the Bill already 'brought down by the Government embodied the provisions of that resolution. The seconder of the resolution says that public opinion in the province of Ontario is largely in favour of prohibition. I do not doubt that that is the case, and it is very probable that the Legislature of Quebec will soon enact a measure of prohibition for that province -a measure which will be more welcome to them than if it were imposed upon them by this Parliament. My hon. friend from Guystoorough (Mr. Sinclair) says that prohibition should be dealt with by this Parliament. It is true that this Parliament, under the constitution, has jurisdiction in matters of trade and commerce, and therefore jurisidiction over the liquor traffic, if that may be said to come under the heading of trade and commerce. But it is also a matter of local concern; it affects the habits of the people. This country is very large in territory, including nine provinces, and the habits of the people may vary very considerably; and a law of this kind must have strong public opinion 'behind it, if it is to be properly enforced. When we have the verdict of the people of the different provinces in favour of prohi-

bition, it will be easier for this Parliament to pass a measure for Dominion-wide prohibition and to ensure its enforcement. I consider the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), which will be carried out by the Bill before the House, a great step towards temperance and prohibition, and I prefer to support it to supporting the main resolution, because I think we should obtain the opinion of the different provinces before enacting Dominion-wide prohibition. In that way it will be more certain that we will have prohibition this year.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot at this moment support the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx). I would have been only too glad to vote in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and seconded by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil), because I believe it would meet the current of public opinion which is daily growing stronger in favour of total prohibition throughout the Dominion. That opinion was not so strong in times past for the reason, I believe, that, prohibition being confined to the provinces, it was felt that the provinces could not enact laws that would prohibit in a manner satisfactory to the people; but at the present time, confronted as we are with this terrible war, the people of Canada have come to realise that the time has come for them to ask the Federal Parliament to enact a law that will prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors throughout the Dominion.
In New Brunswick, besides the Scott Act, we have also the Temperance Parish Act, with which my hon. friends from New Brunswick are well acquainted, and which has worked better than the Scott Act just because it is confined to a smaller number of people who take a direct interest in the matter. At present, however, there is a complaint that liquor is introduced once in a while into the different parishes. In the county of Gloucester, which I have the honour to represent, the Temperance Parish Act is in force in every parish with the exception of the shire town of Bathurst. If that shire town has not taken that step towards local prohibition, it is just because there was an opinion that the time was coming when prohibition would be introduced by the local Government or by the Federal Government. There is to-day, before the legislature of New Brunswick, a

proposition to enact a provincial temperance measure. In the meantime, we in New Brunswick feel that neither provincial nor parochial action will ever be effective. We should take heed to the trend of public opinion and I believe in this time of war, from economic as well as moral Conditions, the people and the Parliament of this country should seriously consider if the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver is the one that should be adopted by this Government. I have as much consideration as any other hon. member for the principle of personal liberty which I have always honoured and respected; but human life calls for personal sacrifice, mutual sacrifice, sacrifice for the weak and the poor and the needy, and under the present conditions the trend of public opinion is that the Federal Parliament rather than the provincial legislatures should enact a prohibitory measure.
In the province of Quebec, if there has not been such an Act as there is in the other provinces, it is rather because the people there feel that a provincial Act would [DOT] not be sufficient to enforce prohibition. Therefore, if I am given the opportunity, I shall be pleased to vote for the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver. In the meantime, I will certainly support any measure in favour of prohibition, because, as was said by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) half a loaf is better than no bread at all, but only for that reason.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, if the resolution as amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary means an expression of opinion in favour of temperance, then I wish to put myself on record as being in favour of temperance. That the province of Ontario will in any way suffer, as my hon. friend (Mr. McMillan) said a few moments ago, by being too near Hull, I want to say at once, being the representative of the county in which the city of Hull happens to find itself, that the province of Ontario through its close proximity to the city of Hull will learn many lessons of liberty and morality. I am not going to speak of the effect of the proposed resolution upon any portion of the province of Quebec; I merely arose to say that I would be in favour of the resolution pm posed by the hon. member for Vancouver, but, as it has been amended, through a very clever ruse, I should judge, I am sorry to 'have to vote for the amendment.
I would very much have preferred to vote for the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver, but I will vote for the amendment as being the only way in which I can express my opinion in favour of temperance.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this resolution which is now before the House, we have a peculiar situation, due to the result of the operation of the rules of debate. Hon. gentlemen who are in favour of this Parliament enacting Dominion-wide legislation, prohibiting the manufacture anc( sale of intoxicating liquor, as alone this Parliament can do, have before them a resolution which is offered in substitution of the original resolution, and in which there is a certain conclusion arrived at, it seems to me, wholly inconsistent with the original resolution. For instance, paragraph 4 of the resolution as amended by the hon. member for Calgary, asks this House to come to the conclusion:
That up to the full measure of provincial jurisdiction the subject should in the first instance be dealt with by the respective provincial legislatures.
One could hardly conceive any Parliamentary 'declaration so absolutely opposed to the proposition declared in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver. Prima facie he represented the temperance people of this country, asking this Parliament to deal with the liquor traffic as only Dominion legislation effectively can deal with it by stopping its manufacture and importation. The declaration of my hon. friend from Calgary is that that is not the right thing to do at all; he says that you must wait until a provincial law is passed before moving one step. That seems to me, from the standpoint of those who are interested, in the cause of temperance, to be a retrograde step. If this Parliament passes the resolution as amended every member who votes for it will give expression to the proposition that it is of no use for the temperance people coming to this Parliament and asking it to take a step towards prohibiting the manufacture and importation of intoxicating liquors, but that they must first go to the provincial legislatures and ask them to pass prohibitory laws.
Let me give an illustration of the effect of this resolution and the proposed legislation oif the Minister of Justice. A well-known lawyer in my province has called my at-

tention to the situation in Nova Scotia. The declaration in that resolution and in the Bill is to the effect that Parliament should
-enact legislation to prohibit the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquor into any province for any use or purpose which is or may be forbidden by the law of such province.
Unless you have a provincial enactment covering the bounds of each specific province, this legislation of the Minister of Justice, I submit, will be absolutely null and inoperative. In our province there is what is known as the Nova Scotia License Act operative in sixteen counties. In the county of Guysborough we have a federal act in operation, the Canada Temperance Act. Ini Annapolis also we have the Canada Temperance Act in effect', though a vote has [DOT]been taken for the purpose of defeating it and the question of the legality of the election is still sub judice. The result is, that, if the legislation proposed by the hon. meimber for Calgary and the Minister of Justice goes into effect, it will be quite legal to import into Nova Scotia any liquor that one may wish to bring in, because there is no 'provincial law covering the whole province. A person in the county of Guysborough would have the right under the Canada Temperance Act to import-


Mr. E. B. BENNETT:: Is not the hon.
gentleman aware that in 1908 the Canada Temperance Act was amended to meet the very case he suggests? That amendment would prohibit the importation into Guysborough county, which has adopted the Scott Act, of liquor from non Scott Act area, for the purpose of violating the Scott Act in that province.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman forgets that there ie nothing in the Scott Act to prevent the importation of liquor for personal use. The people of Guysborough can import for personal use all the liquor they want, and under the proposed legislation of the Minister of Justice and of the hon. member for Calgary it will not be possible to prevent it. AH that need toe done is to have the liquor that is brought across the line from New Brunswick, or brought into a seaport of Nova Scotia, directed to the county of Guysborough, and this law will be inoperative so far as it is concerned. And if the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia declares that in Annapolis county the Canada TemperfMr. Macdonald.1
ance Act is in force, you will have the same condition there. So, yon have a splendid illustration of the absurdity of the legislation proposed-of the juggling with this question carried on by the Government. I am surprised that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), whose long 'advocacy of temperance legislation has won the admiration of those interested in the cause, should not 'have pressed for a practical dealing with this *problem by measures which would at least restrict the manufacture and importation of liquor .if not blot it out altogether. Hon. gentlemen who have anything to do with the enforcing of law know that it is utterly absurd to think of enforcing .prohibitory legislation if Parliament ensures the continuance of the legality of the manufacture and importation of liquor. If you permit the manufacture, what is the use of saying that the liquor shall not toe sold here, or shall not be 6old there? The sale will go on in spite of such legislation. The result that I have indicated .in my own province, I am sure, would work out in other parts of the Dominion also. Therefore, I regret this -resolution offered by my hon. friend from 'Calgary (Mr. K. B. Bennett). Many hon. gentlemen in this House who are sincerely in favour of prohibitory legislation, I am sure, will regard it as absolutely inoperative and of no value whatever.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: I endorse what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has said. The resolution introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was prohibitory legislation, but this other legislation is to a great exent a farce. So far as Ontario is concerned, it will allow as much liquor to come into the province as ever. It will confine the sale to druggists, wholesale and retail. Anybody who has had experience oi the Scott Act, as I have had, knows how much better the change from hotels to druggists will be. I do not know what they will have under this legislation, but then they had blank certificates that they filled up. W'hat good is the temperance legislation that permits that kind of thing? I do not pretend to be a temperance man by any manner of means; tout I do pretend not to be a hypocrite. The resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) goes to the kernel of the question, for it prohibits the .manufacture and importation of spirituous liquors. Why don't we vote that straight and put it into effect, if we

want temperance legislation? If we don't want it, why don't we say so? What is the use of shuffling it from one class to another if the sale is to be allowed? As to this resolution I confess that, while it might be a catch for those in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver, I believe the temiperaneepeople will understand it just as well as we understand it, and the catch will not be of great benefit to the Government that brings it into effect.


Mr. STEELE:: I would infer from the remarks of the hon. member that he is in favour of passing legislation which will prohibit any private individual having in his possession, or purchasing, any liquor in any quantity whatever.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Quite right. I am absolutely in favour of total prohibition, or of letting the people buy it as they want it, one or the other. I may add, I have never found the necessity for liquor so far as I am personally concerned, and I doubt that it is a benefit to anybody else. -
The House divided on the motion of Mr. Stevens, as amended by the amendment of Mr. R. B. Bennett.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong	Macdonell,
(Lambton),	MacNutt,
Armstrong	McCoig,
(York O.),	McCraney,
Ball,	McKenzie,
Barnard,	McLean
Bellemare,	(Queens,
Bennett (Calgary),	McMillan,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Marshall,
Best,	Meighen,
Blain,	Log-gie,
Blondin,	Merner,
Boivin,	Michaud
Borden (Sir Robert),	Middlebro,
Boulay,	Morphy,
Bourassa,	Morrison,
Bowman,	Munson,
Boyer,	Nicholson,
Brabazon,	Nickle,
Buchanan,	Pacaud,
Burnham,	Papineau,
Cardin,	Paquet,
Chisholm	Patenaude,
(Antigonish),	Porter,
Chisholm	Proulx,
(Inverness),	Pugsley,
Clark (Bruce),	Reid,
Clements,	Rhodes,
Cromwell,	Robidoux,
Crothers,	Roche,
Cruise,	Rogers,
Currie,	Schaffner,
Davidson,	Scott,
Devlin,	Sexsmith,
Doherty,	Shepherd,
Douglas,	Sinclair,
Edwards,	Smith,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster ('Sir George), Fripp,
Girard,
Glass,
Graham,
Gray,
Green,
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Jameson,
Kyte,
Lalor,
Laurier
(Sir Wilfrid). LavallSe, L'Esperance,
Stanfield,
Steele,
S(tewart
(Hamilton),
Stewart
(Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Turgeon,
Walker,
Wallace,
Webster
White
(Sir Thomas), Wilcox,
Wilson
f Wentworth), Wright-104.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Carvel 1 Copp,
Delisle,
Demers,
Gauvreau,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Macdonald,
Marcil
(Bonaventure),
Oliver
Turriff,
Verville,
White
(Victoria, Atla.)-15.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford. If I had voted, I would have voted for the resolution.
Motion of Mr. Stevens, as amended by the amendment of Mr. R. B. Bennett, agreed to.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House returned to the Orders of the Day.


CUSTOMS TAXATION BILL.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 61, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Fisheries-Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers, including the expenses of the Fisheries Advisory Board, and an allowance of $300 to W. J. E. Casey, secretary thereof, $305,000.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This is the amount that was asked for last year. The amount we spent in 1914-15 was $275,950.71. The expenditure for the current year, up to the 31st December, was $187,103.40. Out of this vote are paid salaries and disbursement of the different fisheries officers and guardians, and the expenses also of the Advisory Board.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: How much does the minister expect will be expended during the current year?


John Douglas Hazen: This vote is largely for salaries, and there is not much difference in the expenditure from year to year. I should think we would expect to spend the same amount as we did last year. For the current year I would estimate the expenditure to be about $275,000.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister think he should reduce the vote by $30,000? It may not be a very large reduction, but still it would be setting an example that might well he followed in all of the departments. In the aggregate the amount would be considerable. In the year
5 p.m. before last this total was not expended by $30,000, and the result has been the same for the current year. Should not the minister make a reduction?


John Douglas Hazen: The appropriations this
year for fisheries are reduced by over $200,000. We have made up these Estimates with due regard for economy, and my officers thought it would not be altogether safe to have a less amount than that which is provided for in the vote. We may not expend the full amount; we will spend as little as we can, having regard to the public interest. I think it would be better to leave it as it is. I do not think anything will be gained by reducing the amount, because we will not spend the full amount unless we have to.


William Pugsley: The gain of it is this: the Minister of Finance necessarily must have regard to the Estimates that are placed before him by the different ministers. He is proposing now to impose very heavy taxes upon the people of the country. The Minister of Finance must have not only money enough to provide for the interest on the war loan, but to carry on the ordinary and necessary services of the country. If this committee passes large amounts, amounts in excess of what will be required, it is not acting fairly either towards the country or the gentleman who is charged with the financing of the country. It does seem to me that the minister ought not to ask this committee for anything more than he thinks will 'be absolutely necessary. The minister says that he is not asking for as much as was voted last year. One of the items in which a reduction might be made is that for a fish-

eries exhibit at the -Canadian National Exhibition.


John Douglas Hazen: We have reduced, that.


William Pugsley: It is reduced by a small amount, but I think that in war time that might well be reduced.


John Douglas Hazen: Our experience last year shows us how we can do it more cheaply.


William Pugsley: I suggest to my hon. friend a reduction of at least $30,000.


John Douglas Hazen: I would not have any hesitation at all in acceding to my hon. friend's request and reducing this amount by $15,000 but fox the reason that there is the outstanding matter in regard to the fisheries which the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil)has several times referred to; that is the question of the jurisdiction over tidal fisheries in the province of Quebec. The question is as to who shall administer these fisheries. The matter is under process of negotiation between the Department of Justice, it being a legal question, and the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec. If, before the expiration of the year for which these Estimates are being voted, a decision should be given by the court to the effect that the administration of these fisheries in the tidal waters comes under -the control of the Federal Government, as we believe it does, we would have to make a certain expenditure of money amounting to about $15,000. We will not expend any of this money unless the decision is given, but we would be placed in rather an awkward position if a decision were given during the year, and if, in order to administer these fisheries, we had, to ask for a Governor General's warrant.


Charles Marcil: Has the question been submitted to the oourts, or is it still under negotiation?


John Douglas Hazen: The questions which are to be submitted to the courts have been agreed upon between the Department of Justice and tlhe Attorney General of Quebec. They will very' soon go before the courts with the understanding that from the decision of the court in Quebec there will lie an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. '


John Howard Sinclair: Some hon. gentlemen on this side of tlhe House have been hoping that the minister

would make a general statement regarding the progress of the fishing industry in Canada during the past year, and outline what he intended to do for the future. That policy has been adopted by several departments of the Government, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Railways and Ganals, and I regard it as a good policy, which I commend to the consideration of the minister. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has raised a question of economy. It perhaps is a waste of time to talk economy to the present administration. We do not seem to have made much progress in that direction at the present session. It has frequently been suggested from this side of the House that ministers should economize, but none of our suggestions have been accepted. Only last night we came across an item in the Estimates of the Secretary of State for $15,000 for the purchase of wooden whales, Buffalo skeletons, wasps' nests, Indian relics, and things of that kind. We considered that it was an item that should riot be voted at a time like this, when money was so scarce and we are engaged in such a costly war. We addressed ourselves to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Public Works; we addressed him as a statesman, as a Christian, as a Canadian-


William Pugsley: But not as an economist.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, as an economist, also. We felt that this money should not be spent, but saved and applied towards carrying on the war. But it was of no use. After all our eloquence, the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State cracked the party whip, and the motion to cut out the item was voted down. The money is now at the disposal of the Government for the purchase of these wooden whales and Indian relics, but they must justify their action before the country.


Air. BLAIN:: I think the minister said
it was not likely the money would be spent this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, but we were not
satisfied with that; we wanted to be absolutely certain the money would not be spent. I have looked over the Estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in a general way, and wish to draw his attention to the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the expenditure on the Fisheries Branch since he took office. In the, four and a half years
that my hon. friend has had charge of the department the expenditure has practically doubled. Now, if we were getting results equivalent to the expenditure, we would not complain, tout I submit that we are not, and I do not think the expenditure can be justified. There is no expenditure that could 'be made in connection with the fisheries branch that I should not feel justified in supporting, if the expenditure were made in such a way as to build up our fisheries, and make it the great industry it ought to be. But the only thing that ihas grown up in connection with the fisheries is the expenditure. There has been practically no growth in the industry itself. In the year 1910-11, the last year for which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were responsible, according to Public Accounts, page 868, the total expenditure on the fisheries branch was $760,734.69; in 1911-12 it has increased to $843,856.98; in 1912-13,	$921,953.14; in 1913-14,	$1,229,519.19; in
1914-15, $1,465,360.65. The increase in the annual expenditure on the fisheries branch since my hon. friend took charge of the department has been the enormous sum of $704,625.96, or 'almost double the expenditure when the present Administration took office. The estimate for this year is $1,224,900, which, it is true, is some $200,000 less than, last year's estimate, but I think it will be very difficult for my hon. friend to explain the enormous increase that 'has taken place in the fisheries branch since he took charge. There has been no corresponding increase in the trade. The output has not increased in proportion to the expenditure. In looking over the fisheries report which was submitted to the House a -few days ago, I find that the growth of the industry ha3 been very slow, especially in Eastern Canada. In 1885, thirty years ago, the total value of the fisheries in Nova Scotia was $8,283,922, and in 1915, the last year for which we have a report, the total output was valued at $7,730,191. In those thirty years there has apparently been no increase in the industry in Nova Scotia. On the contrary, the output has decreased by $500,000. In New Brunswick, in 1885, the value of the fisheries was $4,005,031, and in 1915, $4,940,083. That is a small increase. In Prince Edward Island, in 1885, the value of the output was $1,293,430, and in 1915, $1,261,666. In the Maritime Provinces as a whole, in 1885 the total value of the output was $13,583,783, and in 1915, $13,931,940. So

we have been marking time, so far as our fisheries are concerned for the last thirty years. The question might very properly be asked, and, indeed, ought to be asked, why has no progress been made in the fishing industry in Eastern Canada? I think the answer, will readily occur to my hon. friend, and to every hon. gentleman *who has studied this question. It is the long haul necessary to get our fish on the Canadian market, and the fact that we have never had a fair chance to develop the American market. The difficulty is that we are fighting against geography in our efforts to develop the fishing industry. Our Government is paying a large sum of money to have our fish transported to Montreal, Toronto, and other large centres. That is all right as far as it goes, but the industry cannot grow because the demand in those places is comparatively small. We have been told by some witnesses who were examined before the committee that a carload of fish is too much to send to the city of Toronto from the eastern coast, that the fish could not be sold, that a carload would be too much to force on the market at one time. You can send as many carloads of fish as you like to Boston because it is a great distributing centre and the fish go from Boston to New York, Chicago, St. Louis and all the other American cities, so that there is practically no limit to the fish that could be absorbed in that distributing centre.


Mr. CARVELL:: What about Montreal?


John Howard Sinclair: Some fish comes from Boston to Montreal, but not a very great deal at the present time. There is a duty on fish imported from the United States and the Government assists in bringing fish from the eastern coast to Montreal. That has, I think, to a large extent, lessened the American trade with Canadian cities, but that has not helped us very much because we never can build up a big trade with the comparatively small population we have in Canada. Why do we not do something more to develop the American market? There is every reason in favour of such a course. There is the cheap water carriage along the eastern seaboard from Boston to New York, which ought to count a good deal of itself. The American market is our nearest market; we can reach it in about twenty-four hours by a fast steamboat, a shorter time than we can reach the city of Montreal in by rail. Hon. gentlemen must remember there is no product in the world that is so perishable

as fresh fish. I am told by experts that if it is exposed to the sun it begins to depreciate within ten minutes after it is taken out of the water, and consequently it is with great difficulty that it can be placed on a distant market, and it cannot be done at all unless you have the best facilities, which we do not have in Canada. You would hardly believe, Sir, that after thirty years of experience in this business, after thirty years of public ownership of a railway connecting the Maritime provinces with the province of Quebec, we are not to-day ir a position to send a box of fresh fish m a refrigerator car by express; it fias to be sent in a heated car and it cannot ordinary-ily arrive at its destination in good condii tiion. The dealers will tell you that by the time the fish arrives at Montreal, the heat of the car has melted the ice and the fish is soft and not suitable for the market. I may say, however, that we have a better chance in the case of freight, because for carload lots of fish, refrigerator cars are provided that -will take the fish, either frozen or not frozen, to Montreal in very good condition. But why should we not have express as well as freight facilities? Carriage by freight ds slow in any case: it takes over two days to reach Montreal from the Maritime provinces; very often it takes several days longer owing to trains being delayed in various ways. I understand that the service has been very bad during the last few months. No one, however, is complaining very much of the freight service, but there is good reason to complain of the express service on the Intercolonial railway at the present time.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman said
.that the express service was bad. Did he mean the express or the freight service?


John Howard Sinclair: The express service. 1 have no special complaint to make of the freight except that it lis too slow.
Mr. HA25EN: I suppose my hon. friend refers to the facilities on the cars rather than to the time taken in delivering the goods.


John Howard Sinclair: By express, yes. I understand the facilities on the express cars are very poor at the present time, and I hope the Government will do something in the way of improving them.
IMr. HAZEN: I am not going to quarrel with you about that.

Mr. SINCLAIR I am not going to discuss that question because it will come out later on when the committee, dealing with that matter, reports to the House. A few weeks ago I asked this question:
Has the Government considered the question of transportation of fresh fish from the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia to the American market?
The answer I received was:
Since the examination and discussion of this question that we had two years ago the government have given no apparent attention to it, although generally, it has been kept in mind.
It is difficult for me to understand how the Government can keep a thing in mind generally, and at the same time not think of it for two years. It is something like the story of Rip van Winkle, who, when he went to sleep, had stored away in the back of his mind recollections of his wife and family and home, and other things, and it might be expected when he awoke he would remember all about them. We have no guarantee that this Government will ever waken up on this question, and if we can do anything to waken them up we should do it, because the question of an entrance into the American market for the fish of the Maritime Provinces is one of great importance for the development of this industry.^ Why should we not assist in the transportation of fish to the United States? The individual fisherman cannot build steamers; they cannot run railways nor secure the services of refrigerator cars unless those facilities are provided for them in some way. It is the function of the Government to do that kind of work, and I can scarcely understand the position taken by this Government when they take the ground that they should not promote any business that goes in' the direction of the United States. It makes no difference to the fisherman, provided that he gets a profitable return for the fish he catches, where it goes. It is the same with our wheat. We cannot consume it all in Canada, and we can never develop our western wheat areas if we adopt that policy. I heard one of my hon. friends from the West state a few nights ago that only 10 per cent of the arable land in the province of Alberta was under cultivation, and only 18 per cent of the arable land in the province of Saskatchewan. When all that land is ploughed, where are we going to find our market? Why should we not find the nearest, and best market for these natural products, not only wheat, but fish? Take our lumber industry. Where would it be
if we tabooed the American market? Why, Sir, we have no other market at the present time. It costs too much at present to send our lumber across the Atlantic, and we might as well stop our saw mills and abandon our lumber industry if we do not endeavour to exploit the American market. The situation in regard to fish is this, that there is no way in eastern Nova Scotia for the merchants or fishermen to reach the American market with the present facilities, and I submit the Government should take some action. The case is different in western Nova Scotia. Great progress has been made in Yarmouth, our most western town, in that regard. Our lamented friend, Mr Law, the very day of his death, made a very interesting speech in the House of Commons, in which he pointed out that the business had grown enormously in the town of Yarmouth during the last two or three years. I have not the exact figures of what it was a few years ago; but he told us that in 1915- the export of fish and fish products from the port of Yarmouth to Boston amounted to $1,668,111, or one-quarter of the total output from the whole province of Nova Scotia. That has resulted from the fact that transportation facilities have been provided. Between Yarmouth and Boston there is a line of steamships in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway. In the summer season, when the tourist traffic is on, the service is daily, and during the rest of the year it is three times a week. Since that service has been provided and the Americans have opened their market by making fish free of duty, the fish trade has sprung up in Yarmouth, so that the large sum of money I have mentioned was received by the fishermen for their product during the last year. The same thing could happen in various places along the coast of Nova Scotia if equal facilities were given to reach the American market. That is the question I put up to my hon. friend the minister, and it is the biggest question in relation to this matter that he can tackle.
If the minister will look over the history of the department he will nnd that we have really made no progress in thirty years in expanding this business. Surely he must see that there is something wrong. We have the men on the coast to catch the fish, and we have a prolific fishery. , If we have made no advance in the output it is simply because we have not been able to reach the only market that is available to us, the market of the United States. The testimony of Mr. Ward Fisher might be worth reading to my hon. friend. Mr. Fisher, I

understand, did all lie could to prevent the reciprocity treaty from coming into force. He is a supporter of the present Administration and one of its officers. In the last report on fisheries I find the following testimony by Mr. Fisher:
The revised American tariff resulted in the establishment of a number of new companies. Three were established in Yarmouth county. The ready market approved and prices secured, greatly revived the fisheries of this county, and was the cause of a considerable number of men fishing from home instead of from United States ports. This latter effect was true, also, in other counties.
That is the testimony of a gentleman who opposed, the reciprocity treaty, hut who, after the markets of the United States were thrown open to our products, discovered that it was a splendid thing for the fisheries of Nova Scotia, and is honest enough to say so.
A step was taken by my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs in connection with the Fisheries Department that he has never, so far as I know, explained to the House. A year or two ago he transferred the fisheries to the Department of the Naval Service. I quite understand that is a matter of administration, and the minister might say that it was an internal question that the department alone has to do with. But it is a matter of considerable importance, and I do not think it should have been done in a corner ana without a reason having been given to the House. What can officers of the navy know about fisheries: -that is, if they are really naval officers. If we are to have a navy it should, not be a sham navy, or maintained for show. Its officers should devote their whole time to naval affairs. They should study, for instance, the best method of winning battles and the latest build of war vessels. They ought to know every harbour on the coast, and not only ought they to know our own coast, but they ought to know the seven seas-the waters throughout the world; they ought to know them as intimately as my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) knows the mud flats of Courtenay bay. Besides we might as well turn over agriculture to the Militia Department as to turn over fisheries to the Naval Department. And just think what would happen if, while the country was engaged in war, and the attention of the Minister of Militia and his chief deputy is required to be given closely to the attention of the defence of the country, they had to deal with such questions as the potato bug, or the coddling moth, or hog
pi]'. Sinclair.]
cholera, or some other such problem with which the Department of Agriculture has to deal. It may be said that the fishery officers in the Naval Department will look after fisheries. But the man who directs the work of the department is the deputy minister, and what would happen if, in time of war, he were involved in studying such questions as lobster regulations, the close seasons for clams, pickled fish, and all those other intricate questions that come before a fishery officer? That is what is bound to happen under the system that my hon. friend has adopted. Let me remind him of what happened in 1914 when the war broke out. We were not in any way prepared, for it. It is on record that the Njobe, the only warship we had in eastern Canada was practically out of commission. She was lying in the harbour of Halifax with barnacles on her; the sailors were deserting the ship, and some of the machinery was stored in a warehouse on a wharf. During that time the naval staff of Canada, apparently, was employed in editing a little book called " Fish and How to Cook it." For that book came out about the time of the declaration of war. I received my copy on the 6th of August, and war was declared, as we all know, on the 4th of August. At the time of the naval debate, the leader of the present Government, then leader of the Opposition, put a question to my honoured leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), then Prime Minister. That question was-something like this: Suppose that.a Canadian warship meets an enemy warship on the high seas, war not having been declared; will she fight? He got the answer he wanted, a proper answer. Sir Wilfrid said:	She will not fight until
ordered to do so by the Government that controls her. That is the answer he wanted, and it enabled him to misrepresent my right hon. leader to a certain element in this country.
If this system is going to be carried on, and the question is asked of this Government: Will the ships controlled by the present administration figlht? I think the answer would have to be: No, 'but that she can show the other fellow how to cook fish! That is really the only thing that the Naval Department has done so far, of which we know anything.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do they even know how to do that?


John Howard Sinclair: consideration of both of these questions to my hon. friend. The fisheries of British Columbia have developed simply because they have been able to get into the American market by means of the enterprising methods adopted by the Canadian Pacific Railway and 'by the Dominion Express Company. The fisheries of British Columbia have made much greater progress than the fisheries of the Atlantic coast, yet the 'largest market they have is in the Eastern United States, and they are able to reach that market because the Canadian Pacific Railway has been enterprising enough to give them adequate transportation facilities. I trust that these suggestions may not be lost on my hon. friend.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):: I have already referred to the matter of transportation by express, and as that will come before this committee when the Fisheries Committee make their report to the House I shall not take up the time of this committee at the moment. I see by item 260 that the amount of money asked for is to include the expenses of the Fisheries Advisory Board. I have often wondered what great good we get from this Board. The minister, when making his statement, will perhaps tell us some of the good things it has done in the interest of Canada.' I also see by number 272 that the minister proposes another new venture, if I may so call it. He now proposes that the officers shall examine and inspect the canning factories for fish. There is already on the statute-books provision fox the inspection of our fruit factories, those that pack fruit and vegetables; but we have not had any inspection of fish canning factories. If this is intelligently carried out it is quite possible that good may come from it. But, as a matter of fact, I do not think there is really very much for the inspectors of pickled fish now in the employ of the department to do, and it is just possible that the minister has in view that these officers may also undertake the inspection of fish packing. I am sure' that if we had a report of the work of these men since their appointment we would have some queries as to what we had received in return for the money expended. I want to congratulate the minister in several respects. He has acted wisely "in continuing the transportation service which was inaugurated some years ago by paying a share of the express rates to the inland cities of Canada. I rather differ with my hon. friend (Mr. 
Sinclair) for this reason: I felt that that service when it was inaugurated was to encourage the consumption of Canadian fish in the Canadian centres. I believe that, generally, it has done that. L believe that very many more fish come from the Atlantic seaboard to Montreal and to Toronto than before the provision was made, so that I think the minister is to be * congratulated upon having continued the good work which was commenced by his predecessor. I realize that it is a most difficult matter to arrive at a fair finding regarding the seasons for fishing. The Fishery Board took upon itself to recommend the cutting down of the season in some districts to a greater degree than in others, and the department acted on their recommendation. The finding of the Marine and Fisheries Committee of this House was, I think, that the season should be reduced by a number of days in the very large districts, but, as regards one district, they amended that by declaring that after a certain year a further reduction in time would be made. I should like to tell the minister that the arrangement has been found to be burdensome. I do not think it is fair, for the season is too short. It is over almost before you know where you are.


John Douglas Hazen: To what district does my hon. friend refer?


William Stewart Loggie: The district in the gulf of . the St. Lawrence, round a certain portion of Prince Edward Island, and between Coeagne on the New Brunswick coast and Pictou. The shortness of the season makes it difficult to operate the fisheries profitably.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the season in that district' extends from about the 20th or 25th of April to the 25th of June.


William Stewart Loggie: I thought it was up to the 1st of July.


John Douglas Hazen: I think it is up to the 25th of June. Does my' hon. friend think the season ought to be extended into July?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: What is the condition of the lobsters, with regard to their shells, at that time?


William Stewart Loggie: In my judgment, up to 10th of July the lobsters are perfectly good. We do not see the soft shell lobster on that coast until the month of August.


John Douglas Hazen: The season was fixed on the recommendation of the Shell Fisheries Commission. That commission took evid-

ence all along that coast from a number of people, and their belief was that if fishing were allowed after the date mentioned-I think it is the 26th of June-the lobsters would be taken at a time when their shells were soft. I have a very great respect for my hon. friend's opinion in regard to fishery matters, and to many other matters, but it evidently differs from that of the Shell Fisheries Commission. It is an in. stance of the difference of opinion there is among those engaged in the fishing business or interested in fishing. In my experience, I have found it a very difficult matter to get people to agree with regard to the length of the season. No matter what you fix, even after the most careful inquiry, you are bound to find criticism. I thought that, having gone through that district, and taken evidence, the Shell Fisheries Commission would be able to reach a correct conclusion, but apparently my hon. friend, who is so well informed in these matters, does not agree with them. It is an instance of the difficulty a minister has to encounter in. fixing the seasons.


William Stewart Loggie: I was present at a meeting of the Shell Fisheries Commission in the district I have reference to, and there was no such evidence as that given, so far as my memory serves me. I know from personal experience that there are no soft shell lobsters up to the end of July. What I find fault with is that the Shell Fisheries Commission, while proposing to reduce the season by a number of days all around the coast, which seemed to be fair, they made a special exception of a certain district, in which they said after' a certain date they would reduce the season still further. So far as 'I see it is not fair, because the season is so short that the fisheries cannot be operated properly.


John Douglas Hazen: We did not -make a further reduction.


William Stewart Loggie: I think the department
did.


John Douglas Hazen: We made only one reduction.


William Stewart Loggie: You made only one reduction in all the districts except one, as I understand it, and in that district you made a second reduction.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so; I do
not think we made a further reduction anywhere.


William Stewart Loggie: Perhaps the hon. minister will find that out for me; I may have been
mistaken, but I was under the impression that a further reduction was made, I think, a year after the Shell Fisheries Commission reported. At any rate the arrangement is considered burdensome, and if the minister can see his way clear to remedy the condition, he should do so. They should not stop the fishing, at any rate, until the 1st of July. We used to have until the 10th of July. The recommendation of the Marine and Fisheries Committee was to take off 10 days, but, on the recommendation of the Shell Fisheries Commission, 15 days were taken here.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the Shell Fisheries Commission made a recommendation that the date should be the 26th June, and they also recommended a size limit. We did hot impose the size limit, but we provided that the open season should end on the 26th June. Would my hon friend prefer the season to end on the 1st of July, with a size limit, or to have it end on the 26th Jun , without a size limit?


William Stewart Loggie: It depends on the size
limit entirely.


John Douglas Hazen: Eight inches.


William Stewart Loggie: I do not think they could pack lobsters in certain districts if they insisted on a size limit. On the outside coast they might, but I do not think that in the bays of Prince Edward Island they could. They certainly could not around the districts where you continue the season well into the summer. The Ibbsters are very much smaller down there than they are in our district. At any rate, I think the matter is worthy of consideration. I think the minister really ought to change the finishing date to the first of July.


John Douglas Hazen: Extend it four days.


William Stewart Loggie: Extend it four days, at
any rate, and have it uniform in that district.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Onésiphore Turgeon: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Northumberland was speaking about the close season for lobsters in different parts of the Maritime Provinces. In our district, the season used to extend up to the 15th of July, but a year or two ago, on the recommendation of the Shell Fish Commission, tire season w$s shortened to the



1st of July. Gloucester county, as the minister knows, is perhaps more interested in the lobster fishing industry than any other district in the Maritime Provinces, and I think that in order to encourage the industry it would be well for the department to consider changing the open season. For instance, in May .and June the fishermen along the coast of New Brunswick get very few really good fishing days, find I have always tried to impress upon the department, and particularly upon the can-ners, that it would be very much better to have a short open season in the spring, and another open season in the fall, from about the middle of August on as long as conditions permit. Naturalists say that the lobster is always in a healthy condition in the fall. In fact, the quality of the fish is better then than in the spring; it is larger, and would make a better showing in the can. The objection to this plan comes from the large operators, who say they would be put to the expense of putting their fishing gear out twice. I do not see much force in that. When the Shell Commission was at Bathurst two or tfiree years ago, I made it a point to be present, and gave my opinion on this matter. Whetner my suggestion has been looked into I cannot say, but certainly it has not been acted upon. I wish the minister would seriously consider this suggestion of mine. If the large iirms did not want to take advantage of the rail season as well as the spring, they could please themselves; but I submit that it would be to the advantage of the fishermen and can-ners to have the regular open season in the fall, and a short open season in the spring as wen.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: I wish to say a few words along the line taken by my hon. friend from Gloucester. The season in our district opens on the 25th of May, and, extends to the 10th of August. Just ajoout the time the season opens, and after the fishermen have got their traps out, almost invariably there comes a heavy storm, and ice coming down the straits does great damage to the fishing gear. The fishermen, however, say tlhat the season is short, .and they put their traps out as soon as the season opens, taking chances of its getting damaged. The Shell Fish Commission considerec^ the whole business thoroughly a year or two ago, and, perhaps, they reported on this difficulty. I am not concerned very much about the man who sells the fish. The fisherman who catches it is who I am thinking of; She is the poor

man, and in his anxiety to get all the fishing days he can, he takes chances of getting his gear damaged; he has to face the wind, and the waves, and the storm, and when he has caught the fish, in many cases he has to sell it at a very small price indeed. It is the fisherman who gets the worst end of the deal with the canners. Furthermore, the packing houses start to operate about the 25th of July, and just about that time the lobsters are soft shelled; the quality of the fish is not nearly so good as later in the fall. It does seem to me that it would be better to lhave the open season a little later on in the year, when the fish has re-shelled, and is in good condition. Of course, I know that many things have to be considered before making a change like this. The department must consider wftether it would be in the permanent interests of the lobster fishing industry. Fishermen would always be able to get a good catch in the fall, whereas very few fish can be caught around the 25th of May. The open season extends from that date to the 10th of August. Sometimes I know the department, in their generosity, extend the season for a few days, but that is on sufferance, and sometimes the permits come late and the people have their gear taken up, so that the extension is not of very much advantage.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: I desire to call the attention of the minister to what seems to be an anomaly in regard to the lobster industry along Northumberland strait. It was a regulation a couple of years ago-and I think the regulation is in force still-that along the western coast of the island of 'Cape Breton the season opened about a week or ten days earlier than along the shortes of Antigonish, Pictou, and other points along the mainland westward. The regulation also provided that the fishermen on the western coast of Cape Breton island could continue fishing operations for a week or so longer than the fishermen at those points on the mainland that I have mentioned. In other words, they have an advantage of about fifteen days in fishing along the western coast of Cape. Breton island over the fishermen of Antigonish, Pictou, and Colchester counties, and points along the Northumberland strait westwards. As the minister is well aware, it is the same kind of lobster that is caught off the west coast of Cape Breton island as is caught off the west side of the Northumberland strait. It iseems rather anomalous

that the fishermen of Port Hood or Creig-neish in the county of Inverness can have fifteen days longer fishing than the fishermen of Havre Boucher in Antigonish county, a distance of about twelve or fifteen miles directly opposite. The fish frequent the very same waters, and the same conditions prevail along the western coast of Cape Breton island as along the coast of Antigoniish county. What is the object in passing such am extremely absurd regulation? I am told it was done at the suggestion 'of the Fish Committee. If so, it does not justify the existence of that committee.
I also wish to ask the minister why it was that last year, when the fishermen of the counties I have just mentioned asked for an extension of the season, their request was not granted. As the minister knows, on account of ice conditions last spring it was well on to the 24th of May before the fishermen were able to get their traps out. Some of them had got their traps out a little earlier and were obliged to take them in, and those who did not take them in found them high and dry on the shore, driven in by the ice, so that they lost fifteen days at the beginning of the season. I think they asked an extension of only ten days, and it would seem that their request was a very reasonable one. If it were true that the water had got warmer as early in the season as it ordinarily does, and if it were true that the condition of the lobster had changed as early towards the end of the season as ordinarily happens, there would be some reason for refusing the extension as requested, but it seems to me that in the case which the fishermen presented, the department, if it gave this matter consideration at all, should have acceded to their request. It looks as if the department had not paid any attention to their request whatever, as if it had stereotyped rules, and as if it hdd carried them out regardless of the convenience of the fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to express my appreciation of the spirit in which hon. gentlemen opposite have approached the consideration of the fishery Estimates, and of the moderate manner in which they have referred to matters of interest in connection with them. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), who always takes a praiseworthy interest in matters affecting the fisheries of this country, has expressed a regret that I did not make a general statement about the work of the
149J
Fisheries Branch of the department. I would have been very glad to do so had I thought it would be desired, but I have followed the practice that has always been followed in connection with these Estimates. There are one or two departments whose ministers make a statement when their Estimates are brought down: the Railway Department and, I think, the Militia Department; but the practice in this department, ever since I have been minister- and I understand the same practice prevailed before I became minister-has been to give the information in regard to the various matters as the items come up. That is why it did not occur to ime to depart from the practice of previous years. I am anxious to give all the information I can to the committee, and any information that is wanted can be given as the different items are taken up.
My hon. friend from Guysborough referred also to the division of the department, and the assigning to the Department of Naval, Service of the Fisheries Branch which was previously carried on by the Marine Department*. The hon. gentleman is, of course, aware, I think I have explained this to the House on previous occasions although the hon. gentleman said he had never heard me do so-that there are two distinct departments over which I preside as minister, one the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the other the Department of Naval Service. Those departments, although under the same minister, are distinct departments and recognized as, such by the legislation which created them. When I came into the Government, the Department of Marine and Fisheries was administering the Canada Shipping Act and the very many things which that involved, the Fisheries Branch, the St. Lawrence ship channels, the harbours of Montreal and Quebec, and other harbours which are under a commission form of government and over which the Department of Marine has jurisdiction, the Meteorological Survey, and many other branches as well. The Naval Department was administering the Naval Act, the Hydrographic Survey, and one or two other similar branches. The result was that one department had too much to do and the other too little; and, after consultation with Mr. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and Mr. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of Naval Service who, at one time was Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, it was decided in the interest of effective administration, of eonveni-

ence and of a proper dstributicm of the work, that more work should be given to the Department of Naval Service, and that some of the work assigned to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which was overcrowded, should be taken away from it. For that reason, it was decided to take the Fisheries Branch from the Department of Marine and Fisheries and place it under the control of the Naval Service, and the result has been an equalization in the work of the two departments.
Mr. hon. friend has suggested that it is somewhat incongruous that the fisheries should be under the Naval Service. I do not think that is any more incongruous than that they should be under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There is a branch of the Fisheries Department, the Fisheries Protection Service, which naturally falls under the head of the Naval Department because it is to all intents and purposes a naval service. It exists for the purpose of protecting our waters from the depredations that might be committed by fishermen of other countries, and for the purpose of keeping those fishermen outside of the three mile limit so that our fisheries may be preserved for our own people. That service requires ships, men on those ships, and guns on those ships, and is in a sense a portion of the naval service, of the country. All through the departments of the Government there are things which seem to be incongruous. For instance, why should the Department of Agriculture administer the Copyright Act and the Patents Act. One might think they more properly should come under the Department of Justice. The allotment is made for the purpose of equalizing the work of the different departments. When I came into the Department of Marine and Fisheries a question arose in regard to the ferries on the international rivers. I concluded at once that that was a matter for the Marine Department to deal with. But, to my surprise, I found that it was within the jurisdiction of the Department of Inland Revenue; though on what logical principle ferries -are put under the Department of Inland Revenue, I do not know. The same thing exists all through these departments. For instance, the Prime Minister has charge of the Mounted Police, which, it might seem at first blush, should be within the control of the Militia Department as the Mounted Police is -a force for the protection and defence of our people of our western country. It was for the pur-
[Mr. Hazen.j
poee, as I say, of equalizing the work in the two departments that the change was made. The hon. gentleman speaks as though the men whose business it is to deal especially with naval affairs have to deal with fishery questions. But, as a matter of -fact, the same men deal with the fisheries questio'n to-day as dealt with them before the change took place. The Superintendent of Fisheries, the Inspector of Fisheries, and other officers have been the same for many years. The only change is with the deputy minister. And, while the hon. gentleman refers to the fact that the Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs might not be supposed to have special knowledge of fisheries matters, yet the fact is that Mr. Desbarats was at one time Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and was taken from that position to fill the position of Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs. So he had many years of experience in the Marine and Fisheries Department before taking his present position. The result of the change has -been most satisfactory. Instead of having one deputy minister overworked and one department overworked, we have a fair division under which both deputy ministers-and they are very busy men-can do satisfactory work. And the fisheries officers who administer the Fisheries Act-the superintendent, the inspector, and the fishery experts-are practically the same men as before, and not the men who carry on the technical work in connection with naval affairs under the Naval Act. In other matters to which I have referred, the change has been conducive to the equalization of work and to efficiency, and has worked out most satisfactorily, as the hon. gentleman can learn if he will consult those who for years past, under my regime and under the regime of my predecessors, have been responsible for the technical work in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that there is an increase in the expenditure of the department since the change of Government took place in 1911. That statement is correct, except that the hon. gentleman to a considerable extent exaggerated what the increase has been. He said that it was practically doubled. He was not speaking by the book and evidently had not refreshed his memory by looking at the figures. This year, the estimate we are asking for Fisheries is $1,224,900. Now, I take the actual expenditure for the year 1911-12, which was $843,856. The present

Estimate shows -an increase over this actual expenditure of $383,044. The hon. gentleman is well aware that as. a rule the expenditure is not as great as the amount estimated; the difference in some years is very considerable.


John Howard Sinclair: It was the actual expenditure I gave.


John Douglas Hazen: We have not the actual
expenditure for the current year yet. For the year 1914-15, the Estimate was $1,604,700, while the expenditure fell below that Estimate by about $300,000. As the Estimate for 1915-16 exceeded that for the present year by about $200,000, so the expenditure for 1914-15 exceeded that for 1915-16 by about $200,000. So, the hon. gentleman will see that during the last two years there has been a very considerable reduction in the expenditure of the department.
But Hhere are reasons, and very good reasons., too, why there was an increase in the expenditure. In 1911 there was a most incomplete organization of the fisheries in the western provinces. Commissions had been appointed prior to my coming into office to consider .and report upon that matter. The work of one of these had not been finished wtoen the present Government came into power. Following the reports that were received, the service was completely reorganized, and, in view of its previous incompleteness, a very considerable additional sum had to be spent. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba were entitled to fisheries protection just as much as the rest of the country. That protection had not been accorded to them, and the lack of it had been recognized by the previous Government, who had appointed commissions to investigate and report as io what should be done. The jeorganized service was as complete as we could make it, and this added considerable to the expense of the department.
Then I take up the question of fish hatcheries. The policy of carrying on fish hatcheries was well under way in 1911. New hatcheries were being asked for in all directions.-new hatcheries are still being asked for, from the lakes, from the West, and from places, in the East. These institutions have done valuable work. I might refer to tlhe case of lake Erie, which, at one time, had been almost depleted, but is now fast coming back. The same is true of Georgian bay and lake Huron. Only the other day a delegation of gentlemen from lake Erie points, and members, of the House
on both sides who take an interest in the fisheries of lake Erie, urged upon me the establishment of a herring IbatcheTy on lake Erie, as they fearec^ the herring were being depleted, and there was a demand for all the herring that could toe produced. In 1911 we had forty-one fish hatcheries in Canada; others were undeT construction, and still others were promised. To-day we have sixty-one fish hatcheries. These have cost money to establish, and their maintenance also costs money. But I doubt if there is a member of this House who would suggest that this money has not been well expended, or that any of the hatcheries now in existence ought not to have been established.
Then we have the question of fisheries patrol. This service lhas been improved and is now reasonably complete. . The Fisheries Patrol service covers the fisheries lying inside the three-mile limit. For some years before I came into office, and since, the policy has been to enforce the laws by means of patrol boats. Five patrol boats were delivered, soon after I came into power, that had been ordered toy the previous Government, for wlhich we paid and [DOT] which we have had to maintain. We have now twenty-three patrol boats of our own on both coasts. A good many have had to be added in British Columbia, where the importance of the fisheries, is becoming greater all the time. The effect of ' this improved service has 'been much more complete protection of the fisheries. This is simply carrying out the policy of my predecessor. As I said, I found that five of these boats had been ordered before I came into power, and so had to be paid for, and every boat added to the service involves an additional amount for wages and maintenance. This year we are asking for a vote of $1,224,900. It is difficult to say how much of that will be spent. It may be that we will not come within $100,000 of the total vote, judging from our experience in other years. A good deal depends on what may occur during the year. Unless the decision of the court is given as to rights in tidal waters, that vote will not be employed. . If that decision is given in our favour then, we will at once have to take over the administration of the fisheries in the tidal waters in Quebec and the money here asked for, or a portion of it, will he required for that purpose. So it is with a number of the other items; hut we have reduced our Estimate by about $176,500 as compared with the Estimate of last year.

My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has referred to transportation in connection with fishery matters, and it is a very important question indeed. A policy was entered upon in about 1907 of paying a portion of the expressage on fish coming from the east and west to central Canada. That trade has increased very largely. The amounts we are paying now are very much larger than they were at that time. They increased, if I recollect correctly, until last year, when there was a slight decrease caused, my officers believe, by the fact that the fast freight service has become more efficient and fish that had previously been sent by express is now sent by fast freight. But that policy has given good results. Before the introduction of that policy, the markets of Montreal, Toronto and the large cities of Ontario were 'being supplied by fish from the United States. Those cities are now supplied practically entirely by fish from the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of Canada, with the exception of certain fish that at certain seasons are found in the waters of the United States and not found in Canadian waters. The result of the policy ihas been that a great deal more Canadian fish is being used in the cities of Canada, and there is a very great chance,
I think, for further development. I understand from fish dealers in those cities that they are now selling more Canadian fish than they have done in the past, and that the exhibition in Toronto during the last few years has done a very great deal in that regard. Perhaps I might mention that last .year, in connection with the exhibition at Toronto, we were able to establish a fish restaurant, where an excellent fish dinner was served for 25 cents. Over 25,000 people were served at that restaurant, and those who had a dinner at it can testify to the excellence of the meals served. I had one myself, and I can vouch for its excellence, because I know something about fish. I am told by the fish dealers of Toronto that nothing has done so much to advertise the fisheries of Canada, so far as Ttoronto and western Ontario is ,concerned, as that restaurant.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What kind of fish did you have on the bill of fare?


John Douglas Hazen: We had halibut, haddock, codfish, all fish that we could get that were in season. It was served in excellent condition.
Mil-. OOPP: Miratnichi salmon'5 IMr. Hazen]


John Douglas Hazen: I think we had salmon from the Miramichi; we had salmon from both coasts. I hope that if the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) visits the Toronto exhibition this coming year-and it is well worthy of a visit at any time because it is, I understand, the largest annual fair held anywhere in the world-if he will go to the restaurant and gefi a fish dinner, I am sure he will be delighted with it, and ^ will agree that as a measure of advertising the restaurant was worth what it cost us.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And the minister made a very excellent speech.


John Douglas Hazen: I thank the hon. gentleman. We decided, after considering the whole question, that if we engaged cooks and waiters and everything and ran the restaurant ourselves, it would be. a very costly undertaking; so we made an arrangement with one of the largest restaurant keepers in Toronto, Mr. Naismith. We provided the fish and paid a portion of the rent of the restaurant, which' was the large dining-room under the grand stand. Mr. Naismith supplied the dinners at 25 cents each. Everything was served in a very cleanly and nice manner, and the result was that the restaurant was crowded at the mid-day meal; and sometimes three sets of meals had to be served, although it is a very large room. In the evening also the restaurant was very largely patronized.


Mr. KYTE:: Was the price sufficient to pay the cost?


John Douglas Hazen: No. We provided the fish and we paid, I think, $1,000 for the other expenses. I think the restaurant cost us something over $3,000. With the experience we have had, it is probable that next year we will be able to run it more efficiently at a little less cost.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Were there any baskets left over?
Mr. HAZEN; No, I do not think there were any baskets left. In addition to that, we had an exhibit which was one of the most attractive features of the exhibition. We had the hearty co-operation in that exhibit of men who are engaged in the fish business in different parts of the country, and the large fish companies. The exhibit was a most attractive one and we were awarded the gold medal of the society for it. The year before, when I was at the exhibition I suggested to Mr. Oliver, the Pre-

sident of the Exhibition Association, that it might be a good thing to have a fisheries day, similar to their farmers' day, educational day, children's day, and so on. That suggestion was acted upon and they had a fisheries day at the exhibition this year, when everyone at the luncheon talked fish and fish was advertised and talked about in every way. I think the whole thing has proved an excellent object lesson. '
I think that out transportation policy has justified itself. The very fact that those cities were formerly supplied with their fish from the American waters and are now supplied entirely from our own waters, fully justifies the policy that was entered upon at that time. I am not satisfied with the service that the express companies 'have [DOT]rendered, and neither is the Department of Fisheries. This subject has been very fully and faiiriy discussed by the Marine and Fisheries Committee, to whom was referred the resolution of the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) and I presume when the report of that committee comes before the House lit will contain recommendations of a character which it may be possible io carry out and that will effect an improvement in the service. My hon. friend nas also referred to the question of improved communication with the United States, a very important question particularly, for the people on the south shore and the southeastern portion of Nova Scotia, from which my hon. friend comes. From our province a good deal of fresh fish goes to the Boston market in the summer on the boats operating between St. John and Boston. I understand that very large quantities of fish are also sent on the boats from Yarmouth to Boston. The suggestion, of my hon. friend is that something should be done to provide transportation from ports farther east. I understand that from many points on the south shore, with the railway communication that now exists fish is shipped via Yarmouth to Boston. Of course there are some points east of Yarmouth too far away from that city to make it easily possible to ship fish by that route. It is undoubtedly desirable that there should be steamers running from some of these points to Boston, and if it had not been for the conditions caused by the war, I understand that there would have been a line of steamers running now. I understood the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) to say that an arrangement had been made whereby a private company
intended to put on a line of steamers running from a port there to the American market, but that in consequence of their financial arrangements being disturbed by the outbreak of war, they had not been able to consummate the scheme. I hope it will not be long before there are boats running in that direction. We have now free admission of fish to the markets of the United States, and it seems to me that it might be taken advantage of by private enterprise. It was with that intention, I believe, that the company, referred to by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens in the discussion on the evening of the disastrous fire when the resolution of my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) was before the House, was formed.
This afternoon and evening we have heard a good deal of discussion about the seasons for the catch of lobsters. That is a most difficult question to deal with. Hon. gentlemen all know that, years ago, lobsters were extremely plentiful all around the coasts of the Maritime Provinces. I remember that only a few years ago I was at the summer residence of Mr. Haszard, then premier of Prince Edward Island, and he told me that he remembered, not so many years bsEore, when* he could go out and with a hook in the afternoon, when the tide was out, from under the rock pull lobsters in sufficient numbers to fill a basket in a few hours. The same condition existed in numbers of places along the coast, but, in consequence of the great demand for lobsters, and of the canning of them for the markets of Europe and elsewhere, they cannot be obtained so easily to-day. The lobster fishermen have to set their traps further out than in years gone by. If there were no laws for the taking of lobsters, I think it will be admitted that the lobster would soon cease to exist. The question that faces any fishery officer, or any one charged with the responsibility of making and enforcing fishery laws, is, what laws can you pass which, while causing the minimum of interference with the trade carried on by the fishermen, will conserve the lobster supply for future generations as a source of wealth and industry. That proposition, as I have said, is a very difficult one to deal with. It is undesirable to pass laws providing the same close season for every part of the coast. You must have different seasons, having regard to the different conditions that exist; and it is in consequence of that that, here and there along the coast where you have a dividing line, people on one

side take the view that they are not being treated with the same fairness us people on the other side of the line. You must have a division somewhere. You must have some point marking a Change of districts and' that being the ease, there will always be- more or less friction between those on one side of the line and those on the other side. That is a state of affairs which cannot be prevented, I think hon. gentlemen will agree, under any system that can be devised.
My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie), whose views on any fishery matter are entitled to the very greatest possible respect, has referred to a district in which he says the season, which ends on the 26th of June, should be extended for a longer period. When I came into office in 1911, and discussed this matter with the Superintendent of Fisheries, and others, they pointed nut that, a good many years ago, there had been a lobster commission. I think the late 'Colonel Tucker and Mr. Bowers of Digby were members. The officers of the department thought that the conditions had changed somewhat since that commission had reported, and that it was desirable to have another commission to investigate the conditions. It was in consequence of these suggestions and reports that we appointed the lobster commission of which Professor Prince was chairman, and Mr. O'Leary, Ml. Wilson, and (Senator McLean were members. These gentlemen, after a very painstaking' investigation, after visiting points all along the coast, and holding meetings with the fishermen and others interested in the lobster trade, made a report which, to a considerable extent, has been acted upon, though not altogether. In the case of the district referred to by the hon. member for Northumberland, what they recommended was that the season should end on the 26th of June, and, in addition, that the size of the lobsters caught should be limited to eight inches. We did not give effect to the recommendation limiting the size to eight inches, and I understand that my hon. friend from Northumberland does not think it would be desirable to do so. We did shorten the season, making it end on the 26th of June, and if we had acted on their recommendation, we would have curtailed the rights of the fishermen to a still greater extent. My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) suggests that we should allow fall fishing. All these matters are worthy of consideration, but, so far as I am aware, no fall fish-
ing for lobsters has been allowed in the Maritime Provinces for many years past, if at any time, except at the Magdalen Islands. I believe that fall fishing was allowed in the Magdalen Islands, but the regulation which gave that right was rescinded before I became Minister of Marine and Fisheries. What the hon. gentleman says-that the lobster should be caught earlier in the season, that there should be a close period during the time that he is shedding his shell, when the shell is soft, and when he is not in good condition for canning, and that then, when that season is over, the fishing should go on.. If you allow lobsters to be caught in the spring and fall, you are going to catch lobsters which would otherwise breed and produce other lobsters, and there would be a danger of reducing the lobster supply. At any rate it is years since fall fishing was allowed, and the officers in the department, and the different commissions and those who have studied the question have been opposed to allowing fall fishing. I understand that the result of fall fishing in the Magdalen Islands was not of such a satisfactory character as to lead the department to continue it, and six or seven years ago they repealed the regulation, and prevented fall fishing there. My hon. friend from Antigonish referred to a question that arose there, and complained that I had declined to extend the lobster season last year. I have been endeavouring to prevent the extension of lobster seasons for the last three or four years. The regulations are made for the protection of the fishermen and for the protection of the industry. If you have regulations providing for certain seasons, during which lobsters are to be taken>
and the minister went to Council and got an Order in Council passed to extend the seasons, year after year, the matter would almost become a farce. These laws and regulations are made, as I have said, for the purpose of protecting the lobster fisheries. There is scarcely a year-and the district of my hon. friend is not exceptional in that respect-that petitions are not received asking for an extension of the season. Seasons are given that are plausible, that there have been heavy storms early in the season preventing the fisherman from get-ing out, that the ice continues to lie on the shores. That westerly winds had driven in the ice so that the fishermen could not get out, and so on. These are practically annual offerings, but I (have endeavoured to enforce the law in regard to the seasons,

and while I may have made errors, I would like to have the support of the members of 'this House who are interested in the fishing industry and in its preservation, in the course I have followed. During the last three or four years-the last three years especially-there have been scarcely any extensions in the fishing seasons, and while at first, perhaps, many fishermen thought it was not fair to them, I believe their opinion now is that it is a wise policy that tends to the preservation of the fish, and in the end will contribute very much to the advantage of the fishermen by enabling them to reap large harvests.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Are there no regulations as to the size of the lobster that can be caught? There are such regulations in the state of Maine.


John Douglas Hazen: There are regulations in some districts. In, the Bay of Fundy district there is a regulation that no lobster can be taken that is under ten and a half inches. In that district there are no lobster factories. The lobsters which are caught are all sent fresh to the market-
* to a considerable extent, I believe, to the Boston market-and the fishermen are in favour of the regulation, because they believe it is in their interest, and there are no canning factories to interfere with it. But there are lobster districts so situated that the fishermen can not send their lobsters fresh to the markets in cities, or anywhere else, and to deprive them of the right of canning lobsters would be to take away, to a very Considerable extent, their source of livelihood and to interfere with what, for instance, in Prince Edward Island, forms a very important industry. Along the shore of Nova Scotia there are a great many canneries, extending from Halifax westward, where I hope in a few years the .fishermen will find it to their advantage to send their fish to the markets in a fresh condition. It will be better for them to do that than to sell their fish to the canneries, and the canneries will, I trust, in time disappear. In consequence of the conditions along that coast there is no size limit, but the season is a comparatively short one. There are different regulations for different districts, having regard to the conditions that exist. To come back to the question of the regulation of the fisheries, let me say that I am speaking in all candour. The whole discussion has been conducted in that mood, and I think that hon. members are desirous of helping this indusutry. It is not an easy thing for any minister to refuse these petitions. Pressure is brought, petitions come in, members of Parliament write to the minister, and that is what caused me once to say in the House that I almost wished that these seasons were a matter of statute, so that 9 p.m. the minister could not interfere, instead of being a matter oi regulation. Yet, I appreciate the fact that there might be in a particular year some very exceptional circumstances when it would be desirable that power should be vested in the Governor in Council to extend the season.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Will lthe -minister explain the anomaly that (I pointed out?


John Douglas Hazen: There is a district off Inverness in which the fishermen, as I understand the matter, fish for a longer season than they do in the district to which my hon. friend from Antigonish refers. If I remember correctly, the season in the district to which my hon. friend refers, and in the Northumberland straits, ends on the 26th June, and in the Inverness district it ends on the 15th July. I understand that in the latter district the prevailing winds are from the west and that keeps the ice in during the early part of the season to such an extent that the fishermen are not able to go out and set their traps. If the fishermen in Inverness were not given a longer season than the fishermen in the district to which my hon. friend refers they would not be able to catch any lobsters at all. The prevailing wind from the west blows the ice in on the Inverness shore to such an extent that the fishing is late and there would be no fishing at all if the season ended as early as in the district to which the hon. member for Antigonish refers. My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) referred to something of a similar character.
Mr. "SINCLAIR:	Will the minister tell
us from what source he got that informa-, tion about the difference in weather conditions along the Antigonish and Inverness coasts?


John Douglas Hazen: That information -was given to me by the officials of my department and it is also contained in the report of the Shell Fish Commission


William Chisholm: The conditions east of St. George's Bay are precisely the same as they are west of St. George's

Bay. There is only one hay with Cape St. George on the one side and Port Hood on the other. Why make the distinction?


John Douglas Hazen: You are airways going to have contiguous to the dividing line between districts some complaint of that sort but you have to make your dividing line somewhere. The people east of the line will think they do not have the same rights as the people west of the line and vice versa.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: When was the season limited to the 26th June?


John Douglas Hazen: I think it was in 1913. In regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Westmorland, the season there commences on the 25th May and ends on the 10th August but wihat my hon. friend says is that the fishermen get no advantage by reason of its commencing on the 25th May because of the ice conditions there. But my hon. friend will see that the season extends to the 10th August which is a longer season than in many other districts. In the district referred to by the hon. member for Northumberland the season ends on the 26th June. It ends on the 10th August in the district of Westmorland and I think it takes in a part of Cumberland county too. The Shell Fish Commission recommended doing away with that and making it the 'Sanaa as in Northumberland, the 26th June. I concluded, after carefully considering the .matter, that if that were done, the fishermen would get feiw if any fish at all, and as the fish are in good condition in that district up to the 10th August, I thought it would be a fair thing to continue the season and I declined to act upon the recommendation of the iShell Fish Commission. It is not an easy question to deal with, and the only thing we can do is to get the best information we can on the subject, and-then use our best judgment. I can assure my hon. friends that the suggestions which they have made, and all in good part, will receive every consideration by the department.


Onésiphore Turgeon: 
George William Kyte: I quite appreciate the difficulties of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in fixing the open season for lobster fishing in the Maritime Provinces. I do not suppose a more difficult subject comes before the department than this one. I do not mean to suggest that hon. gentlemen have not grievances with respect to the fishing situation in their respective constituencies, but I do know that it is extremely difficult to adjust the season to the satisfaction of all fishermen. To that extent I desire to give my support to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he asks for the co-operation of the members of this House.
I was very much interested in the minister's. statement of the efforts that were made at the Toronto Exhibition to place the prol

ducts of our fisheries before the people of Canada. The price charged at the lunch he spoke of was very reasonable, and if only the Minister of Railways would follow on the Intercolonial dining cars the example set by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries I am quite, sure there would be an increased consumption of fis'h all along that line of railway. The price charged at the Toronto Exhibition, according to the minister, was 25 cents each; number oi meals served, 25,000, making a total income of $6,250. There was a loss of $1,000, so that the. cost of supplying the fish to
25,000	people was $7,250.


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no. The 25 cents included the whole luncheon.


George William Kyte: Oh, I see. I may say that the Intercolonial charges 50 cents for a helping of fish in its dining oars; that is for the fish alone, not the whole luncheon. Fish in the county of Richmond and Guys-borough can 'be bought from the fishermen at 11 cents a pound, and the Department of Railways and Canals charges its patrons about $2 a pound for it. I do think the price charged on the Intercolonial for our own product is altogether unreasonable and extortionate. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is making an honest effort to increase the consumption of fish in all parts of Canada, but there is very grave complaint among, the patrons of the Intercolonial at the price they have to pay for the paltry helping of fish they get in the dining cars on that road. It is entirely out of proportion to the cost. This may be regarded as a small matter, particularly by hon. gentlemen who do not patronize the Intercolonial very frequently, but it is a very serious matter for the patrons of the road, who are not always in a position to pay a high price.
In respect to the increase in the cost of administering the Department of Fisheries at the present time as compared with the cost a few years ago, I have a specific instance having relation to the payment of salaries of fishery officers and inspectors and their gravel and outlay in the years 1912 and 1915. In the year 1912 Mr. A. C. Robertson, inspector of fisheries for western Nova Scotia, received a salary of $700, and his travelling allowance and outlay amounted to $975, making a total for the year of $1,675. For the year ended March 31, 1915, Mr. Ward Fisher, inspector of fisheries, who succeeded Mr. Robertson, received a salary
of $1,420.84, and for travelling allowance and outlay a sum of $3,424.69.


John Douglas Hazen: Let me correct my hon.
friend. That statement is absolutely incorrect in the Auditor General's Report; the mistake was made in the Auditor General's Office. If the hon. gentleman will look at yesterday's Hansard, he will see where the question was asked me if it was correct, and I stated it was not correct and I gave the correct figures. It is only fair to say that to my hon. friend so that he will not be misled by the figures an the Auditor General's Report.


George William Kyte: The amount paid to Mr. Ward Fisher for travel and outlay included, I believe, the salaries of all the fishery guardians.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


George William Kyte: And all the travel and outlay which pertained to the discharge of their duties in respect to fisheries. Therefore when I state that the travel and outlay of Mr. Ward Fisher amounted to $3,424.68, I do not wish to imply that that was the travel and outlay of Mr. Ward Fisher alone; that includes also the salaries of the fishery guardians and their travel and outlay as wrell, so that while it would probably be incorrect to state, as is stated in the Auditor General's Report, that this large amount of $3,424.68 is made up of Mr. Fisher's travel and outlay alone, nevertheless it is an actual expenditure in relation to the administration of that fishery district. In addition to that Mr. Ward Fisher was supplied with a stenographer who received a salary of $455. As I stated a moment ago, Mr. Robertson's salary was $700 and the travel and outlay for the fishery guardians in that district amounted to $975, making a total of $1,675, whereas, the amount expended in Mr. Ward Fisher's regime was $5,300.52. The total, expenditure for the province of Nova Scotia during the year ended March 31, 1912 was, for salaries of four inspectors $3,820; for travel and outlay, $2,068.24, or a total of $5,888.24; the total expenditure in that province for the yeaT ended March 31, 1915 was, for salaries and outlay, $14,121.22, or an increase of $8,232.98. I scarcely think that any justification can be found for such a large increase. In the piping times of peace and plenty that existed in this country up to the 31st March, 1912, the total amount paid for administration of this branch of

the service in Nova Scotia was only 85,888.24, whereas during the lean period which succeeded the advent to office of my hon. friend's opposite the expenditure increased to 814,121.22. Let us see how this increase is made up. Mr. Robertson's salary was 8700; Mr. Ward Fisher's salary is 81,420.84, an increase of 100 per cent. The amount paid for outlay during Mr. Robertson's time was $975; the amount paid for during the year ended March 31, 1912 was, Fisher was in office was $3,424.68, or an increase of nearly 400 per cent. In addition to the very handsome salary paid to Mr. Ward Fisher, he has the services of a stenographer at a salary of $455 a year. Is the fact that Mr. Ward Fisher was a,candidate of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia in the provincial elections of 1912 an explanation of the very large increase in salary he received when he was made Inspector of Fisheries? It is too bad that the Department of Fisheries should be regarded as a haven to provide safe rest and ease for political derelicts and castaways that are to be found throughout this country. The work that Mr. Ward Fisher has done, during the last year is not, I am sure, more effective nor important than the work done by Mr. Robertson during the year ended March 31, 1912. I do not quote these figures for the purpose of endeavouring to score a point against the minister on the ground of extravagance as much as to point out to him that at this period, above all others, there should be an honest effort made towards economy rather than towards increased expenditure. Every minister having estimates before this committee during the present session has expressed his willingness and determination to economize to the greatest possible degree in view of the large expenditure that this country has undertaken in connection with the war, but those professions in favour of economy on the part of Cabinet ministers -are no more than the expression of pious resolves on their part which are not given effect to.
With regard to the criticism made by my hon. friend from Guysborough that it was an unwise thing to attach the Fisheries Branch to the Department of the Naval Service, I desire to reiterate the criticism. The fisheries constitute a distinct and important industry in the Maritime Provinces and in western Canada. I think that industry is so important that it ought to he given a department designated by its own

name. The objections to that procedure stated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries do not appeal to me. One reason given is that there is a Fisheries Protection Service which would naturally fall under the control of the Naval Service. Be that as it may, let all the ships owned by this Government be placed under the control of the Naval Service; but, as I stated a moment ago, the fishing industry is sufficiently important to_have a separate and distinct department of its own. During the last few years the Department of the Naval Service has certainly not been overworked. Not a great deal has been accomplished in regard to that service, and if the sub-department of Marine were attached to the sub-department of Naval Service so as to constitute one branch of the department and the Fisheries service another branch of the department, it would be a more logical and reason- . able division of tire work that belongs to those departments than the division in force at the present time.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from Richmond referred to a statement in the Auditor General's Report. In order that no other hon. member may fall into error in consequence of that statement, and base an argument on it, I want to read the question and answer given in the House yesterday, as reported at page 2395 of Hansard:
Mr. Hartt:
1.	Referring to the following extracts from the Auditor General's Report for 1914-15, pages R-45 and R-46 : Inspector Morrison, travel and outlay, $4,023.14; Inspector Fisher, travel and outlay, $3,424.68 ; Inspector Hockin, travel and outlay, $2,527.87 ; and Inspector McLeod, travel and outlay, $2,857.93.
2.	Were these amounts actually paid for the purposes shown?
Mr. Hazen:	The amounts charged against
these inspectors in the Auditor General's Report do not represent the true amounts expended for them by travel and1 outlay. The Audit Office must have included other amounts not properly chargeable to expenses under this heading.
There is this further question and answer:
Mr. Hartt:
1. Referring to the following extracts from the Auditor General's Report for 1913, page O- 143, where the travel and outlay of Inspector of Fisheries D. Morrison, of Newcastle, N.B. are shown as $214.29, and at page O

144,' the travel and outlay of Inspector Ward Fisher, of Shelburne, N.S., are shown as $999.43 ; those of Inspector R. Hockin, of Pictou, N.S., as $599.33, and those of Inspector A. G. McLeod, of Whitney Pier, N.S., as $615.35; and at page R-45, of the Auditor General's Report for 1914-15, the travel and outlay of Inspector Morrison are shown as $4,023.14 and at page R-45, those of Inspector Fisher as $3,424.68 ; those of Inspec-

tor Hockin as $2,527.87, and those of Inspector McLeod as $2,857.93.
2. Why were these large increases necessary?	.
Mr. Hazen:	The amounts shown in the
Auditor General's Report for 1914-15 are incorrect, as the amounts actually expended by these officers in 1914-15 for travel and outlay are as follows : D. Morrison, $668.32 ; Ward Fisher, $1,236.43; R. Hockin, $609.42; A. G. McLeod, $567.47. The figures given in the Auditor's Report are greatly in excess of the above, and a serious mistake was evidently made in the Auditor General's office.
Apparently mistakes are made even in the office of the Auditor General.


George William Kyte: Is it not the fact that these accounts include the salaries of fishery guardians and their travel and outlay? I moved for papers in the Public Accounts Committee.
' Mr. HAZEN: The figures appear there, and anybody would conclude that Mr. Morrison's travel and outlay were $4,023.14, whereas it was $668.32. There are a lot of other expenses which have been added in by the Auditor General.


George William Kyte: Is there any other charge elsewhere in the report of the Auditor General for fishery guardians?


John Douglas Hazen: If not, there ought to be.


George William Kyte: The Auditor General simply included them in the expenses of the inspectors.


John Douglas Hazen: He made a mistake and a wrong impression has gone abroad from these figures. I have letters from different parts of the country, including some from the inspectors, asking me how these figures were made up. The mistake has been made in the office of the Auditor General where other charges have been added in besides those of these men.


George William Kyte: I so stated.


John Douglas Hazen: Any one reading that report would, conclude that these amounts had been paid out to these inspectors. I had a letter from one of them to-day. He said: I only got $600, and I am charged with over $4,000. It is a mistake that, to my mind, should not have occurred, but it did occur through some carelessness or oversight in the office of the Auditor General.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the salary paid to Inspector Robertson. He was paid the lowest salary of any inspector in Nova 'Scotia, though inspector for an important district. The fault was his own
-his own inefficiency. He was suspended on several occasions before I came into office, because he was not discharging his duty efficiently. Had he been efficient he would have been paid the same salary as the others-the several inspectors now receive $1,400, except Donald Morrison. The others are allowed clerks, as it was thought desirable that as these men are away from their offices a great deal of the time they -should have somebody to answer correspondence. Mr. Morrison, I understand, makes an arrangement with his daughter who does the same work for him as would be done by a clerk. Hon. gentlemen know that as time goes on there is more and more correspondence-there are more typewriters, more stenographers, abroad in the land, and if people's letters are not answered promptly by Government officials it causes vexation, and in some cases will cause a great deal of loss. The men appointed to these positions should give their whole time to the service, and for competent men who give their whole time the amount paid is not too large, having regard to the cost of living. In the second place, it is necessary that they should have clerical assistance, so that the affairs of office may be attended to. Unless an inspector is absent from his office a good deal he is not doing his work, because his business is to go about and see what is going on; the more he travels about the more efficient he is as an inspector. Mr. Robertson's salary was $700, which is a low salary, but this is not the fault of the department. It was really his own fault, because he was inefficient and did not attend to the duties of his office. As to Mr. Fisher, it is true he was a candidate for a seat in the Legislature of Nova Scotia. But that is not, to my mind, a discredit, and I do not think it should debar him from holding an office under the Crown. The officials to whom he is responsible find that he has proved an admirable official; he is capable, active, and intelligent, a most excellent inspector. The fact that he has been a candidate, as I say, should not debar him from holding office. If you go through the department in Ottawa you will find many officials who have been candidates for office and who were appointed by the previous Government. There is no reason why they should not be appointed, as there is no reason why Mr. Fisher should not be appointed because he has been a candidate for the local legislature before he entered upon the office which he now holds and in

which he has made good and has given every satisfaction to his superiors.


George William Kyte: I have no fault to find with
Mr. Ward Fisher, and I raise no objection because he was a candidate. But I do say that the fact that a man has been a candidate of the Conservative party does not entitle him to special treatment with regard to salary and expenses.


John Douglas Hazen: He is getting the same as the other inspectors.


George William Kyte: I desire to reiterate what 1 said. I did not say that Mr. Ward Fisher's personal travel and outlay was $3,424.68. I stated that that included the salaries of the fisheries guardians in his district with their travel and outlay as well. There is no difference of opinion as to what we are talking about. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries would desire to convey the impression that the figures given by him include all the expenses in connection with these districts. But I give the information as I have it from the Department of the Auditor General. I was astonished to learn that there was a charge of $3,424.68 for travel and outlay by Mr. Ward Fisher, and moved for the papers in the Public Accounts Committee. I found that this charge was made up, not only of his own travel and other outlay, but, as I said, of the salaries of guardians and their outlay as well. So the statement I made at the beginning is absolutely true, that whereas the total amount paid in 1912 to the inspector of fisheries and for all the salaries of the guardians and their outlay as well was only $1,675, the amount paid in Ward Fisher's district for his salary and the payment of salaries of his guardians amounted to $5,300. The same thing is true with regard to the other figures I gave, so that the Minister of Marine can not minimize the _ force of my criticism by stating that the Auditor General improperly charged up to the inspectors all this outlay, which was made actually by guardians. That makes a total amount, which, in both cases, includes the salaries of inspectors, their personal outlay and salaries, of guardians in Nova Scotia for the year ending March 31, 1912, of $5,888.24, and for the year ending March 31, 1915, of $14,121.22. I took up this matter when the papers were brought down, and I found that there was no error in the report of the Auditor General, except that he did not specify that part of this item for travelling allowances of in-
speotors should be travelling allowance for guardians. But the result is. the same, and it totals as I said.


Angus Alexander McLean: The minister said he would be glad to receive suggestions from members with reference to seasons in which lobsters could be fished in the Maritime Provinces. In the straits of Northumberland the season now ends on the 26th of June. Previous to coming to this House I was asked by a great number of fishermen to see the minister and to endeavour to get an extension of that season until about the 5th of July. Last yeaT, owing to ice conditions, the fishing did not commence until between the 10th and the 15th of June, and the consequence was that a great many fishermen were able to get but very few fish.


John Douglas Hazen: I wonder if in the last ten days they did not do as well as they would in a whole season in an ordinary year.


Angus Alexander McLean: On the north and western portions they had good catches, but in the eastern end of the straits of Northumberland the catch was very poor. I do not know why the season was cut down to the 26th of June. I do not see any valid reason why it should be. The fish are just as good on the 5th of July as on the 26th of June. It is not because they are not as good, but for some other reason which the fishermen do not understand, and the opinion of all the fishermen in those sections of Northumberland strait is that the season should be so arranged that they should have a greater length of time to engage in fishing. In the western parts of the straits they have a better chance than on the eastern parts. When the east wind prevails the ice conditions are very very bad. The ice is caught on the north side of the island and is jammed into the Northumberland straits, and the consequence is that the fishermen have very little chance to fish. They cannot put out their traps while the ice is there. I believe the same condition prevails along the shores of the county of Antigonish. It did last year. I think the minister should take this into consideration. I know that the Shell Fish Commission made certain suggestions, but I do not think they were practical; at least the majority of them were rejected by the Government. I think the consensus of opinion among the fishermen is that the season should be extended in the eastern end of Northumberland straits until the 5th day of July.


William Stewart Loggie: I want to draw attention to what I think is a discrepancy. In the district referred to as starting on the 24th of May and ending on the 21st of August, they have 2 months and 17 days to fish, whereas in the other district that I made complaint about, beginning on the 25th of April they would have only 2 months and 1 day, if they fished every day. At S'hippigan island and around Biscoe point it is the rule that the factories do not get started until about the 15th of May, so they have a fishing season of only about 40 days, and the overhead charges of getting ready and waiting all of tliat time, if the ice conditions were adverse, renders the business unprofitable. So I think there is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman from Prince Edward Island has said. If you like, make the season four or five days later, but at any rate it should end about the 5th or the 1st of July, certainly not before the 1st of July. It might be better to have it end on the 10th of July as it used to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: OCajpe Breton North) I am pleased that the' discussion this evening has been of a somewhat practical character and not contentious. It is only about once a year that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have an opportunity of talking to the minister about these matters, and it is not to be wondered at that we have something to say on the very important subject of fisheries, particularly those of us who come from fishing districts. I suppose the minister looks upon this ordeal of coming here with his Estimates as something to be dreaded.


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no; it is very pleasant.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Douglas Hazen: Is there no person down there in commercial life who will put up
a freezer and get the assistance authorized by the Government?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That has been a failure in the past there.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows of the assistance the Government gives?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quite familiar
with it but it has been a failure, although that is no fault of the department. I am not blaming the Government for it, but I think the department has neglected their end of it. The freezers have fallen into the hands of private parties who are using them, without exception, in connection with their.own business and the fishermen have no further interest in them. What is absolutely necessary is that the whole thing should be under the control of some officers of the Government. The building should be erected by the Government, the fish caught by the Government, put in there and sold out as required-sold, of -course, as cheaply as possible, but the chief thing is always to have a supply on hand. It never will be a success unless the Government takes hold of it, establishes it properly, doing it at the least possible expense and in such a manner that there will be a constant supply of bait. There are tons and tons of this fish in the spring of the year. Catching it and putting it in would be very inexpensive, and all that would be necessary would be to look after the bait and give it out to the fishermen when required.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister spoke of fall fishing. I thought the natural inference from his remarks was that fall fishing was not allowed, but I suppose the minister would be very much surprised if I said that it was allowed. It has been allowed on certain coasts of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick contrary, I am sure, to the minister's wish. But, as a matter of fact, the law has been disregarded. In certain sections of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island fall fishing does go on illegitimately. Of course, it would hardly become me to be more personal than I have been.
If it were not for the fact , that
10 p.m. I do not believe the lobster industry can stand fall fishing, I would strongly recommend that fall fishing be allowed because it is absolutely unfair that the Government should allow the law to be broken when those who endeavour to protect the fishery and who obey the law close up their factories and go home. Other people along the coast, contrary to law, go



on with their business and it is very important, in the interest of the industry, that this illegal fishing be stopped. If the industry could stand it and all were allowed to fish for a month in the fall, it would be another question altogether. It seems to ipe that it is incumbent upon the department to see that illegitimate fall fishing is stopped. While I am on my feet, I want to say to the minister that the breakwater at point Sapin, Kent county, is sanded up so much that it is almost impossible to get lobster boats into harbour there. I am sure that thd local Public WTorks engineer has made a note of it and sent it to the department. Perhaps, in the interest of the fisheries, the minister will suggest to the Minister of Public Works that this work be done as early in the season as possible.


John Douglas Hazen: I will be glad to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) to what my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) says as to the necessity of some repairs to the breakwater at point Sapin. I understand my hon. friend is opposed to the fall fishing of lobsters?


William Stewart Loggie: I am opposed to fall fishing against the law.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend does not think it desirable that it should be permitted? In that respect he differs from the view entertained by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). I understand my hon. friend to say that there is illegal fishing going on in the fall. I am told by the officers of the department that they do not think there was any illegal fishing in New Brunswick last fall. If my hon. friend would tell me in confidence of any cases he knows of in which there has been illegal fishing, I will take very prompt steps to put a stop to it. We are dependent upon the zeal and energy of our officers to stop anything of that sort. The impression among the officers in my department who have to do with this matter is that' there is nothing like the amount of illegal fishing going on that there was in former years, and they believe that in New Brunswick last fall there was practically none at all. There may have been a few isolated cases. If my hon. friend could give me, for my own personal information, without making the matter public at all, any information on the subject, I would be very glad to have it. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) referred to the bait question. Of course, there is a provision now under which, if any one will, under certain condi-

tions, embark upon the erection of a bait freezer or warehouse, the Government will give him assistance to an amount not exceeding $2,000, and pay him a bounty of $5 per ton on the amount of bait purchased up to a certain quantity.
Apparently, from what my hon. friend says, that has not been sufficient to meet the case in the district he refers to. This is the first time I have heard the suggestion that the Government should [DOT] build these freezers and stock bait, and sell it to the fishermen from time to time. I believe it was in 1909 that this policy of assisting the fishermen was inaugurated, and it was thought it would be sufficient to meet the case. I believe advantage has been taken of the system to some extent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a good knowledge of the freezers, and I can say that the policy has been a failure.


John Douglas Hazen: There would be some difficulty in the way of the Government building these freezers and stocking them with bait. They would have to keep men there all the time to sell the bait to the fishermen. The difficulties are not insurmountable, of .course, and the suggestion of my hon. friend will be considered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You could get a local man to do the work very cheaply, without giving up his regular work.	[DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: It was hoped at one time that the fishermen would co-operate.


Charles Marcil: What is the season for lobster fishing on the north shore of Baie des Chaleurs. Has the season been changed lately?


John Douglas Hazen: There has been no change for some years. The season opens on the 26th of April, and ends towards the last of June.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister realize that the geographical situation along that shore is very different from the situation in Nova Scotia? Between Carleton Point and Miguasha Point there used to be a good lobster fishing ground, hut it has been practically closed down for the last few years. I have been in the habit of going to that district for the last fifteen years, and know it very well. An ice bridge forms every year between Carleton and Miguasha Points and the mainland; and on account of that, and the very short season, no fishing is done there now. Bernard Leclerc, who has been in the fishing industry for the last thirty years, had to

close down a year or two ago, owing to the peculiar conditions. He was never able to	in earlier than the very last
day of May, and sometimes the beginning of June, and the season closed at the end of June. He has repeatedly told me that fishing would be profitable at that point in September, but owing to the regulations of the department and the lateness of the season, they can get only about a month's fishing in the year. Conditions are not quite so bad as you go down the coast of Gaspe and Bonaventure, but I think a longer season should be allowed there.


John Douglas Hazen: I know there are difficulties at Carleton Point; the ice remains there pretty late in the season. Of course, it is difficult to fix the season to suit all parties.


Charles Marcil: I should have mentioned that the current of the Restigouche river passes along the New Brunswick shore at that point, and the channel is clear of ice at a very early period in the season; but on the north shore of the Baie des phaleurs conditions are as I have described. I should like to inquire whether the results , of the Port Daniel hatchery were satisfactory. Last year a heavy storm swept away part of the apparatus, and part of the wharf.


John Douglas Hazen: The results "were fairly satisfactory, though not as satisfactory. as we could wish. I will later give my hon. friend full information on this.


Charles Marcil: Has the lobster hatchery on the Gaspe and Bonaventure coasts been satisfactory? I understand not.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think it is in a very good position. It has not been as satisfactory as other hatcheries.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I desire to emphasize the observations made by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) with reference to bait. The late Government gave substantial aid. to bait warehouses in my county. I must say, however, that what has been done there has been rather discouraging. I do not know of any place in the county where bait is kept for any length of time in the year. In that respect the county of Inverness is circumstanced somewhat similarly to the county of Victoria. We have about 100 miles of cbast, and a large number of people dependent upon fishing; but, unfortunately, at certain seasons of the year they have great difficulty in getting bait to carry
150J
on their calling. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton has suggested the only practical solution of the bait problem in certain sections of the Maritime Provinces, and I have particularly in view Inverness county. We have a great many difficulties there. If the Minister of Public Works were in his seat I would call his attention to certain matters, but I will wait until his Estimates come up. Eight or ten years ago a number of artificial harbours were started there, but in the last three or four years no work has been done on them. Our fishermen are deprived of anchorage, and large numbers of them have abandoned fishing. I will have more to say on this point when the Minister of Public Works brings down his Estimates. But just now I particularly wish to endorse the suggestion of the hon. member for North Cape Breton with respect to bait. I know of no other solution of the question. Several places were opened up in the county of Inverness-four or five at least, I think- but they are all closed down. It is true that the fishermen showed very little interest. The policy was a good one, but the fishermen did not feel disposed to carry it out. At first they took a great deal of interest in these places, but they soon abandoned them entirely. Most of them are now closed down, or in the hands of private parties; so I do not hope for very much from that policy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Early in the session the minister, replying to a 'question I put on the Order Paper with regard to the lobster season on the eastern side of the straits of Northumberland, said that ,the season had been fixed as a result of the report ol the committee who had considered the question. The situation is this: last year, owing to the prevalence of ice in the	gulf,	the	fishing season did
not begin until the 10th of May. The lobster traps were not put out until that date and the period being until the 26th of June, the fishing season continued for a period of only six weeks. The result was that there was a great deal of trouble amongst the lobster people, and some of them have gone out of business and sold their factories and others are considering doing the same thing if the season is to be limited to such a short period. The minister can readily see that, as he has fixed a beginning of the season and has also shortened it at the other end, in a season where the ice is very bad off the coast, the period

during which the, fishermen can do business is reduced to a minimum and, in consequence, people hesitate to expend money in engaging fishermen and laying in supplies on account of the risk of coming out losers on account of the restricted period during which they can fish. This year we have had a very severe winter. We are on the verge of the 1st of April, and great difficulty is being experience,by the winter boats in crossing-although the ferry to Prince Edward Island has done pretty well -and there is a tremendous quantity of ice off the coast. During the last week I have received letters pointing out that, if the season should be late in opening and the period of fishing should again be limited this year, the matter will be very serious. I am at a loss to understand why there should be such a marked difference in the season between the point at Malagash running east and the same point running west. It is quite right to restrict the fishing within a limited period; but, where you have conditions such as I have indicated, where you have a large number of men who are dependent for their income upon the fishing during that period, where you have capital invested, where you have people who go out in the winter time and prepare the supplies necessary for the fishermen, if the period on account of ice conditions is restricted to five or six weeks, the minister will see that it is restricted too- much. A number of really high class men are engaged in the business and they are anxious to see the industry preserved, but they feel that, if they are compelled to restrict their fishing operations within such a very short period their remaining in business will be interfered with. I see by the local papers that two men, whom I know very well, have sold out their factories; they are probably among the very best men in the business, and I see that one man who is a speculator has come into the business. In view of the conditions which resulted last year, I would ask the minister whether he would not consider this year, in the event of the season being late in opening-and it is very easy to find out when the people in that district run their lines-extending the season in order to avoid a loss to them. I understand the price of lobster is very high this year, and I do not think we ought to interfere with the opportunity these people have of making a livelihood. At the present time in Canada the production of all kinds of food, fish from the sea, wheat from the land, is of very great importance.
[Mr. Macdonald-1


Charles Marcil: Increased production.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. I think the request is very reasonable, in view of the experience of last year. I know the complaint is not a captious one, but is based upon serious conditions that warrant a remedy, and I would ask the minister to endeavour to remedy the conditions last year.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think the minister should have a cast-iron rule about the open season for fishing lobsters. I quite appreciate the position taken by my hon. friend from Pictou, because I know the condition of the fishing on his coast last year and on the coast of Antigonish County. I recollect being approached by a number of people who pointed out to me that the season had been so late that it was impossible to make ends meet and carry on their business unless some extension was given. I did not depend upon hearsay or on my own judgment in regard to these matters; the message 1 sent to the minister asked him to consult his officers. There is a staff of fishery officers along the coast who know the dates on which the fishermen set their traps, so that they have all the information and know the condition of the ice and the time that the season will last. They are the men who, if they are any good, ought to be able to answer that question. 1 do not know whether the minister is responsible for this or not, but there is a pretty general feeling that no request of this kind is listened to; that such requests are simply pushed aside and the cast-iron rule is that the department will not listen to any one. The department should listen to representations of this character and 'should be able to judge whether any concession should be made or not.
I think that illegal lobster fishing still goes on to a certain extent. Many people had hoped, when the minister employed patrol boats-and I [DOT] understand he has a number of them along the coast which are able to go rapidly from one point to another and which, I suppose, are costing us a great deal of money-that they would put an .end to illegal lobster fishing. In the town in which I live, lobsters are exposed in the windows for sale out of season; there is a trade going on in lobsters around that locality and no one seems to take any notice of it. If the minister will visit my town during the winter when the close season is on, I think I can show him places where he can purchase lobsters. I do not know to what extent this state of affairs exists

around the country, but I think it is pretty general, and I am afraid that the patrol boats and the staff which the minister has looking after the prevention of illegal fishing are not doing the work they should be doing.
I would also like to ask the minister if he would let us know the work that is being done by the Advisory Board. What use are they? What work have they done? On what questions have they given the department advice? Who are they and what do they cost us?


John Douglas Hazen: First of all, with reference to the matter referred to by my hon. friend from Pictou and by my friend from Guys-borough, I will, of course, give consideration to recommendations made to me by those hon. gentlemen or by any others in respect to matters of public interest. The representation was made in good faith and should receive the very best consideration that the officials of my department and I myself are able to give it. I think it would be too soon to say to my hon. friends that the season will be extended. The matter will be watched. We will see what success the fishermen have, and if it is in the public interest that it .should be extended, I shall be glad to extend it. I may say that I am very loath to extend these fishing seasons, for reasons which I have given to the House, when I think the hon. gentleman was not then in his seat. The regulations have been framed for the purpose of protecting the interests of the fishermen perhaps more than any other class. If, after these close seasons have been defined with serious thought and on the fullest consideration of the facts, a change is made, unless that change is made for very strong reasons, the regulation simply becomes a farce.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But the minister
must take into consideration that the ice comes in.


John Douglas Hazen: The question arises in a
number of places that the winds hold the ice in near the shore so late in the season that it gives little fishing to the men. That is a reason that is to be considered, and when these petitions are in they will be considered very carefully. My hon. friend from Guysborough referred to petitions received last year, and I may tell him that we give full consideration to these petitions before dealing with the matters they refer to. We obtain reports from our fishery
officers, and consider them carefully; we do not come to a decision simply because of a cast-iron rule on the subject, but give full consideration to what is in the best interest of the fisheries and of the public.
My hon. friend has referred to some illegal fishing. I would say to all members of the House who are interested in the protection of the fisheries that any information they may give on the subject of illegal fishing will be regarded by me as absolutely confidential; for if the illegal fishing is going on and our officers are not alive to it, I should like to know of it that a remedy may be applied. The patrol boat system was introduced before I came into office. The man in the patrol boat ought to be in the best position to enforce the law against the illegal catching of lobsters. Of course, we may be mistaken, but the opinion we have formed in the department is that the patrol boat policy has been successful to a great extent. And while we do not say that, there is no illegal fishing-no doubt there will be illegal fishing as long as human nature is what it is-yet the belief in the department is that this patrol boat system, has greatly decreased the illegal fishing of lobsters, and that it is a very effective system.
Another point referred to by my hon. friend is his suggestion that lobsters were caught illegally, because he had seen them on sale in the town in which he lives during the close season, which would not be conclusive evidence of an infraction of the law.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They probably come from the south shore.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, where the season
opens earlier. It is not against the law to send lobsters into a community where a close season for lobsters prevails. It may be that the lobsters the hon. gentleman saw were legally caught in a district in which the close season was different from that established in the district in which he lives.
The hon. gentleman has asked me to say a few words about the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board consists of the following:
For Nova Scotia, Messrs. W. 0. Smith, Lunenburg; H. B. Short, Digby; A. King, Halifax; G. A. Hemon, Shelburne.
For New Brunswick: Messrs. P. P. Russell, St. Andrews; F. T. B. Young, Cara-quet; A. B. Carson, Richibucto.
For Prince Edward Island: Mr. P. H. B. Longworth, Charlottetown.

For Quebec:	Mr. Azade Arsenault,
Grindstone, Magdalen Islands.
Mr. MARCH,: The mainland of Quebec is not represented. And there is no communication between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands. They are in the constituency of Gaspe, for Federal purposes; but Mr. Arsenault knows nothing of the conditions on the mainland.


John Douglas Hazen: It may be that there should be another member for that district, but I have given the membership of the board as at present constituted.


John Howard Sinclair: What were the expenses last year?


John Douglas Hazen: That question was answered. For the year 1915-16, the current year, the expenses have been $708.85. For 191415, the expenses for all branches of the board, including the Atlantic, the Central and the Pacific Committees, amounted to $3,676.


John Howard Sinclair: Are the members paid?


John Douglas Hazen: They are paid $10 a day
when they attend meetings, and there are about two meetings a year.


Charles Marcil: Do they meet every year?


John Douglas Hazen: Every year, and perhaps
twice a year. Their last meeting was in Charlottetown, the next, I understand, is to be held in Halifax.


Charles Marcil: Have they to do with fixing the fishing season?


John Douglas Hazen: They discuss all matters
of that kind with the Department. Their duties are advisory; they have no administrative functions.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the hon. gentleman give a case in which the advice which they gave has been adopted?


John Douglas Hazen: They have given considerable advice that has been adopted. They discuss matters with the fishery officers of the department, and these officers regard their advice as of great assistance, as they come from fishing communities and are in touch with the fishing business in the districts in which they reside. They enable the officers of the department to keep in direct and almost continuous contact with what is going on in the different branches of the fishing industry throughout the country, and their having such knowledge secures better administration. The amounts paid

to the members of the advisory board last year were:
Mr. Azade Arsenault, $132; Mr. W. G. Casey -I understand that he is the secretary- $225; Mr. G. A. Hemon, $50; Mr. A. King, $65; Mr. P. H. B. Longworth/ $40; Dr. E. E. Prince, who is a member of the board, $28.75-that is for travelling expenses; he would not be paid any fees-Mr. II. B. Short, $107; and Mr. W. C. Smith, $50. The total expenses for the year so far are $708.85. Of course, the amounts paid differ, because some members attend all the meetings and others do not. But the members get their travelling expenses and a per diem allowance of $10.


John Howard Sinclair: When did they meet last?


John Douglas Hazen: In November.


John Howard Sinclair: How often did they meet last year?


John Douglas Hazen: The Atlantic division met once, the Pacific division twice.


Charles Marcil: Would it not be wise for them to meet in the spring rather than in the fall? A cast-iron rule, as referred to by the hon. member for Guysborough, is not always right, as the seasons vary so much. The Minister of Railways, at a time when we had spring weather in Ottawa, announced that the whole Metapedia valley was tied up with the worst storm of the year. The indications are that we are to have a very late spring on the Gaspe coast. If this Advisory Board sat in February or March, they could advise the department, and it would be a more valuable service to the fishermen, rather than to wait until the fall' when the operations are over.


John Douglas Hazen: They are supposed to meet in April and November, but there are variations. These gentlemen give their time without remuneration, and their wishes and business engagements must be considered. They meet twice in the year, in the spring and fall.


William Chisholm: Has the
minister any particular policy in respect to the location of the members of the board?


John Douglas Hazen: There is no particular
policy except this: It was thought that, having regard to the importance of the fisheries, it would be well to have 4 members from Nova Scotia, 3 from New Brunswick,
1 from Prince Edward Island and 1 from the Baie des Chaleurs district; but there is nothing to say what part of the country

they shall come from. It is very desirable, of course, to have men representing different .phases of the industry. The gentleman from Halifax, Mir. King, was .appointed on the recomendation of the Board of Trade of Halifax. Mr. Smith is from Lunenburg. Mr. Short is a fish dealer at Digby. In New Brunswick, Mr. Young is from Caraquet shore, where there are a great many fishermen, and his life has been spent among them there. Mr. Russell is familiar with the fisheries in Passamaquoddy bay and part of the bay of Fundy, while Mr. Carson has a knowledge of fisheries along the Northumberland straits, the counties of Kent and Northumberland. Mr. Longworth, of Prince Edward Island, is an authority on the fisheries of the island. But if a vacancy occurred in New Brunswick, there is no policy as to what part of the province the successor should come from. If Mr. Carson hapened to drop out, there is no reason for his successor being appointed from Kent. We would try to get a man who understood the business well.


William Chisholm: A very
large section, the eastern portion of the province of Nova Scotia, is not represented on this board. The island of Cape Breton is entirely surorunded by fishing coast, yet it has not one representative on the board. Two years ago I called the attention of the minister to this matter, and I think I got a promise from him that he would see to it that one at least would come from that portion of Nova Scotia. I am sorry to know that he has not carried out that promise.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think I gave a
promise.
Mfr. WILLIAM! CHISHOLM:	But it is
a very very glaring condition of things. If the Board is of importance-and I think it is and can be of great service-it must be very striking to the minister that he should have abandoned the four counties of Cape Breton island where the largest proportion of fishermen of the province are to be found. It must (be clear to the minister that there is some method in this. The fisheries of Cape Breton island are important. The lobster fisheries are important, and the minister would be much aided by having a man from that portion of the country for the simple Teason that in certain years the season is late; the ice may remain on the bays for a month longer in one year than in the preceding year, and there are delicate questions for decision. A representative of the Board from
that portion of Nova Scotia would .aid the minister in carrying out his regulations and making the rules less stringent. The hon. member for Guysborough has characterized the rule as very stringent. I recognize that the Board will be of great aid (but it will be only if members are located in a practical way and they take an interest in their work. I venture the statement that no one of this Board knows the first thing about the fisheries of Cape Breton island, .and how -should they? The bon. minister tells us that one gentleman knows the deep sea fisheries and another is acquainted with the fisheries in general.


John Douglas Hazen: My information is that Mr. King of Halifax is largely interested in fisheries in Cape Breton.


William Chisholm: I know the fisheries in Cape Breton but I never knew of Mr. King as a practical fisherman. I knew there was such a gentleman in Halifax, but I didn't know that he had any interest in the fisheries of Cape Breton. I am quite positive that neither be nor any other man on the Board ever put a foot on the coast of Antigonish with the knowledge of the fishermen. I assume the object of this Board is to aid the fishermen in every way possible, and that the members of such a Board, should be acquainted with the fishermen who would thus be enabled to communicate suggestions to them which the Board would bring to the attention of the Government. As it is now, in Cape Breton we have no connection with the Board, we know nothing about it at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was a very
important slogan in our province at one time, "Justice to Cape Breton," and I want to bespeak that from my hon. friend now.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister says that he thinks illegal lobster fishing has decreased very much recently. I do not know that I will altogether say he is wrong in that, but I do say that it has increased since the new regulation regarding increase in license has been in force. Of course the minister is not responsible for that; I think the late Government put that regulation into force, and then illegal fishing started. It has perhaps not been so bad recently as it was two or three years ago. The attention of the department was drawn to a case some two years ago, when the lobsters were found in the packer's cellar, but that was the end of

it. I suppose the minister could not go any further.


John Douglas Hazen: If they had the stamps
on-


William Stewart Loggie: They had the stamps on, as I understand, but that does not necessarily mean that they were not packed illegally.


John Douglas Hazen: Our officers now put the
*stamps on.


William Stewart Loggie: I did not say that the
officers put the stamps on.


John Douglas Hazen: I say that now the officers put the stamps on.


William Stewart Loggie: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The objection I haye to the point made by my hon. friend is this: we have had some experience of that kind, and what happens is that the fish merchant will only sell bait to men who bring their fish to him, and in that way he creates a monopoly. There may be another merchant in the place who has no freezer, and if they sell their fish to that man, they will not get bait at all. The merchant says to the fisherman: "I will give you so much, and if you do not bring your fish to me you will get no bait." That is what happens in some districts that I know. If the Government owned a freezer, they would sell their fish wherever they' could get the best price.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I notice in the Auditor 'General's Report on page R-46 the salaries of different fishery inspectors. There are Inspectors Calder, Chapman, Harrison, Morrison and Robinson. Is Mr. Chapman still engaged by the department?


John Douglas Hazen: His services are available for consultation, but he is practically superannuated.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I presumed that he had been superannuated. I would have no fault to find with that, as he is an old and competent official.


John Douglas Hazen: He is a very old man.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But he is well preserved and has done excellent service for the department. I have no criticism to offer in that regard, but in regard to the man appointed in his place, Mr. Morrison, of Newcastle, I should like to point out that while Mr. Chapman's salary was $1,300 per year, with a travelling allowance of $441, making a.

total of $1,741, according to the Auditor General's report for 1915, Mr. Morrison's expenses amounted to $4,023.14.


John Douglas Hazen: It includes the expenses of some other people.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) referred to the fact that Mr. Ward Fisher had at one time been a candidate for the local legislature in the province of Nova Scotia, and asked the minister whether or not his appointment was given in return for the services which he had rendered to his party. I have no fault to find, with the present fishery inspector, Mr. Morrison. It was, I suppose, a case of making some return for the sacrifice he had made in the county of Northumberland. I have no fault to find with the appointment, but I do think that the increase in salary was rather unnecessary, because Mr. Chapman was a very competent officer. I am sure the minister will agree with me in that. No man could have been more competent than Mr. Chapman; the officers of the department will 'bear me out in that statement. I also noticed the name of Mr. Harrison, of Fredericton. He gets exactly the same amount as Mr. Chapman, and I suppose in the same position. I turn to the Auditor General's Report of 1915, and 'I find that the amount expended for the protection of the fisheries throughout the province of Ntew Brunswick up to the end of the fiscal year 1915 amounted to $59,709.06. I turn to the report for the fiscal year 1912, and I find that for the same service in the province of New Brunswick the total amount was $42,708.01, or an advance in three years of $117,151.65, or over forty per cent.' I notice that the number of officers, is about the same. Increases of salary and expenses, I suppose, go to make up the difference, but it does seem to me that it is a pretty large increase in three years for the same service, in the same territory. As I have said, I have no fault to find with the officials who are engaged; I simply draw the minister's attention to the fact that the	increase in
the expenditure has been very marked, indeed, in that section of the province. I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that fishermen, particularly lobster fishermen, this coming season, are going to be put in a very difficult position by reason of the very great increase in the
price of gasolene and rope. As my hon. friend knows, all the lobster fishermen down in that locality, and, I suppose in every locality now, use gasolene boats for setting and tending their traps. I am informed that gasolene was sold to the fishermen last year at 194 cents per gallon by the barrel and that this year it will be something like 33 or 34 cents per gallon.


John Douglas Hazen: More than that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It will be before they commence fishing, but I believe it is being sold now for 33 or 34 cents per gallon by the cask. Rope, I understand, was selling for something like 13 cents a pound and it is now selling for 19 cents. These are two commodities of the very greatest importance to fishermen in preparing and setting their nets and traps .and in using their boats. Unless something is done to assist the fishermen in this regard, it will be almost impossible to get men who will be able to go out and carry on the lobster industry during the coming season. It may be impossible for the department to give any assistance, I do not know if anything can be done along that line, but if anything can be done, it would be very much appreciated by the fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has. spoken about the price of gasolene. There is no doubt that it is going to be very much higher in price and it is going to be a serious matter for fishermen who use gasolene in thefr boats not only in connection with the lobster fishery but every other fishery as well. But, the prospects are that the price of lobsters will be very much advanced and that will assist the fishermen in meeting this increased expense. There is no duty on gasolene coming into this country.


William Stewart Loggie: There is a duty of 74 per cent.


John Douglas Hazen: That is the only duty on gasolene but that is only a small part of the price. I do not know what can be done in the matter nor do I know what suggestion my hon. friend has to offer. A certain addition to the price of gasolene has been caused by the war, but I fancy that the tremendously increased number of motors, vehicles, and boats, all over this country is having its effect. I saw some figures the other day of the increase in the number of automobiles in Canada and the. United States and they were

simply astonishing. This creates a very much greater demand for gasolene. I presume that before long, when they get an engine that is adapted to it, kerosene will be used for motive power. The present prospects are that the lobster fishermen will receive a very much higher price for their catch during the coming year and this increased price may put them in as good a position as they were in before, even if they have to pay more for their gasoline than they did last year. Before the season is over the price of gasolene will probably be double' what it was last year.


George Perry Graham: Henry Ford is experimenting on something to take the place of gasolene.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to draw the
minister's attention to a matter that I have discussed with him on two other occasions in the last three or four years. The reason I am doing so at this late hour is that I have to go away to-morrow and I may not have another opportunity. I refer to the condition of affairs on the St. John river and its tributaries. Without referring to Hansard, I think it was in the session of 1913 that I called his attention to the fact that the regulation, and the law, regarding salmon fishing on the St. John were being violated, not only violated by the people but by his guardians. I went so far as to give him the name of one of his guardians in my own constituency who was well known to be a violator of the law. My hon. friend promised me that he would investigate this matter and see that this man was removed from office unless there was a change. He will remember that either on that occasion, or a few days afterwards-I think it was a few days afterwards-we had a private conversation in the presence of a couple of his. fishery officers in which the statement made was substantiated. That man is still the fishery guardian there, or was last year and the year before.
Under the regulations on the St. John river, from the head of tide water, some distance above Fredericton, I think at Andover bridge, the people are allowed to fish for salmon during two consecutive weeks, followed by a close season of two weeks, with nets of a certain sized mesh and of certain dimensions. It is believed-in fact I make the statement-that nets of different sizes, not at all complying with the regulations, are being used and the result is that the fish that ought to go up the Tobique river

for spawning purposes are becoming so scarce that it has become a very grave question whether the salmon will be entirely depleted. It is a fact that the
11 p.m. Tobique river is the only spawning ground for-the whole of the St. John Waters. I made a trip through part of the Tobique river country last summer and also the summer before, and I made it my business to inquire of the people along that river as to what they thought about it. It may surprise the minister when I tell him that I was informed that about 500 people are relying on the fishing industry, or the industry that comes there as a result of the fishery, for their living. These are men who are engaged as guides or in looking after tourists and people of that class. They tell me that the fish on the Tobique river are becoming depleted to such an extent that men are ceasing to go there. They believe it is all because the fish are being swept out of the river. It is almost impossible for a salmon to get past the hundreds (of nets which they have to face from the head of tide water up to Andover bridge. I do not want to make charges against any person, because I have given my hon. friend the name of one of the guardians. I told him that there	was another one
about which I	thought I could
make the same statement, but with-. out having positive proof I did not feel like mentioning his name, although I gave it to the minister privately. But I did not have the same proof in that case as I had in the case of the man whose name I mentioned. There is nothing I know of in that portion of the county of Victoria that is of greater importance than this. It does not play so much of a part in my own constituency. That is a constituency in which they allow netting to take place. Of course, there are a great many people who would like to go out, set a net and catch a salmon. But that is only an incident. Our people are farmers although they like to get a salmon now and then. Unless something is done to /lessen the evil, I see nothing for it but to ask the department to entirely cancel the regulations. I know that would be very distasteful to many people.


John Douglas Hazen: The regulation allowing
two weeks of fishing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I think it would be far better to cancel the regulations entirely than allow them to be violated with the result that the source of the supply of fish is going to be entirely depleted.


John Howard Sinclair: What would be the good of that if the officer was no good?
' Mr. CARVHLL:	The difficulty is this:
where the regulations .permit fishing for two weeks at a time the people get their nets ready and go on fishing for four weeks. That is what it amounts to. The officers of the department are not doing their duty. I do not want to mention names, but I could tell the minister of men in my constituency who are drawing their pay, but who spend hardly ten hours out of the week on the Tiver; they are following their ordinary vocations, and do not possess a boat; I doubt whether some of them know how to stand up in a boat. The whole thing is one great farce, and it is becoming a real detriment to the district at large, because the American sportsmen who come there to fish and hunt are practically the whole livelihood of very many people. I was told last summer, on a trip up the Tobique river, that at least 500 people make their living catering to these American sportsmen. I do not need to elaborate on this, for the minister knows the district as well as I do. He knows the St. John river well enough to know that practically every stream from the mouth up to the Tobique river is dammed, and that the Tobique river is practically the only one in which the salmon are spawning.


John Douglas Hazen: Unless they are spawning in the main river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They may be, but I
doubt it. In.a season such as 1912 it did not make very much difference, as the river was full of water and the fish could get around, the nets; but in a season like 1914, when the river was very low, it was almost a physical impossibility for the salmon to get up the St. John river as far as the Tobique. I do not want to. say anything unpleasant, but I do wish the minister would give this matter some consideration and get rid of the absolutely useless wardens he has got, and appoint men who would enforce the law. I had a good deal to do with the passing of the .regulation before 1911. At that time there were about half a dozen men in Carleton county who had always fished and they said they were going to fish right (along, no matter what regulations were passed. We told them that they were not going to fish, and we laid information against them and stopped them. One man was a good Conservative, and a friend of mine. After he was prosecuted he was convinced that he had been breaking the law, and I do not think he has ever violated it since. My hon. friend knows that the Tobique Salmon Club have tried to enforce the regulations. I know they have come to the minister personally, and sent him letters, if not petitions, protesting against the violation of the law. They have gone .so far as to send their own wardens up the river to make investigations, and have seized nets in some cases, though I have always doubted their authority to do so; in fact, in some cases they have been compelled to give them back. But they cannot do much because they lack authority. They tell me, and I know they have told the minister that the law is being violated in dozens and dozens of places, and they have given the minister the names of the offenders, and the names of the wardens who are not doing their duty. ' So the minister has a pretty intimate knowledge of the condition, of affairs, and I am just bringing the matter to his attention now in the hope that he will try and have the law enforced more strictly in the future. If he cannot get any honest Conservatives in Carleton. and York counties to .act as wardens and enforce the law, I will try and find him a few bad Grits; I should not have to take the best Grits, the poorest ones would enforce the. law.


John Douglas Hazen: As has been said by my hon. friend, fishing is not allowed in the St. John river above the head of the tide, which is- at Crook's point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend must have changed it. It is a good many miles further up the river.


John Douglas Hazen: It has not been changed since we came into power. That is where it was in 1911, and no fishing was allowed above that. About 1908 or 1910 an arrangement was made whereby the people along the river could catch a salmon now and then. They thought it was a hardship if they could not catch an occasional salmon, so they were allowed to fish for two weeks, then there was a close season of two weeks, and then another two weeks' fishing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the regulations provide that even in the two weeks fishing the nets must be taken up from Saturday night until Monday morning.


John Douglas Hazen: That is the general law. My information is to the effect that the salmon in the St. John river, and in the

waters into which the St. John river flows, are increasing year by year. This is largely due to artificial propagation, perhaps to a better enforcement of the law than in years gone by, and, in a measure, to the extra protection the salmon are getting from the Tobique Salmon Club, which controls the Tobique river. The Tobique river is practically the only river to which salmon now resort for spawning. I am told, though, that of late years they are getting up the Kennebecasis river as far as Sussex. The mills on that river had been removed, and no saw-dust was getting into the water. It is claimed by certain fishery officers that the salmon also spawn at certain places in the St. John river. There is a pool above Fredericton, called Hartt's Pool, where many salmon are caught. It is also claimed that the salmon are spawning above Woodstock. That may or may not be the case, but there is no doubt that more salmon are being caught along the St. John river to-day than in years gone by. The Tobique Salmon Club, which controls the Tobique river, is composed mainly of American gentlemen living in Washington, New York, and other large cities in the United States. They spend a large sum of money on the river yearly. They protect it very carefully against poaching, and they protect the fish on the spawning beds.
My hon. friend states that there are 500 people working for these sportsmen including hunters, and there ist no doubt the fishing on the river is a very important industry to that part of the country. When the pools ware first leased by the provincial Government there was great indignation among the people on account of their being deprived of their industry, because they could not fish, while the wealthy people could fish as they could afford to lease the pools. That feeling has changed very largely on account of the fact that those wealthy people spend a large amount of money, employ guides, and so on, and the result has been very much to the benefit of the community. From the Tobique river up to the county of Carleton I have had no complaint, and I have had no complaints in the county of York. There have been some complaints regarding conditions in the county of Carle-ton, and I have had personal interviews with gentlemen representing the Tobique Salmon Club. They did not give the names of any'violators of the law; they did not tell me of the law being violated dozens and dozens of times, which I think is the expression used by my hon. friend; but they

mentioned to me the names of two officers who, they said were not doing their duty. I have been having the matter inquired into and it will be rectified, but that wras the only charge made to me by these gentlemen, so that my hon. friend has been given an erroneous account of the assertions made. The impression I got was that the condition of affairs generally was satisfactory; that they thought it would have been better if there had not been that previous grant of two weeks' fishing which was granted out of deference to the sentiment of people along the river and with which I have no fault to find, because I think if the law is enforced and there are two weeks fishing granted, the result will be there will be lots of salmon in the Tobique river for those who are spending money to catch them for sport, and also for the purpose of propagation, so that there will be plenty of salmon going up and down the river in the season. Those people, some months ago, came to me and I have taken steps now with a view of having their complaints remedied. No complaint has reached me about anything in the county of York or above Carleton, and I think that agrees with what my hon. friend has said. I am not questioning the bona fides of my hon. friend; I believe he has stated what has been stated to him, but the statements which he has -made are not the same as the statements made to me by the members of the Tobique Salmon Club.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I take my hon, friend's word for the statements made to him, and I want to say quite frankly that I hold no -brief at all for the Tobique Salmon Club. In fact, all the business I have ever had with them has been to start law suits against them, and I have had quite an experience along that line.


George Perry Graham: Did you win them?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did. I have, however, had a number of conversations with the manager and many of his guides, and I am very much surprised at the moderation with which they must have approached the minister, because it was in quite a different attitude that they approached me. I am giving my opinion, obtained not so much from the Tobique Salmon Club, as from the people along the Tobique river. It is quite true, as my hon. friend -says, that many years ago, when the province of New Brunswick leased the fishing rights, their action was very bitterly opposed by
r

the people. In fact, I think murder was committed as a result of it. But in talking over the matter with the people along the river, as I have done for the last two years, I have never heard a solitary comment by any resident along that river against protecting the fish. On the contrary, it is all in favour of protecting the fish. The people have come to the conclusion that they are making much more money through protecting the fish than they would make otherwise, and; all the complaints I hear-and they are many

are against the Government for not protecting the fish. They feel that the fish in the Tobique river are protected, they find no complaint in regard to that, and I have never heard of any complaint along the St. John river in the county of Victoria, that is, a, distance of only nine or ten miles from the Andover bridge, but the fault is, as my hon. friend has stated, in the county of Carleton. While the people may haye complained of only two of the wardens as .being_ guilty of malfeasance, there must be 'a great deal of complaint of at least negligence on the part of most of the wardens. It may be that my hon. friend has not duly impressed upon those wardens the fact that they are supposed to give some little return foT the money they receive. It looks to me as though they have not been properly instructed, because from my certain knowledge, men whom I know as well as I know my hon. friend the minister-and I have had quit^ a long acquaintance with him-men who live so near me that I have an opportunity of knowing what they are doing-	.


John Douglas Hazen: An inspector is sent personally to instruct them.
Mr. CARViELL: Well those men are not spending their time on the river and yet they are drawing their money for guarding the river. Their work is simply a sinecure. There are wardens in the county of Carleton, who, I believe, are not spending one day in the week on the river. How much are they paid a day?


John Douglas Hazen: $1.50 a day for the days they work.,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Their diaries will show that they work seven days a week.


John Douglas Hazen: They have to make an affidavit as to their work and also to go before the inspector. Of course, they may
be conspiring together. I do not know, but I do not think that is the case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think they are conspiring, but they have been taught that this is only a little reward for their services. I do not think those men believe they are perjuring themselves because, with the exception of one, they are responsible men, I am sure they would not perjure themselves willingly, and I do not think they would want practically to steal money from the Government. That, however, does not get around the fact that they are giving simply no value for the money they are receiving. The minister should take this matter out of the hands of those who are advising him in the matter; he could find men who Will advise him properly and put men on that work who will do their duty and see that the fish are protected. I may get some little adverse comment on account of what I am saying to-night, because there are many men in the county of Carleton who like to catch fish out of the river, but I am telling the minister the honest truth, and if he will enforce the law and protect the fish, the people in the county of Carleton can get all the fish they are entitled to, the fish will have a chance to go up the river to their spawning grounds and the great industry at the mouth of the river will not be ruined as it otherwise will be.
I understand from what the minister states that the fish are going up the Kennebecasis river as far as- Sussex, but the St. John river is liable to great fluctuations of rise and fall; and as the fish spawn in the months of September and October, often the water is so high that spawning is almost impossible. I hope the minister will, give this matter a little more attention than he has given it in the past and that he will forget the question of politics. Of course, I expect him to appoint Conserva- -tives, but let him appoint Conservatives who will enforce the law and see that the work is properly done, and I do not think he will have any complaint from me in the future.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Hazen for the adjournment of the House:


George Perry Graham: Can the hon. minister
(Mr. Hazen) tell me what business we are to take up to-morrow? And can he give us any information as to when the discussion on the resolution of the right hon. leader

of the Opposition will be resumed? Has any arrangement been made?


John Douglas Hazen: No arrangement had been made between the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister when I last saw the Prime Minister late this afternoon. I can not give my hon. friend any information on that point. Tomorrow, I presume, we will take up whatever Bills are on the Order Paper, and then go into Supply, taking up the Estimates of Fisheries, Interior, and Public Works, or one of these.


George Perry Graham: I may not have the
privilege of being here for a couple of days, and, as I have a very strong sense of fairness, I wanted to make this suggestion before I went away. The discussion on the resolution of the leader of the Opposition will probably, as it has done in the last few days, concern the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and as it is announced that he is leaving for home, I think it but fair that that gentleman should have an opportunity on the floor of the House to make a statement concerning matters that have been discussed in his absence. No matter what our views may be, the Minister of Militia is a member of this House and one of our colleagues, and I believe that, in justice to him-and it would be no injustice to anybody else-the debate should not be closed until he has had an opportunity to make a statement concerning the matters discussed in his absence.


John Douglas Hazen: I will call the attention of the Prime Minister to my hon. friend's views.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Friday, March 31, 1916.