1917-06-08

[Stage Direction]
Vol. I

Pages .	.	1-1124 Vol. IV-Pages .	.	3187-4242II "	.	.	1125-2138	V "	[DOT]	[DOT] 4243-5270III "	.	. 2139-3186	VI "	[DOT]	[DOT]	5271-6094

[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACH&


[Stage Direction]
House ol Commons ©ebates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 8, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Colin Darrach Poole.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Thomas Edwin Jory.-Mr. Nickle.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Florence Eva-line Snyder Lockwood.-Mr. Kay.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 47, to facilitate certain financial arrangements between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and for other purposes.-Sir Thomas White.
Bill No. 57, to amend The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
cm 00 to repeal the Ocean Telegraph Act.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 67, to amend the Customs Act.- Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
On mption of Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 42, to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On Section 1, Clergymen and students to be exempt from tax.
Mr. LEMIETJX:: Has the Minister of the Interior received from :he government of the province of British Columbia protest against this Bill?


Mr. ROCHE:: No, there have been no protests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been no correspondence?


William Roche: Not that I am aware of.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Can the minister tell us the language of the original statute in reference to this matter?


William Roche: I have not the statute before me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister received from the coal mine proprietors of British Columbia, or any other employers of labour in British Columbia, any request for permission to bring in oriental labour?


William Roche: Yes, there have been several requests made on behalf of certain employers of labour, in British Columbia, in the central provinces, and I think in the eastern provinces, asking that Chinese labour should be brought in, but the Government has not seen its way clear to adopt a policy of mat kind under existing circumstances.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What do these people say?


William Roche: Some of the requests were to the effect that we should bring them in practically under an arrangement by which a guarantee was to be given that after the waT was over they should be returned to their own country, but we did not think it was wise ait the present time to adopt such a policy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have there been many requests of that nature?
Mr.'ROCHE: Not very many, possibly four or five, and certainly not in excess of half a dozen.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: By whom were these requests made, and for what purpose?


William Roche: There may have been some request made from the miners, I am not certain as to that. There was a deputation here about a week ago, consisting of members of the Board of Trade of Vancouver, who made a suggestion of that nature. Then one or two parties sent communications to the department; I cannot recollect their names, but I think some of this correspondence emanated from those who are not employers of labour, and not particularly interested, but making a suggestion



that it would be wise to adopt such a policy in view of the scarcity of labour.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the minister tell us the provisions of the present legislation, and what changes are made by this measure? I understood students were admitted free heretofore?


William Roche: No. I explained the matter when the Bill was read the first time. At present students are admitted into Canada by paying a head tax of $500, but upon producing proof of having attended an educational institute recognized in Canada, they are refunded the head tax when leaving the country.
Considerable objection to the payment of the head tax has been made on behalf of Chinese students entering Canada. Chinese students are allowed free entry into the United States fpr the purpose of attending educational institutions. Many of these students, having had the benefit of the educational institutions of the United States, become missionaries for that,country in the commercial world. At the earnest request made by quite a number of persons in Canada during the last few years, we have decided to include Chinese students in the class exempted from: the head tax. In the existing Act, clergymen are not specifically included in the class exempted; this, I believe, was an oversight, because clergymen's families have been admitted free of head tax. We are now, therefore, specifically mentioning clergymen, as well as students, as exempt. Our practice in the past has been to collect a head tax upon the entry of Chinese students into Canada, the amount of the tax being refunded upon the production of satisfactory evidence of attendance at Canadian educational institutions.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the department
now admit the sons of resident Chinese without the payment of head tax?


William Roche: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand that sons of Chinese restaurant keepers have to pay the head tax, while sons of Chinese merchants are admitted free.


William Roche: If they come in for any
purpose other than that of attending educational institutions, the head tax is imposed.
'Mr. KNOWLES:	I believe that a distinction is drawn between the sons of restaurant keepers and the sons of merchants.


William Roche: The Act provides :

Every person of Chinese origin, irrespective of allegiance, shall pay into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, on entering Canada, at the port or place of entry, a tax of five hundred dollars, except the following persons, who shall be exempt from such payment, that is to say:
(a)	The members of the diplomatic corps, or other government representatives, their suites and their servants, and consuls and consular agents ;
(b)	The children born in Canada of parents of Chinese origin and who have left Canada for educational or other purposes, on substantiating their identity to the satisfaction of the controller at the port or place where they seek to enter on their return;
(c)	Merchants, their wives and children, the wives and children of clergymen-
It will be observed that the Act does not mention clergymen, and that is why I am making provision for that in the present Act. The section continues:

tourists, men of science and students, who shall substantiate their status to the satisfaction of the controller, subject to the approval of the minister, or who are bearers of certificates of identity, or other similar documents issued by the Government or by a recognized official or representative of the Government whose subjects they are, specifying their occupation and their object in coming into Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the provisions
relating to clergymen include those Chinese clergymen who teach the religion of Confucius?


William Roche: I am not confident as to that. I should think that it includes all recognized clergymen.


Mr. OLIVER:: The purpose of the existing Act is to keep out of Canada people of Chinese origin. I have not heard the minister give any good reason why the proposed amendment with regard to Chinese students should be made. Such a suggestion was made when the original Bill was before the House, but it was then considered, in view of the difficulty which would probably arise in enforcing the Act according to its intent, that it was better not to leave such a loophole. Accordingly it was provided that Chinese persons who desired to avail themselves of the advantages of education in Canada should comply with the law respecting the admission of Chinese, and that, upon satisfactory proof of their having availed themselves of those advantages; their money would be returned. While under present circumstances this question is not as pressing as it was when the original Act was passed, I submit that this is not the time to make alterations in the letter, spirit or principle of the Act without good and sufficient cause, which, I submit, in this case has not been shown. As

to the admission of clergymen, the member for Rouville asked a simple and appropriate question which the minister was not in a position to answer. I submit that the minister should not bring forward legislation in regard to which he is not able to give clear and direct information, especially in a matter so important as this.


William Roche: I understand that all
clergymen are admitted under the existing Act.


Frank Oliver: The question was asked if the priests of the sect of Confucius would, under this provision, be admitted into Canada without the payment of head tax.


William Roche: That particular point has not been brought to my attention. I assume that the word " clergyman " covers all clergymen.


Frank Oliver: Then the committee is to understand that priests of the sect of Confucius are entitled to free entry into Canada?


William Roche: I have no information to the contrary.


Frank Oliver: The minister should not bring forward this Bill unless he is in a position to answer a very obvious question which has an important bearing upon the sufficiency and efficiency of the proposed legislation.


William Roche: I am not sure that the matter is of such vital importance, but if the hon. member considers that the passage of the whole Bill depends upon that point, I am quite willing to allow the Bill to stand until we get the information. I can supply the information before the third reading of the Bill.


William Erskine Knowles: It is not a question as to the passing of the Bill: we are in committee now, and this is the time for the furnishing of such details. A great deal depends on what proportion of the Chinese population comes under the heading of priests. For all we know, half the laundry-men and cooks in China may be priests. It is important that we know, therefore, what is the numerical extent of this class of the Chinese people to whom we are opening our doors without requiring from them the payment of head tax. The words " Confucian clergyman " should be defined before we say that every person of that class should be admitted free.


William Roche: Under the existing Act the families of clergymen are admitted and in practice clergymen have been admitted, but owing to the fact, as I have pointed out, that in the exempting clause the word "clergymen" is not used, but only the words "clergyman's family," it has been.decided to insert the word "clergyman" so that there will be no danger of any broader meaning being attached to the term than there is in practice under the existing Act. That point, therefore, need not delay the passage of this Bill through the committee stage.


William Erskine Knowles: So far as we know,
Chinese clergymen may indulge in celibacy just as the Roman Catholic priests, and it might be better to have some further information with regard to these gentlemen.


William Pugsley: I think the minister is wrong in saying that this will not give a wider opportunity of admitting Chinamen. At the present time, if a clergyman comes into Canada, he pays the head tax of $500, but after he is here, his family can be admitted free. It is now proposed to broaden this provision so as to allow the clergymen to come in free. That is quite a serious departure from the provisions of the present Bill.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Is my hon. friend afraid of being proselytized by these clergymen?


William Pugsley: For many years, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been persistent in the laudable effort of sending missionaries to China. Now I suppose he is anxious to bring Chinese missionaries to Canada. Is that the reason for this change? I think some stronger reason should be given than has yet been given by the minister for making this change as to:
Students coming to Canada for the purpose of securing a higher education in any Canadian college or university or other educational institution approved by the minister.
, Is that not going to create a good deal of trouble and dissatisfaction? When do students cease to be exempt? Is it when they attend common schools? Supposing a student absents himself from school or college in order to engage in mercantile work, saying, that when he gets a little older and makes some money he will return to college will he cease to be exempt? Many hardship might arise. Just at the present moment I am not prepared to say whether it is desirable to admit students without the payment of head tax. The present law is good; the payment of the

head tax is exacted, but after a student has engaged in his studies and has received proper certificates, that head tax is refunded, I suppose, when he is prepared to return to China. The idea is to admit students for the purpose of receiving a higher education; they are not to settle in this country, but are to return to China. I am afraid there would be a good deal of trouble working out paragraph 7 in reference to students. '


William Roche: In the working out of this legislation, I do not think there will be any more trouble than in working out the existing Act. We are simply allowing the etudente who come in under the existing Act to come in without paying the head tax. We are not broadening the meaning attached to the word "student." The interpretation placed upon that word will he exactly the interpretation placed upon it in the operation of the existing Act. One reason why I thought it was right to introduce this change was because of the large number of requests I have been receiving for several years past to have students admitted free. Those requests have come from members of the hon. gentleman's party as well as from hon. members on this side; they have come from leagues that have been established in Canada, and I have received requests and petitions from different public bodies in Canada. At the present time I do not remember a single protest from any public 'body or any private individnal that we should not enact such a law, and I think I can call to my aid the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald), who, at an earlier part of the session, strongly urged some action of this nature to be taken, and I assured him that it was my intention to introduce legislation of this character. He instanced the case of a Chinese student who had to pay a head tax, and I told him that in order to correct such instances in the future, it was my intention to bring in legislation at this session. Although this Bill has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time, no protests have been made against it.


William Pugsley: Under paragraph 7 when would a student, or a person coming to Canada for the purpose of being a student, be liable to paying the head tax, and under what circumstances? This paragraph does not say that he shall actually continue in seeking an education. It says:
Students coming to Canada for the purpose of securing a higher education.

A student might come to Canada intending to enter college two or three years after hie arrival. There is no provision that he must actually begin hie studies within a reasonable time.


William Roche: The situation in that respect is exactly as it is at the present time.


William Pugsley: The difference is this,
that at present he pays his head tax at the start, and after that he must have pursued his studies regularly in order to obtain a refund. Under this legislation, you let him into the country free, and the question is : How are you going to get him out again, or how are you going to make him pay the head tax if he ceases to be a student? You exempt him if he comes into Canada for the purpose of securing a higher education.


William Roche: If the hon. gentleman will read section 2, subsection 7 (a), he will see that the person ceasing to belong to one of the exempt classes is liable to the head tax. The subsection Teads:
Any person admitted as exempt from the tax and who ceases to belong to one of the exempt classes shall be required to pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada the tax of $500.


William Pugsley: A young man would not cease to be exempt as long as he had the intention of becoming a student.


William Roche: If he goes into a trade or occupation, a person engaging in which is liable to the imposition of the head tax, then he becomes liable to that head tax, and under subsection 7 (a):
If the person refuses or fails to pay the tax, he shall he deported, at his own expense if able to pay, and if not, at the expense of His Majesty.
Therefore, any of these men coming in under the existing Act for the purpose of attending an educational institution of Canada that is recognized by the department shall not be called upon to pay the head tax. In that respect he is in exactly the same position as he is in under the present Act, with the exception of paying the head tax, and should he cease to be in one of the exempt classes, for instance, should he engage in laundry business, or anything of that nature, he would become liable to the head tax.


William Erskine Knowles: Is there any machinery for keeping track of these Chinese students ?


William Roche: There is no trouble in keeping track of them. We have our immigration officials.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister is optimistic.


Mr. MARCIL:: Are these people required to report to the department as to their residence and the institutions they attend?


William Roche: Certainly.


Charles Marcil: Do they report to the department periodically?


William Roche: We have a record of what institutions they attend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister mentioned my having brought up a matter with regard to this legislation at an earlier stage in the session. The minister will recall the case that I brought to his attention at that time, namely the case of a young man who was the son of Mr. Corsbie, who had originally been born in China, but who had been educated in Canada and had gone to Trinidad. This gentleman was a British subject; his son had come to Canada for the purpose of getting an education, and his case was not that of a Chinese person in the sense in which the term is. used in this legislation. When this Bill came up a few minutes ago I asked the minister if he had the statute before him, so that we might know exactly what was the legislation on this subject. Confusion and difficulty arose in the case of this young man, who was a British subject, and the circumstances of his treatment were unfortunate. Complaint was made by many clergymen interested in the matter, and the case attracted special attention by reason of the fact that the father of the young man was a commissioner to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. I mentioned at the time that it would be well for the Government to deal with this question. I would like to know what the minister says on the point raised by the hon.. member for St. John.


William Roche: The case to which the hon. member refers was that of a young man who was subject to the head tax under the statute which I read a few moments ago. The statute applies to "every person of Chinese origin," and as this young man was of Chinese origin he was properly subjected to the head tax.


William Pugsley: As I recollect the case, while the young map had been a resident of China he was a native of Trinidad and a British subject, both his father and mother being British subjects, but it happened that his grandfather on one side, was a Chinaman. For this reason the absurd contention was made by the department that he was "of Chinese origin." It would be as reasonable to say that a Canadian one of whose grandfathers was born in Ireland was of Irish origin.


George Eulas Foster: What is the
meaning of "origin"?


William Pugsley: It depends on how far you go back.


George Eulas Foster: Would it be the same as "descent"?


William Pugsley: No, clearly not. This
young man was a British, subject and born in a British country, and therefore was of British origin. If the boy's father and mother had been Chinese it might be said that he was of Chinese origin. But this section does not profess to deal with the special case of one who may have had a Chinese ancestor, yet it opens the door wide to young men from China to come into Canada without paying the head tax by saying that they are coming to this country for the purpose of securing a higher education. Under any fair or reasonable interpretation of this section, a boy from China coming to Canada, attending a common school and then afterwards getting employment on a farm or in a shop in order to earn money to put him through college would be complying with this law. He would have the intention of entering a university-he comes to Canada "for the purpose of securing a higher education." There may be great trouble and dissatisfaction unless you surround this provision with safeguards. The person , concerned should satisfy some official as to his position, or otherwise we may have a great deal of trouble. I think it better, on the whole, to leave the section as it is.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman seems to be conjuring up imaginary difficulties that, up to the present, have not been met with. The existing Act has no safeguard as to the time within which one affected by this section shall attend college. The only safeguard is the head tax of $500. Under the operation of the Act, the party concerned would be expected to enter college within a reasonable time-almost immediately upon coming to Canada; otherwise, he would not be allowed to remain in Canada unless by payment of the head tax. The effect of this change is only to

waive the head tax under certain conditions, and I do not anticipate any trouble.


William Erskine Knowles: The difference between the existing condition of affairs and what the minister proposes is so great that it looks as if he were opening the gates very wide. He says that at present there is no safeguard other than that which will exist in the future. There is the safeguard of the $400 having been deposited. At present, the onus of proof is on the alleged student, but under the change proposed by the minister the department will have to make the case against the man who enters with an expectation which he does not fulfill. This affects more particularly the province of British Columbia. I see in his place an hon. member who has made rather a specialty of "A White British Columbia." I would ask my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) whether this legislation is such as will be considered desirable by those who wish to perpetuate a white British Columbia. He has, no doubt, full information as to the local circumstances and as to what is desired by the people of his province.


Mr. BARNARD:: So far as I understand the situation, I do not think this matter has been very much considered in British Columbia. Certainly, there has been no protest against it that I have heard of. I do not think the proposed change will do much harm, but, on the other hand, I do not think it will do much good-it is rather innocuous.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member (Mr. Barnard) is taking a very safe line. I can remember the day when he was more outspoken. I am glad to see him here, and also to see the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Taylor), though both are silent to-day. When the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfred Laurier) was at the head of the Government, he increased the head tax from $100 to $500 in response to the sentiment created in British Columbia against oriental immigration. Some months or years afterwards the whole of the Conservative party in that province declared for a policy of exclusion of oriental immigration. I remember that my hon. and genial friend from Victoria was elected on the strength of a certain telegram, which afterwards proved to be a forgery, and he was too much of a gentleman to have benefited by that telegram. But it is a well known fact that the whole of the Conservative party in British Colum-
LMr. Roche.l
bia was apparently deadly opposed to oriental immigration.
If in those days any one had made the loophole that is being made to-day in the law, we would have heard my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) and my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) blaming the Government for their action. This is the second time that a question like this has come up in this House within a few days. ,1 regret not to see the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) in his seat. He was very outspoken about the question of Japanese immigration. I remember that in the House he censured me because I had negotiated an arrangement, or a treaty, with the Japanese Government concerning a restricted number of immigrants to Canada. Yet, a few years afterwards, the treaty was renewed and it was renewed with a feather in the cap of the Japanese Consul at Ottawa. I forget the terms of the letters which were exchanged between the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Japanese Consul, but it is a fact that the Japanese Consul got the better of the Prime Minister and got better terms than the Japanese Government had obtained before that time.
The other day we were told by the Prime Minister that the question of Hindu immigration was a live one at the Imperial Conference, and that some way or other, Hindu immigration would become the problem of to-morrow as between the various portions of the Empire. What does that mean? It means that if we do not look after our own business primarily and chiefly, we are going to have very serious problems introduced into our national life. I do not blame the right hon. gentleman for having taken part in the proceedings of the Imperial Conference but as a result of that conference, and as a result of the presence lot Hindu representatives, ;Canada, before many months, surely before many years, will have to face a policy of oriental immigration from India. I would like to know where the party of a white British Columbia will be then. We do not hear from the representatives of British Columbia and I think I voice the sentiments of British Columbia to-day when I protest against any loophole being put in the restrictions which have been embalmed in the statute-book. Nobody complains to-day of the restrictions which were imposed upon the Japanese labour immigration, although we were taunted and taken to task by hon. gentlemen opposite, when we

brought that agreement from Japan. It [DOT]was a wise arrangement, it was a good one; yet we were blamed by the hon. member for Victoria, the hon. member for New Westminster and the gentlemen who toddy represent the province of British Columbia. They were elected on a platform of an exclusive white British Columbia and yet to-day they stand for the policy which is being initiated by the present Government. They stand for Hindu immigration in the near future. They stand for a more liberal treaty with Japan and for a more liberal interpretation of the statute which restricts Chinese immigration. I now speak for British Columbia and 1 ask hon. gentlemen to stand by their policy and principles of a few years ago.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: I have great pleasure in answering the challenge of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux). The Conservative party of British Columbia stand to-day where they have always stood on the subject of Oriental immigration. As to the Temajrks of the hon. gentleman about the lack of discussion the other day on the subject of the participation in the Imperial Conference of our Indian fellow-subjects, one would think that the reason for that would appeal to the hon. gentleman, the same as the reason for abstention from harsh discussion' of Japanese ambitions might also appeal to the hon. gentleman and some of his friends. It seems to me that it would be well that we should try to cement our alliance with the friends of the Empire and secure from some of these Allies the assistance in fighting the battles of the Empire, whiich is refused to us in other quarters where we have a right to expect it. So far as I am concerned, I welcome the presence of our Indian soldiers on the fields of Flanders and of France. I welcome the presence of the Japanese fleet on the Pacific ocean to supply the deficiencies which the lack of a naval policy on the part of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues produced on the Pacific ocean.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


William Pugsley: What about those submarines?


James Davis Taylor: I ask the hon. gentleman: What about those submarines?


William Pugsley: They were bought under the Canadian Naval Act.


James Davis Taylor: Is there any other meaning to the hon. gentleman's question?


William Pugsley: They were bought under the Canadian Naval Act.


James Davis Taylor: Is that all there is to the question?


William Pugsley: That is all.


James Davis Taylor: I will very willingly discuss the submarines with the hon. gentleman.


William Erskine Knowles: You may know something about them that we do not.


James Davis Taylor: If hon. gentlemen are finished, although I do not blame them for being a little bit uneasy at what they have invited, I would like to tell them the difference between the condition of affairs with respect to the Chinese Exclusion Act at the time they were in power and the present. We found that when hon. gentlemen were in power the exemptions under the Act were made the instruments, not of keeping Chinese out of Canada, but of bringing them into Canada under the pretence of a right of exemption when they had no such right, upon paying a toll of $100 secretly instead of the $500 to be paid openly, four-fifths of which $100 went, as shown by the evidence before the commis- ^ sioner, to the campaign fund of the Liberal party. We have confidence that under the present Administration the use of the Chinese exemption clause to provide funds for party purposes has become a thing of the past. I know of no reason why Chinese who desire to be educated in the universities of Canada should not have the privilege of being educated in those institutions, and it is because of my belief that that is the honest intention of this amendment, and not that lit is opening the door to the surreptitious entry of Chinese for the benefit of some grafters in British Columbia that I am content to accept the Bill.
Whenever I find that this exemption is being used as the exemptions were used during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, then they may depend upon it that I shall be quite as vigorous in calling at, tention to it as I ever was in calling attention to the abuse of Chinese or other oriental immigration. In the meantime, the Chinese, like the Japanese and Hindoos, are very valuable Allies of the British cause, the Canadian cause. They are, in very large numbers, coming forward for the purpose of serving as labourers in France, and the Chinese Government is showing every disposition to assist in every possible way the cause of the Allies in contributing of the labour of their country. It does seem to me that with respect to the

Chinese in a smaller degree as with respect to the Japanese and Hindoos in a larger degree, all those people are entitled during these times of the stress of war to a little more consideration than we owed to them in times of peace.


William Pugsley: I have been expecting some hon. gentleman opposite to rise in his place and express the fact that he was terribly shocked and horror stricken at the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), at this time of stress introducing petty, party politics.
The hon. gentleman speaks of graft and makes charges against the Liberal party- and the hon. gentleman is a colonel too, and one of the political colonels of whom we in this Parliament are so proud.


James Davis Taylor: I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman says, in what I would not call a sneering manner, because it is not parliamentary to use that term, but I cannot find the proper word to express it-but the hon. gentleman challenges my being a member of His Majesty's army. I wish to know if that is the position of the loyal Opposition in this House, that it has become a crime to become a member of His Majesty's army?
Mr. P.UGSLEY: I would not suggest that for a single moment. What I rose especially to do was to express my profound astonishment that gentlemen on the other side of the House had not risen in their places and protested against the hon. gentleman introducing petty, party politics during this time when the attention of Parliament should be directed to greater issues. If gentlemen pn this -side were to follow that hon. gentleman, we might
4 p.m. get into a discussion which would be exceedingly unpleasant and exceedingly out of place. I should think that a member of this House, and particularly one who wears His Majesty's uniform, should be rather above that sort of thing at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to understand my hon. friend's position. My understanding of what he said was this, that he rose to express his profound astonishment that no one -on this side protested against my hon. friend from New Westminster introducing petty, party politics.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend from New Westminster was on his feet for the first time in making the remarks to which we have just listened. He had not
UMr. Taylor. 1
sat down before the h-on. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley), instead of allowing anybody on this side to make a protest, got up to draw a red herring across the trail.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce (Sir George Foster) knows well enough that if he, as acting leader of the House, had risen and asked his hon. friend to refrain from the unseemly conduct in which he was indulging, it would have at once produced a proper result. My hon. friend from New Westminster says that the Japanese are giving great aid in this war, that the people of China are also giving aid to the Allies, that our Indian fellow subjects are giving great aid to the Empire. That is all true, but they are giving it under the present law which contains restrictions against which there has been no very strong complaint so far, and what I think is that the minister should leave the law with regard to China just as it is. If, by reason of the present condition of affairs, the door is opened wider and young men from China are induced to come in, and then if it is thought they are not as steadily pursuing their studies as assiduously as it might be expected, they are deported from this country, it will provoke ill feeling which would be of very great disadvantage in the future. We ought not to go too far. A few years_ a-g-o, a great many people were coming' from China and from Japan and from India, and a great deal of feeling was created particularly among people who said that British Columbia -should be kept as a country of white people.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman object to their entrance into this country if they really did co-me as bona fide students?


William Pugsley: The present law does
not inflict any special hardship. It provides that Chinese youths coming to Canada for the purpose of obtaining an education, attending a university or other educational institution approved by the minister, after their studies have been concluded can make an application and get back a refund of the $500 head tax which they paid on entering the country. No strong complaint has been raised against that.


William Roche: Yes, there has.


William Pugsley: And it is well not to open the door too widely. If you do, there is likely to result very considerable dissatisfaction in the future.


William Roche: Can my hon. friend tell the House whether the United States has been injured or benefited by the free entry of Chinese students to attend the educational institutions of the United States?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to
speak as to that. I do know that along the Pacific coast of the United States there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction by reason of oriental immigration, so much so that the Legislature of California has passed laws which have provoked very great irritation and have caused the greatest possible friction between the Legislature and the people of California and the Government and Congress of the United States. I know that much, but what has caused it I do not know beyond the fact that it has been felt that there has been too much oriental immigration into the western coast states of the United States of America. Just a word with regard to the remark of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as to the criticism which was levelled at the late Government when a rather liberal arrangement, but at the same time a fair arrangement, was made between the Government of Canada and the Imperial Government of Japan. This Government was very bitterly criticised by Conservative members from British Columbia by reason of that arrangement. The hon. member for Neyr Westminster (Mr. Taylor) speaks of what has happened to-day, that Japanese cruisers have helped to protect the Pacific coast. Well, that shows how foresighted was my right hon. friend who was then the leader of the Government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), because I well remember that in this House, when he was seeking to defend the action of the Government in making this arrangement with the Japanese Government, he said that the time might come when the ships of Japan would be riding side by side with the ships of Canada in defence of the cities and coasts of British Columbia.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Who said that?


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend
the present leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He was laughed at by hon. gentlemen opposite when he made that prophecy. That prophecy came true, because there is no doubt that a Japanese cruiser was in the Pacific ocean prepared to co-operate with the ships of Great Britain and the smaller ships of Canada which were available, and this probably prevented an attack being made upon the coast
cities. The important question, after all, is whether we shall broaden and extend the opportunities for oriental immigration into Canada. I do not think we ought to do so, but I think, by this paragraph, the minister is opening a very wide door, which is likely to lead to extreme dissatisfaction in the future


John Hampden Burnham: I do not intend to be
captious or facetious, hut I would like to know if that is protection or free trade?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman can judge for himself.


John Hampden Burnham: I judge for myself, but I was not quite sure.


Frank Oliver: Would the Minister or the Interior say what the policy of the United States is in regard to Chinese immigration?


William Roche: The United' States have no head tax, but they prohibit entirely the entry of Chinese labour. In t,he case of students and others they have an exemption, but it is somewhat wider than our exemption, and those, who go- to their country for the purpose of getting educational instruction' are allowed to enter free of tax. They are not prohibited from entering the country, as the Chinese labourers are. The hon. gentleman has stated that the present Act has been working smoothly and harmoniously, and that there has been no objection to it. It is just because of the numerous objections that I have introduced this legislation. The requests have been quite numerous, and have been coming in for the last few years, and, indeed, had I been able to have done this by Order in Council, I should have felt like doing it a couple of years ago. The universities have asked for it. They point out that the universities in the United States have a great advantage over the universities ini Canada because the Chinese students are admitted into the United States free of tax, whereas they are not admitted into Canada, to any extent, on account of the imposition of the head tax. It is a hardship to impose the head tax on students, coming into the country. Many young men have not the $500 to spare and. require all the money they have for their educational course. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) says it is no hardship at all to impose the head tax, because it will be refunded, tout it is a hardship because these immigrants have not the money to spare. Furthermore, the educated class of Chinese rather resent the idea of imposing a head tax on their sons, who come here for educational purposes.

If they were admitted free of tax there would he additional advantages to Canada by reason of trade and commerce. I have come in contact with missionaries and clergymen from Canada who have visited China and have associated with the people, and they say that the United States derives a great advantage by reason of the fact that Chinese students are admitted into United States universities without the restrictions imposed iby ns, and that by reason of this, trade between the United States and China is encouraged. Each young man going back to China from the United States is possessed of far more knowledge about that country than he would were students not admitted to the United States universities free of tax. I wish again to emphasize the fact that it is on account of the numerous requests year after year for this legislation that I have introduced this Bill. If the hon. gentlemen opposite take a decided stand and decade to hold up the passage of this Bill on the ground that it enlarges the scope of immigration from China, I say that that is not a valid ground, and I doubt if the leader of the Opposition would take a stand similar to that taken by the hon. gentleman from St. John. If the leader of the Opposition expressed his views this afternoon, I do not think they would harmonize with the views of the hon. member from St. John.
I do not imagine that he is at all opposed to .allowing Chinese students, to enter Canada for the purpose of attending an educational institution.


William Pugsley: We are not opposing this as a party matter. Each member is speaking for himself. I do not profess to speak for any of my hon. friends. Each member has a right to express his views in criticising any measure which comes before the House.


Frank Oliver: It will be obvious that there is a great difference between the law of the United States and the law of Canada in regard to Chinese immigration, and when the minister draws the parallel, it is not a fair one. Those who are in favour of the exclusion of the Chinese from Canada would be very glad to accept the law of the United States, if it were applied to Canada. But that is not the situation. The United States absolutely excludes the Chinese of the working class, and allows the .entry of those who are seeking education. We do not exclude the working classes. We simply impose a head tax upon [Mr. Roche.3
them, but we make special provision in regard to those who desire an education. If the hon. minister desires to introduce the United States system into Canada I" will be glad to support the proposition to absolutely exclude the Chinese labourer, and simply allow the entry of the Chinaman who desires to secure an education. But to take that part of the United States law which leaves practically an open door to the entrance of Chinese, and add that to our more liberal policy in regard to Chinese immigration, is entirely objectionable, from my point of view.


William Roche: Does the hon. gentleman know what the United States immigration authorities claim?


Frank Oliver: I do not know. I asked the minister what the law was and he told me.


William Roche: They say that Canada gets the head tax and the United States gets the Chinese immigrant.


Frank Oliver: That is a different story. We are discussing the statute as it is, and as it is proposed to frame it, and having had something to do with the statute as it stands, I may be pardoned for intruding upon the House to the extent I am doing. Having had some responsibility for the present statute, and for the administration under that statute, with due regard to the compliments of my hon. friend from Westminster, I wish to say that, for my own part I desire in this House to promote the idea of a white Canada, and the exclusion, so far as it is reasonably possible, of those races, who, by a policy of peaceful penetration permitted to be carried on, would change the condition of this Canada of ours, from being a white Canada to being a Canada of some other character, and il will have to ask the minister and the House to bear with me while I express my opposition to any legislation calculated to facilitate that change of condition. It is quite clear that this proposed amendment is deliberately intended to let down the bars, and, in so far as that is its purpose, it is objectionable. The minister has said that he has had protests against the law as it stands, and that these protests are the foundation of the amendment he proposes to make. With regard to the instance which he mentioned with reference to the clergy spoken of by the hon. member for Pictou, I may say that in my judgment there is no foundation whatever for a change in the law in any such instance. There is no possibility

of a law regarding immigration being placed on the statute book that can be administered according to rule and line. The officers of the department must administer that law according to its spirit and intent, using the letter where that is necessary to enforce the spirit and intent. But to apply the letter of the law in such a case as was mentioned by the member for Pictou and by the minister is to disregard the responsibilities of administration.


William Roche: Such action was taken on the advice of the Justice Department.


Frank Oliver: When the Justice Department is asked to do so, it states, of course, the interpretation of the law. But my hon. friend must know that, in many cases, common sense and public policy demand that the law shall be administered according to its import rather than according to its letter. There is no evidence, therefore, either of the necessity or of the desirability of any change in the law. The proposed change rests, then, simply upon the desire or intention of the minister to let down the bars with regard to Chinese immigration to the extent provided in this section. To that I am compelled to offer my most strenuous opposition. It is suggested that because we are in a state of war, and because we have the assistance of certain allies, we are debarred from dealing with our own affairs according to our own requirements and the dictates of our own interest. But let it be thoroughly understood that that is not the purpose for which our Soldiers are fighting in this war. The soldiers of Canada are fighting in, this war so that Canada shall be mistress in her own house.
As to the amendment respecting clergymen, the existing Act was framed with regard to the fact that white men had gone to China as missionaries, and had there married women of that country. These men, being required in the course of their duties to come back to Canada, found themselves faced with the necessity of paying head tax upon their families. It was to provide for such cases that the law was made as it is. It did not contemplate the admission into Canada of clergymen of the Chinese race, whatever might be their religion. It contemplated simply the free admission of families of Chinese origin which were the families of white clergymen whose duties cal-led them back to Canada. It is not desirable that any amendment to the law should go further than that, especially in view of the fact that the minister is not able to explain
how far-reaching this section is. I wish to go on record, therefore, as protesting with all the strength of which I am capable against the proposals contained in the first section of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 73, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster, Bill No. 74, to amend the Fisheries Act, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 65, to amend the Bank Act, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White, Bill No. 68, to amend the Civil Service Act, was read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Fisheries-Building fishways and clearing rivers, $30,000.
["Well, we will wait at eight o'clock.\nAt six o'clock the House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS."]
Mr. HAZEN:: WThen I was in committee before with my estimates I told the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) that when my estimates came up again I would give him a statement of the number of appointments made in the Department of Marine and Fisheries under section 21 of the Civil Service Act. This is the statement :-
Captain Louis Arthur Demers, wreck commissioner, aged 55, was appointed on the 2nd of May, 1916, at a salary of $3,300 per annum. His present salary is $3,400 per annum. He entered the outside service of the department on the 11th of October, 1904, after having served some twelve years with fishery cruisers; he was transferred to the inside service on 1st September, 1908,

and appointed wreck commissioner on the 1st August, 1910. He resigned to 'become harbour master at Montreal on the 1st June, 1912. When Captain Lindsay, his successor as wreck commissioner, was placed in charge of the Montreal and Quebec pilotage the office of wreck commissioner became vacant, and an view of Captain Demers' special qualifications for the position he was reappointed thereto.
Mr. Thomas Robert Ferguson, chairman of the Board of Steamship Inspection, entered the outside service of the department in May, 1889. On the superannuation of Chairman Edward Adams, the officer who, by length of service, efficiency and technical qualifications, was entitled to succeed him, was Mr. Ferguson, who was at that time inspector of Government steamships at Quebec, and the department so recommended. Mr. Ferguson is 51 years of age. The date of his appointment as chairman of the 'board is 8th May, 1913; salary on appointment, $2,800 per annum; present .salary, $3,200 per annum.
Mr. George Herbert Flood, aged 56, was appointed purchasing and contract agent 1st December, 1915, at a salary of $3,300 per annum. His present salary is $3,500 per annum. Prior to his appointment as purchasing and contract agent Mr. Flood had been the agent of the department at St. John, N.B., since November, 1909. On the resignation of Mr. Cecil Doutre as purchasing and contract agent, the department considered Mr. Flood's experience as agent at St. John, and also as a former business man, specially fitted him for the vacant position, and, after the issue of a certificate of qualification by the Civil Service Commission, the department recommended him for the position of purchasing and contract agent.
Mr. Hope Vere Anderson, aged 27, was transferred from the Department of Mines to the Department of Marine by Order in Council on the 5th September, 1913; salary on appointment $1,600 per annum, present salary $1,750. The services of a mechanical engineer were required iij. the chief engineer's branch of the department, and the Civil Service Commissioners recommended Mr. Anderson for the position; he was accordingly appointed.
Mr. Arnt Christian Andresen, aged 32, was appointed by Order in Council of the 18th May, 1914, to the chief engineer's branch of the department at a salary of $1,200 per annum; he now receives $1,250 per annum. He is at present in a Canadian Battalion on overseas service in France.

His appointment was recommended by the Civil Service Commissioners in response to an application for a clerk with the special qualifications above mentioned.
Mr. Joseph Henry Vaughan, aged 39, has been in the service of the department since June, 1908. His salary on appointment to his present position was $1,600 per annum. He has not yet received any increase. On the superannuation of Mr. M. D. Kelly, a clerk in the office of the purchasing and contract branch, the department requested the Civil Service Commissioners to advertise the vacancy. Having regard to the special qualifications required for the duties of the position, they recommended Mr. Vaughan, and his appointment was authorized by Order in Council.
Those are the only appointments in the Marine and Fisheries Department made under section 21 since I became minister of that department. I have not here a list of the appointments in the Department of Naval service, but when the Naval Service Estimates are up, I will make a statement to the House covering those appointments


William Pugsley: I have a very strong
complaint from Mr. Kendall at Port Al-berni, B.C. Section 5 of the special Fishery Regulations for British Columbia provides that:
The Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the province is hereby empowered to cancel a fishery license forthwith for a violation of the regulations or conditions of the license by the licensee or by his representative who may be operating under such license for him.
That is a very drastic provision; it places the licensee entirely in the hand-s pf the Chief Inspector of Fisheries for the province. I am informed that there is no such provision in the Nova Scotia Fishery Regulations. I recognize that the chief inspector should have pretty large powers, but there ought to be some provision whereby proceedings might be stayed so that an appeal could be taken to the deputy minister at Ottawa. I am told that the chief inspector in British Columbia in the district in which Mr. Kendall's operations are carried on seems to have a spite against that gentleman and is acting vea-y arbitrarily, and Mr. Kendall complains very bitterly. The most I can do is to ask the minister to look into the matter, and also if he does not think there should be some provision for staying proceedings so that an appeal may be made, if it is thought desirable to make one. Otherwise, an inspector who might be so disposed, might ruin a licensee.


John Douglas Hazen: This case has bedn before
me off and on for a number of years, it has been reported on not only by Mr. Cunningham, our chief fishery officer in British Columbia, who is an old and experienced official, but by our fishery officers here. I shall be glad to show the hon. member the whole correspondence, and perhaps he will then be satisfied that it was impossible to take any other action than has been taken hy the department.


William Pugsley: Will the minister sh.ow the papers to Senator Bostook who is familiar with this matter?


John Douglas Hazen: I have asked Mr. Found
to make a note of the matter, and I shall he glad to send the file of papers to Senator Bostock so that he may look into it himself.


Mr. KYTE:: Has there been any increase in the number of fishery officers in Nova Scotia during the last year?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


George William Kyte: Has the minister the list of fishery guardians for the county of Richmond, N.S?


John Douglas Hazen: The number in the county of Richmond is twenty-six, but I have not their names here.


George William Kyte: That is a very large increase-


John Douglas Hazen: It is the same number as last year.


George William Kyte: Perhaps-but a very considerable increase over the number of a few years ago. I would like a list of them. The department have been good enough to furnish me with a list in the past.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly. I have asked
Mr. Found to have a list prepared and sent to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: And may I have a similar list for the counties of Guysborough and Antigonish?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Mr. COPP:: Who compose the Advisory
Board?


John Douglas Hazen: There are four members
from Nova Scotia, Mr. Hemon; Mr. Short, of Digby; Captain W. C. Smith, of Lunenburg; and Mr. King, who was appointed on the recommendation of the Halifax Board of Trade. From New Brunswick, there are Mr. F. E. B. Young, of CaTaquet; Mr. Carson, of Kent County; and Mr. John Jackson, of St. John. There is also a gentleman from the Gulf District, Mr. Arsenault; and from Prince Edward Island, Mr. Long-worth, of Charlottetown.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Do they meet here?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, together with the
officials of the department. Once they met in Nova Scotia, and once in Prince Edward Island. These gentlemen act without pay; all they receive is their actual expenses.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What are their functions ?


John Douglas Hazen: They are purely advisory. They meet with the deputy minister, the Commissioner of Fisheries, and other officials; and discuss such matters as close seasons, fish hatcheries and other subjects relating to the fisheries, and make recommendations. The Bill which I introduced yesterday, and which was read the second time to-day and referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, was prepared largely as a result of their deliberations with the officials of the department.
Mr. A'. W. CHISHOLM:	Does not the
minister realize that he has left a very large part of Nova Scotia unrepresented on the Advisory Board, in that there is no representative from Cape Breton? I regard the functions of this board as very important. It is the medium through which the fishermen can place their case before the Government. I notice that three of the Nova Scotia members of the board are from the western portion of the province, while Cape Breton, which is surrounded by the most important fishing waters of Canada, has no member on the board. I think that is a mistake, and I have called the attention of the minister to it more than once. I regret that he has not seen fit to appoint a representative from that portion of the country.


John Douglas Hazen: We have requests from
time to time to appoint on the board representatives from different sections. For instance, there is no member of the board representing the county of Charlotte, N.B., though its fisheries are very important, including extensive sardine weirs and important lobster and qther fisheries. There was a representative from this section for the original board, but at his death the place was filled by the appointment of Mr. Jackson of St. John. There are other important fishing centres which are not represented on the board. We do not wish to make the board so large as to be un-

wieldy. My experience ds that you get better work from a committee if it is of reasonable size. From Nova Scotia, originally, we had only three members. Strong representations were made that, as Halifax was really the centre of the fishing trade of the Maritime Provinces, a very much larger fish trade being done there than anywhere else it was desirable that there should be a representative on the hoard from Halifax who understood the fishing tTade generally. So Mr. King, who was recommended by the Halifax board of trade, was appointed. I appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. Chisholm) says, but at the same time I think the different interests are fairly represented by those on the board. I am sure that they will see that no injustice is done to Cape Breton, and that they deal with fishery questions from the standpoint of general interest rather than from the standpoint of locality. When the hon. gentleman made his suggestion, I said 1 would consider it, and so I have, and have had considerable doubt about it; but I think it better not to have the committee too large.


George William Kyte: What the minister (Mr. Hazen) says, concerning the county of Charlotte, applies to the locality referred to by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm). As the minister knows, a very large proportion of the population of Cape Breton are engaged in the fisheries. With respect to the provisions for the open and closed season for lobsters, the island of Cape Breton is to a large extent a separate district. Great difficulties have been met with by the officers of the department in their efforts to work out a scheme of open seasons for the province of Nova Scotia' suitable to the conditions and exigencies of all sections. In the spring, the fishermen of Cape Breton are handicapped by the presence of large quantities of drift ice on the coast. In some seasons the ice remains until a very late date, and the consequence is that the lobster fisheries are very much hampered as compared with other places in Nova Scotia. From time to time the fishermen of the island of Cape Breton have made special representations in favour of an extension of the open season to compensate them for the time of which they can not fish on account of the drift ice. The conditions in Cape Breton would thus seem to call for special attention on the part of the advisory board. Antigonish and Guysborough also have large fishing interests. It does seem to me that there 
should be at least one member of the board from Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Inverness is eminently reasonable. If there was any way by which the minister could eliminate one of the present members of the Advisory Board and substitute for him a representative particularly of the island of Cape Breton, I think it would be in the public interest to do so.
Inasmuch as the minister has intimated that the members of the board do not receive any salary, and are only paid their actual expenses, it is not a position that is so remunerative that any gentleman would be loath to part with. That would make it much easier for the minister to make some change in the personnel of the board, in order that it might more directly represent the island of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.


John Douglas Hazen: The appointments are
yearly. There is a certain element of fairness in saying that the members of the board should be changed from time to time. We get fresh ideas and fresh blood and there is much force in my hon. friend's contention. What he .says about Cape Breton Island and eastern Nova Scotia is very true. The season there is later and that condition was recognized when the season in which lobsters may be caught was fixed at a later time in Cape Breton than in any other part of Nova Scotia.


George William Kyte: That is quite true but the presence of ice on the coast makes changes necessary from time to time.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the Advisory Board given any advice to the minister on the urgent questions that are before him at the present time in regard to the fisheries? Members are receiving letters regarding the great scarcity of salt in order to preserve fish in the districts where they are, not doing a fresh fish business. Another question is that of the extension of the lobster season. At this season of the year members of parliament are apt to receive a good many requests of that kind and it would be interesting to know if these matters are being dealt with by the Advisory Board and if they are giving the minister advice in regard to them.


John Douglas Hazen: By the 15th of this month we will have advice from the members of the board, and also from our officers all over the country, in regard to the desirability of making an extension if the lobster season. As the hon. gentleman knows,

I have been very loath to extend the season and I have declined to do so from jlear to year.


John Howard Sinclair: Never.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that during the last three years there has been a single exception. But this year there seems to be a very persistent attempt made to secure an extension. The request comes not only from the districts which are affected but from members of the House and I have a letter from the hon. member for Guysboro pointing out reasons why he thinks there should be .an extension in certain parts of Nova Scotia. I have had representations made to me by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) who has been a persistent advocate of not extending the season. But owing to the fact that conditions are of a most unusual character he says that . for the first time he thinks that possibly it would be in the public interest that an extension should be made. We have sometimes found that when conditions have been unfavourable at the commencement of the lobster season and fish have not been caught for a considerable time after the season opened the conditions have been so favourable during the latter part of the season that the catch has been just as good as in normal years. In view of the very strong representations that have been made to the department we have asked our fishery officers in the different districts all over the country to carefully observe and note what the catch and conditions are and to make reports to us which we will receive by the fifteenth of this month so that we will be in a position to come to an intelligent conclusion in regard to the matter. I dislike extending the seasons. They were made for the purpose of preserving the fish an,d preventing the destruction of the fisheries and it seems to me to be almost better, taking one year with another, that there should be no extension, because, while the catch might be smaller one year, perhaps as a result of the enforcement of the regulations and the preventing of the taking of a large number of lobsters, an increased catch is the result and the fishing is better in the future. However, there are other considerations which will have to be taken into account. The fishermen go to considerable expense to get their gear and supply themselves with boats and lobster traps. Some of them make it their principal source of livelihood and if they are not allowed to pursue their calling, and they get a smaller Quantity of fish, it makes the conditions
very difficult for them and that is especially the case this year when there is such a demand for food products. We have taken steps to get preliminary information to enable us to come to a wise and sound conclusion in regard to the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: Could the minister tell me what the dates are when the season closes on the different sections of the coastf


John Douglas Hazen: It closes in different districts at different times. In the district in which the hon. member for Northumberland is interested, it closes on June 25, and in the district in which my hon. friend from Guysborough is interested, it closes on June 20. I think it is five days earlier in that part of Nova Scotia than it is along the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Northumberland Straits. It opens earlier and closes earlier in the districts on the south shore of Nova Scotia, on the bay of Fundy and in the counties of St. John and Charlotte. These dates5 of course, were fixed in consequence of the reports of commissions. There have been from time to time lobster commissions. There was one about 1897, or 1898, and in 1912 there was another to consider altered conditions. The close seasons were fixed very largely on the reports of these commissions which have been made after taking evidence and getting the views of the men who are interested in the lobster fishery on different parts of the coast of the Maritime Provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to point out the importance of arriving at a decision as early as possible, because, if it is left until the 15th of the present month and the season closes on the 20th, there will scarcely be time enough for the fishermen to get the news on the coast. It takes several days to have them notified in regard to an extension, and if an extension is going to be made, a decision should be arrived at as soon as possible, and the fishermen given notice at least a week ahead so as to permit them to make their plans as to the . date at which they will take up their traps. With reference to the district in which I am particularly interested, from Halifax Harbour to Point Michaud, I would ask the minister to instruct the officers to telegraph the information so that the fishermen will have sufficient notice.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend's point is well taken, and we will wire if it has not already been done. When I was speaking about getting these reports on the 15th I

had mostly reference to the district where the season closes on the 25th. The commissioner tells me that we will have the report from the district in which my hon. friend is particularly interested by the 10th or 12th, and as there is very nearly a week before the close season, we will be prepared to make an announcement as to whether we shall make an extension or not.


Mr. TURGEON:: Has the minister given any attention to the remarks I made the other day?


John Douglas Hazen: In regard to fishing in October?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: I have not been able to give much attention to that question since my hon. friend made the suggestion, although it has been made before. I intend to give attention to it and to get a report on the subject. But I think the best opinion of our fishery officers is that such a course, if it were adopted, would result in the destruction of the lobsters and cause great injury to the fishery in the future. I will get all the information I can on the subject.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I hope the minister will, because I am not of opinion that fishing in the- fall would be more disastrous to the lobster industry than in the spring. I 'believe that this opinion will be supported by the fishermen on the coast. I see that the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) has been coming to my way of thinking during the past year or two, and that alone says something.


John Douglas Hazen: It is hard not to come your way.


Charles Marcil: This question would not be complete if I did not put in a word for the coast of Quebec. The season is very late there always, starting from the mouth of the Restigouche river, they cannot place lobster traps until the end of May. So the early part of the season is lost, and they have to stop fishing when they have only properly started to work. This spring the season is much later than usual. The spring is fully a month later in Quebec, and so I hope the minister will consider that district when he is considering these points in the Maritime Provinces.


John Douglas Hazen: The district to which my hon. friend refers, I presume, is up at the head of the Baie de Chaleur.


Charles Marcil: The whole coast of Quebec.


John Douglas Hazen: There is not a very large catch. The season is late and the result is that the fishermen do not have a very long time in which to catch lobsters. But the information we have is that if you extend the season there beyond the present date the lobsters are getting in a condition when they are not fit to catch. If you catch them then you destroy them without getting very much in food value in return.


Charles Marcil: Why not give a season in the fall, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon)? This is an unusual year, food supplies are very scarce, and a trial might be made this year to see the effect of a fall fishing season.


Mr. LOGGIE:: How does the minister square his statement that lobsters would not be in good condition after the 25th of June with the fact that in another district he starts the season on the 24th of May and allows it to run until the 10th of August? Does he mean that the lobsters canned in that district are not suitable for food?


John Douglas Hazen: I can only see that it is a bad season, but under the conditions in that district if you did not let them fish at that season you could not let them fish at all. The whole subject is a
5 p.m. most difficult one and it is hard to get fishermen to agree among themselves upon it. It is just the same with the lobster hatcheries, some of which were established before I came into office. We had been hoping that the lobster hatcheries would increase the supply of lobsters, but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) the other evening, Professor Knight, after carrying out experiments in connection with the lobster industry, is of opinion that the lobster hatcheries are not only not assisting in increasing the number of lobsters but are a detriment, because you take the female lobster and take the berries from it to send to the hatchery and then the female lobster is sent to the cannery. He has a theory that you could replenish the lobster fishing much more quickly by passing a regulation to the effect that if any female lobsters in the berry stage are caught they should at once be returned to the sea so that the increase would come about in the natural way. Dr. Knight is carrying on a very extensive inquiry in regard to this matter, and among the other subjects he has to consider is the question raised by the hon. member for Gloucester as to whether it

would not be better to prohibit entirely the catching of lobsters during the months of June, July and August, and allow fishing to take place at a later date. That is absolutely contrary to the views that have prevailed among fishery experts and officers in the past.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is Dr. Knight making his observations?


John Douglas Hazen: Dr. Knight is a professor at Queen's college, Kingston. He has been making observations at the biological station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, at Digby, where lobsters are impounded for observation, and at points along the Nova Scotia coast and Northumberland straits. Last year he was on the Digby coast.


John Howard Sinclair: It should not be difficult for scientific men to be certain whether or not the lobster hatcheries are doing good work. We all know what they do. The berries are put in the jars in the hatchery and after they are hatched the little lobster is syphoned out into the sea about three miles from the coast, and we know nothing more about it. The theory %ve used to get from the scientists was that the little lobster drifted on the surface of the water for several days until his claws formed, and then he sank to the bottom and grew up to be a lobster. That is what we were told. I do not see that there can be any great trouble in ascertaining whether that is true or not It could be done by actual experiment. It should not be difficult to follow \these fry up after they are placed in the water and to ascertain from day to day whether they are still floating on the surface, or are living, or what becomes of them. It is only by actual contact with the lobster hatcheries and fisheries that the scientists can obtain proper knowledge. I think that the scientists should go to the hatchery and stay there and see how these fry get along whether they really do grow up or not. This is a matter of very great importance, as we are spending a great deal of money in the hatching of lobsters, and if there are no results, it is better to know it. We were always of the opinion that, on the coast of Pietou county, with which district my hon. friend from Pietou is more familiar than I, that the hatchery at' Caribou was doing good work. There was no part of Nova Scotia, so far as I know, where the catch of lobster was kept up better than on the northern shore served by the hatchery at Cariboo. It was one of the earliest hatcheries on the coast of Nova Scotia, and we always had the idea that in that region the supply wae being maintained. I thin-k the hon. gentleman from Pietou will agree with me m that statement. There is no reason why there should not be similar results in other places. If the minister has a really good officer to investigate, I trust he will ascertain for certain whether the lobster fry that we put in at the sea lives, grows up. and keeps the fisheries going, as we expected them to do, when we spent all this mojjey in establishing these hatcheries.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last summer I met Professor Knight, the gentleman who was conducting the investigation in my county, where there has been a hatchery for a number of years. I was very much impressed with his anxiety to make the investigations as effective as possible. He succeeded in interesting the fishermen of the county in the problem as to how the industry could be served to a greater degree than any man I have seen representing the department in connection with that problem in the past. At various meetings held in the district he explained the process of observation which he was carrying on, that he had been at Digby, or somewhere in that vicinity, where there had been a pond, and he was comparing the results in both places, and, in addition to watching the development of the lobster in the hatcheries, he was experimenting with the production of lobsters in an artificial pond, which he built in the vicinity. One could not help being impressed with the capacity of Dr. Knight. I think he is carrying on good wprk. He has very strong views in reference to certain matters in connection with lobster propagation and development, which, no doubt, he communicated to the department, and the balance of his judgment, as I understand, was against the continuance of the hatcheries, and rather in favour of the establishment of ponds. I think, as between the two conditions under which he experimented side by side at Caribou, that better results were obtained in one than the other. That is my recollection, but I am not speaking from definite data in the matter. The idea of a fall season was urged by a great many of the fishermen in my district. I do not pretend to speak with any particular knowledge, but this view has been entertained by the fishermen in my county.


William Stewart Loggie: I do not think it would be in the interests of the fishermen to do away



with the spring fishing, and substitute the autumn fishing for it. The district referred to by the hon. gentleman from Bonaven-ture, I thought, was unfairly treated by the shortening of the time. The committee who had charge of it took a certain number of days off the district, and added a recommendation that the season for the district in question should be further cut, a certain number of days after the first or second year. I think the district was unfairly treated in the circumstances, this year we have only spine three or four weeks' fishing and our product will be short, and it is possible the minister may be willing, under the present circumstances,, t<o consider that, but to my mind the season in the district should extend to the end of June instead of the 25th. Then the same number of days would be taken off as has been taken off in the other districts. Regarding the hatcheries, I suppose hon. gentlemen know that fish devour one another. On one occasion I was at a hatchery near Shippigan, and these little lobsters, about the size of mosquitoes, were coming out of the shell, and the small fish that had been pumped up from the channel were devouring these little lobsters. There is a general impression that these lobsters are emptied, as it were, into the sea, and remain on the surface, and are devoured by other fish. I am quite sure that, at certain seasons of the year, other fish, say mackerel or herring, do school very largely on the surface of the water, and, of course, they are cannibals, if I may so express myself, and they devour one another, and I am under the impression that large numbers of those little lobsters thus cast upon the sea are devoured by other fish. I have heard' as a suggested remedy that the department should place these lobsters in shallow water in the seaweed, If they put them down at low water, the tide would rise and cover them, and in that way they would be on the bottom. I mention that, because there are not many fish in the bays in the summer season. Some smelts and tommy cod frequent them but not to any great extent. I have heard it suggested that much better results would be obtained if these lobsters were deposited in shallow water, in the eel grass, so that they could get to the bottom, and have time to grow and take care of themselves up to a certain time. I do not pretend to have a deep scientific knowledge along these lines, and I do not know whether that is practical or not, but I do believe it would be wise to do away with the spring fishing [M. Loggie.J
season, because pilfering would go on after the close season, as it goes on after the 25th of June. The season in that district is five days too short to be fair with the other districts. If we take up our traps on the 25th June, and keep them on shore until the lobster has shed its shell, got the new shell, and got into a hardy condition so that it moves around, as it does in the course of a few weeks, perhaps it would not be unfair to let the fishermen have, say two or three weeks in the month of September: give them the month of September, or whatever time the department find the lobster is in a wholesome condition for food, and then let everybody, small and large, try to obey the law, and avoid this charge that is so rampant, that he law is not recognized, which is quite true. There" is no question whatever about the infringement of the law. Parties will get a few cans, put these lobsters in the cans at their homes, and market them. The quality is not what it ought to be, but nevertheless the lobsters are put on the market, and they find a ready sale, especially if the supply is short. I had a telegram from home yesterday saying that at present fishing is good. In a telegram that I received to-day it was suggested that an offeT which had been received for the purchase of goods should be declined, because of the probability of the supply being short. I think that for this year the minister ought to extend until July 5 the fishing season which closes on June 25. We used to have until July 10, but subsequently ten days were taken off the time. When ten days is taken off the fishing season in one district, not more should be taken off in another. I think that in the interests of all concerned, the minister ought to give these matters consideration.


George William Kyte: The fishermen are suffering
serious handicaps in Tespect of the cost of the necessary supplies, the cost of living and the general scarcity of food. I think, therefore, that we would not be asking too much if we requested that the close season should be entirely abolished for the present year. In the part of Nova Scotia which I represent, the fishermen are not getting as much for their catch this year as formerly, the canneries stating that the transportation of lobsters is restricted by reason of the shortage of merchant shipping. Under present war conditions, it is only fair that the fishermen should be relieved to. some extent from the difficulties under which they are working, and much would be accom-

plished in this direction by allowing them a full season',, fishing of lobsters until the fall.


John Douglas Hazen: I am afraid that if we allowed the lobster fishing to go on without provision for a close season, the result would be prejudicial to lobster fishing in future years. To he honest with my hon. friend, I do not think that his suggestion can be complied with.


George William Kyte: In what respect would it
have a had effect?


John Douglas Hazen: For one thing, it would reduce the market price. The quantity of lobsters obtained would be so great that they would be a drug on the market. I do not think that it is in anybody's interest that my hon. friend's suggestion should be carried out.


Arthur Bliss Copp: One of the fishery overseers in my county, Mr. Prescott, died about a year ago. Who was appointed in his place?


John Douglas Hazen: My recollection is that, as about 18 miles intervened between the different points which had to be especially watched by the guardian, the district was considered too large. Accordingly, the dis-was divided and one guardian appointed for each district, the salary being divided between them. I do not recollect the names; I shall be glad to send them to my hon. friend later.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Prescott's salary was only $100, and the dividing of the district would result in the men getting $50 each, which is a very small salary. My impression is that the chief duty of an officer of , this kind is to see that no refuse from the mills gets into the fishing streams. It is a fact that the sawmills dump sawdust and other refuse into the streams which flow into fishing waters. This is not prevented by a visit from the fishery officer or by the writing of a letter. If in the opinion of my hon. friend's officials, the dumping of refuse into these waters is detrimental to fishing interests, I would suggest that he pay the officers who attend to that matter a sufficient salary and clothe them with sufficient power to enable them to prevent the practice, which has not been prevented up to the present time.


George William Kyte: I am surprised to observe . the difference in the salaries paid to various fishery officers in Nova Scotia. For instance, Mr. Aylmer, of Meteghan, gets a salary of $500, in addition to travelling allowance. Mr. Burke, of Albert Bridge,
138}
gets $165. Mr. J. M. Campbell, of Halifax, gets only $15. I see in the Auditor General's Report the name of another officer whose salary is $500, and another who receives as small an amount as $60.


John Douglas Hazen: The man who gets $500 is allowed $150 for horse hire, but he gets no mileage, as some other inspectors do. His hotel bills also are paid.


George William Kyte: His travelling allowance is larger than a good many others, and he receives also a salary of $500.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps he has a larger district.


George William Kyte: Edward Chute gets $500, in addition to travel and outlay, $278.91. J. A. Donovan, of Ingonish, receives the princely salary of $60, but he has the consolation of having drawn $389.32 for travel and outlay, making altogether $449.32. It seems to me that the system is antiquated, and that the salaries ought to be revised. The fact that a man draws a salary of $60 a year and receives an amount by way of travel and outlay of $389.32, indicates either that he is not getting a sufficient salary, or that he is drawing too much for travel and outlay, having regard to the work that he is doing. A few years ago all fishery officers throughout Nova Scotia were getting practically the same salary. In the last few years, however, I find that the salaries of some of these officials have advanced in a very marked degree. I do not understand that that is altogether because of any special difference in the character of the work they are doing. If the work of Mr. Donovan, for instance, of Ingonish, is such that the necessary travel and outlay should amount to $389.32, then he is entitled to a salary of more than $60 per year. The whole thing appears to be wrong; there ought to be a scale of salaries prevailing throughout Nova Scotia for all officers of that particular class. I cannot see why one fishery overseer should receive a salary of $500 and travelling expenses of $248.58, whereas another gentleman occupying the same position and doing the same work receives a salary of only $60. I do not know whether this inequality is due to influence that certain officers may have with the department as against others, but it is almost scandalous to have it appear in the public records of this country that men occupying the same positions and discharging the same duties should be compensated so unfairly and with such a great inequality.


John Douglas Hazen: I am not disposed to differ very much from my hon. friend. There is need for a very great reorganization in connection with the salaries paid to these fishery officers. We have been able to effect that reorganization up to the present time in the western part of Nova Scotia, where we have fewer officers than we have in other parts of that province, with the result that we give them larger territory to look after and greater recompense for their services. The same question will have to be grappled with in the other parts of Nova Scotia, but 'at the present time and in the past there has been such a large number of offices that the officers have been receiving small salaries. It would be better to have fewer officers and to give them larger salaries. I hope, if we live long enough, we shall have a reorganization throughout the whole province. Some of these officers are paid small amounts such as $20 or $25, and in this day and generation you cannot expect any service of value for remuneration of that sort.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I see by the Auditor General's Report that Mr. Robert Prescott, an overseer at Baie Verte, in New Brunswick, is receiving a salary of $150, with travelling expenses of $718.29.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The $150 is put at the wrong end.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that the area is a large one, and as Mr. Prescott lives inland at some distance from the shore where the factories are, he receives so much per mile for travelling expenses. I am making only the same criticism as my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte). From the Auditor General's Report I find that the expenditure in connection with the fishery overseers in the province of New Brunswick amounts to $7,195.69, hut under the heading of special guardians there is an expenditure for wages and disbursements up to March 31, 1916, of $34,429.81. There are no items or explanations with regard to this, and I would like to know what it means.


John Douglas Hazen: That is all published in the official report, and I will get the information for my hon. friend.
I


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any scale of disbursements? Is so much allowed for every mile travelled? Is any provision made for horse hire, or anything like that? I regret that the geographical knowledge of the minister is so limited that he does not know where Ingonish is, and I doubt the right of any gentleman to be in the Govern-

ment who does not know where that great place is situated. I know the inspector there, and I would like to know where he travels abroad so extensively, because he seems to be provided so amply with funds. Perhaps when these estimates come up again the minister will be able to tell me the number of imiles this officer travels, where he goes and the extent of his district. If his district is Ingonish alone that is a magnificent spot in the summer time on the beautiful shores of the Atlantic, and a man ought to be willing to travel around there for nothing, as it is such a lovely spot.


John Douglas Hazen: You think he ought to be able to live on the sea breezes?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to know what Mr. Donovan is doing for his country for the money he is receiving.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be very glad to get all the details for my hon. friend. As regards the question asked by -the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp), Mr. Prescott is one of the regular fishery overseers and, like all the rest, where he owns a horse himself, he is allowed ten cents a mile for the distance he travels on business connected with his position. With regard to salaries and disbursements of fishery officers, if my hon. friend will look at page 363 of the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Naval Service, he will see the way in which the different items are made up. If, after looking at that, he desires further information, we shall be glad to furnish it.


Frank Oliver: 11 wish to draw the attention of the minister to a matter of hardship that is taking place under the administration of the department in connection with the fisheries at Lac la Biche, north of Edmonton. The minister is, of course, aware that in northern Alberta there are a. number of important lakes which furnish white fish in large quantities, and that since the recent construction of railroads, those fish are available for the world market. The question of fishing in this lake has become a commercial matter and means the investment of considerable capital. Since the railroad was constructed to Lac la Biche, there was commercial fishing for export last year. This commercial fishing is done in this way. Certain companies establish the necessary plants of houses, ice-storing, box-making and so on, and either they provide small boats and rig-outs for actual fishermen, or fishermen come in and supply their own and, sell their fish to these com=

mercial establishments which box, cool and ship the fish to the market. The buildings must be erected; the ice must be put up in the winter time, and every preparation made in advance of the actual fishing season. During the season the company depends on the fishing operations for the realization on the capital invested.
The spring fishing season opened on 5th May this year. On the day before, after all preparations had been made, all licenses issued, buildings erected, boats and nets provided, and everything else made ready, the Department of Fisheries at Ottawa wired restricting the total catch from the lake to
240,000	pounds for the season. Already the department had issued licenses for commercial fishing in the lake to the number of 125, which was 55 more than last year. By the issue of these licenses they have attracted to the lake poor men-these fishermen are generally poor-and have been the means of causing them to spend their time and invest in boats and other fishing gear, and, by issuing one-third more licenses this year than last, have led everyone to suppose that there would be no limit on the fishing; and then a wire is sent out the day before the season opens telling the licensees
IVin+ +VinTT nro li-mi + A/H + <->
n /vn An+il-YT nrVi !/-*!-* -i -f
divided equally among them, would not give any of them a summer's earnings.
Now, we are quite agreeable that the department should decide that not more than so many pounds of fish shall be taken put of the lake during the season, if they make the decision upon information and knowledge. But when they make that decision, they should not issue an unlimited number of fishing licenses, thereby inducing the investment of time and money in an enterprise that, by reason of the restriction of the department itself, cannot possibly result in advantage to the parties concerned. It may be that the Government think it does not make any difference, that it does not concern them; that they are protecting the fish and it does not matter about the people. In my judgment, it matters a great deal more about the people than about the fish. The Government has no right to deal with the people, even if they are poor people, in that way. They should exercise reasonable judgment in issuing licenses for fishing in any lake in which they intend to restrict the catch. Last year, there was no restriction on the catch, and all the fishing companies were allowed to catch as much as they could. People had no Teason to believe that there would be any restriction this year, until after every investment had
been made, and every preparation completed. If I speak strongly on tbis matter, it is because what took place in this case this year took place in the' case of Lesser Slave lake last year. In the previous season, there was unrestricted fishing in that lake, and when the next season came, after licenses had been issued, a restriction was announced. It was an unjustifiable hardship, both upon the people who are investing their money as fish exporters and upon the unfortunate fishermen who gather there. I have not heard from Lesser Slave lake this year, and I do not know the conditions there, but I do know that last year there was an unjustifiable hardship. Representations were made to the department on the subject last yeaT, and I ami astonished to know that exactly the same course has been followed in the case of Lac la Biehe this year. I cannot imagine that the minister could have had knowledge of the facts in time or it would not have occurred. I may say that the equipment of the individual fishermen costs 560 or $70, exclusive of boats, licenses, and incidentals, and the total catch allowed, if divided equally among the licenses, will not afford a return foT the' investment


John Douglas Hazen: This matter was brought
to my attention on several occasions last year. Lao la Biohe, which is not a very large lake, was, until the last Jew years, so far removed from settlement that there was very little desire tp fish in it. But, in consequence of the opening up of communication by the building of railways in that district and by other means, the fishing attracts many people who previously could not take advantage of it. Last year, 33 people applied for and obtained licenses to fish in the lake. As a result, we received petitions from the locality pointing out that as the lake was not a large one, if fishing were allowed without restriction, as to the quantity taken, the result would be that in a short time no. fish would be left in the lake, and the people in the vicinity would not have the advantage of living in the neighbourhood of water in which fish could be caught. We communicated with our inspector on the subject. The inspector visited the lake and reported that in his opinion it was not safe to allow more than
234,000	pounds of fish to be taken out each year during the summer fishing- The same representations were made to us this year by settlers in the neighbourhood who are interested in the fishing. At the same time

representations were made on behalf of the fishing companies and others, that they should be allowed to fish without restrictions, and their statements as to the capacity of the lake and its resources in fish were different from, those made toy the fisheries officers. At that time 150 licenses [DOT] had been applied for and taken out.


Frank Oliver: The minister now is dealing with Lesser Slave lake.	-


John Douglas Hazen: No, my present remarks
are confined entirely to Lac la Biehe. Professor Prince has 'been at Lesser Slave lake and he also inquired about the condition at Lao la Biche. He reported that in his judgment 400,000 pounds of fish could be taken out without destroying the usefulness of the lake as a fishing lake, and his report was concurred in by the fishery officers of the district. We therefore placed a limit of 400,000 pounds, and that is the limit to-day. The point was raised-and I understand that to a certain extent that is the complaint of the hon. member for Edmonton-that if only a limited quantity of fish were allowed to be taken from' the lake the department should issue only a limited number of licenses.


Frank Oliver: Commercial licenses.


John Douglas Hazen: 
John Douglas Hazen: The first report we had
from our officers was that 240,000 pounds was the amount that we could safely allow to be taken out, but subsequent reports have led us to the conclusion that 400,000 pounds might be taken out in a season without injury and 400,000 is the amount now fixed.


Frank Oliver: There are two seasons for fishing?


John Douglas Hazen: Just the summer season.


Frank Oliver: For this season the
amount is 400,000 and not 240,000 pounds?


John Douglas Hazen: 400,000 pounds.


Frank Oliver: That is perfectly satisfactory. I do not wish to unduly press the department about restricting the amount of fish that may be taken from the lake and I appreciate that there may be some difficulties in adjusting the issuing of licenses. The department might take the view that it has information before it as to whether people could make a living out of fishing or not. If they choose to put it that way, that is a matter for their consideration, but what I desire to emphasize is that if they are going to restrict the amount that may be taken, and if they are not going to restrict the number of licenses to be issued, the public should have notice before they apply, that the licenses are issued subject to a restriction upon the taking of fish. With regard to Lac La Biche, my information is that licenses were issued without restriction and that preparation was made, both by the fishermen and the fish companies, tor taking an unrestricted amount of fish, but that on the 4th day of May, just before the fishing opened, they were notified not that 400,000 pounds, but that only 240,000 pounds, might be taken. I am sure that the minister must appreciate the unfortunate position that resulted from that lack of notice, The people who had obtained licenses had no means

of protecting themselves. If they had had information when they applied for licenses that the limit had to be placed on the amount of 'fish to be taken they- could have used their own judgment with regard to the matter. My information is that the people were given to understand, by reason of the action during the previous year, that they had an unrestricted right to take fish as there was no restriction on the number of licenses and it was not until every preparation was made that they were notified of this limitation and then apparently they were notified as to an amount below the mark that has finally been conceded by the department. They were notified that the amount was 240,000 pounds which was a very severe blow to their expectations. These expectations were justified in view of the policy of the department *with regard to lac la Biche last year. If a change was going to be made they should have had due notice. They did not have notice. That is exactly what occurred with regard to Slave lake a yeaT ago. I am consuming the time of the House now for the purpose of impressing upon the minister the absolute injustice of withholding this notice until such a late date, and whatever decision the department arrives at as to the amount of fish that may be taken ought to be made known from year to year before the licenses are issued, if the department does not see fit to restrict the number of licenses.


John Douglas Hazen: I recognize my hon. friend's desire to put this before the committee properly. I am informed that when the application for licenses were made a limit had not been fixed, but that before they were issued the limit had been fixed and that the department had no knowledge of the applications until a few days before the limitation was adopted. That is the information I get from the Superintendent of Fisheries. However, a limit has been adopted now and in future years it will be known what the limit is. If a change takes place, if it is found that the taking out of
400,000	pounds is more than the lake can stand, we will endeavour to see that notice is given so that people, before they take1 out their licenses will know what the limit' is.


Frank Oliver: There are other lakes that will come in and I am anxious that the minister should be aware of the hardship that might occur in such cases so that he will take the proper measures in the future.


George William Kyte: I intended to make some remarks on this item and perhaps, Mr. chairman, you would call it six o'clock.


John Douglas Hazen: The item is No. 249.


George William Kyte: I was under a misapprehension as to the item; I thought we were discussing No. 248, and I have some observations to make on that item.


John Douglas Hazen: Well, we will wait at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, respecting The British Columbia and White River Railway Company.- Mr. Clements.
SECOND READING OF SENATE BIDES. Bill No. 60, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Wilcox.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Charles Frederick Reuben Jones.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Florence Amelia Kennedy.-Mr. Edwards. _
Bill No. 63, for the relief of John Basshett Parker.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Amy Beatrice Mathews Hilton.-Sir Herbert Ames.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Fisheries-Degal and incidental expenses, $4,000.
['Yes.\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 11 p.m.\nMonday, June 11, 1917.']
George William Kyte: Since the House rose at six o'clock, I have been making some further investigations as to the differences in salaries of fishery overseers in the province of Nova Scotia, and these investigations confirm me in the belief that the increases that have been accorded to certain fishery overseers must have more relation to the activities of certain hon. members in this House who have the ear of the minister, than to the circumstances in which these overseers are situated or the amount of work they do. Take the salary of William Aymar, of Meteghan, in the constituency of Digby, who receives $500 a year; while Sylvester Boudrot, of Petit de Grat, in the constituency of Richmond, has to be content with a salary of $100. Edward -Chute,

of Canada Creek, in the county of Annapolis, enjoys $500; while M. J. Coady, of Southwest Margaree, in the constituency represented by my hon. friend from Inverness, has a salary of $60 only. Mr. J. G. D'Entremont, of Middle West Pubnico, fishery officer in Digby -county, enjoys $800, while J. A. Donovan, of Ingonish, in the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria, has to be content with $60. Mr. J. A. Evans, of Chester, in the constituency of Lunenburg, enjoys $700; while N. Ferguson, of Port Moren, South Cape Breton, receives only $55. W. E. Fraser, of Liverpool, in the county of Queens, enjoys $750; while Ed. Hall, Main-a-Dieu, South Cape Breton, has a salary of only $55. D. L. McDonald, Bailey's Brook, in the county of Pictou, is paid for his services $75; Walter Purdy, Deep Brook, $700; J. J.-Ross, North East Margaree, $60; C. F. Rathbun, Hortonville, $400 (that is in King's County, Nova Scotia, I think); T. Sullivan, Little Bras d'Or, $55; George Walls, Shelburne, $750; E. J. Thibeau, Thibeauville, in the county of Richmond, $100; R. Sutherland, River John, $150.
Hon. members of this committee will observe that in every case the fishery officers enjoying large salaries happen to reside in the counties of Nova Scotia represented by Conservative members, whereas in nearly every case the fishery overseers who must be content with a smaller salary happen to be discharging their duties in the counties of Nova Scotia represented by Liberal members.


Mr. DTJGALD STEWART:: What is the salary of the fishery officer in the county of Yarmouth?
Mr. IvYTE: Mr. D'Entremont gets a salary of $800.


Dugald Stewart: The hon.
gentleman said he was in the county of Digby?


George William Kyte: It should be Yarmouth.


Dugald Stewart: Represented by a Liberal?


George William Kyte: Unfortunately not represented at the present time, but it was represented by a Liberal. H scarcely imagine that the fishery officers who are residing in the counties represented by Conservatives have any more important duties to perform than the fishery officers in other parts of Nova Scotia. It is well known that Guysborough, Richmond, Inverness, Cape Breton are fishing counties, having a 
large portion of the population engaged in the fishing industry. The duties of inspectors in these counties are as important and the districts quite as large and as difficult to get over as in the other counties. I am not going to say at the present time that any of these gentlemen who enjoy the larger salaries are paid too much for their services, but if they are not paid too much, then the other' fishery overseers whose names I have mentioned are not receiving a sufficient salary. I am aware that before the late Government went out of office the Fisheries Department and the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries had in contemplation the readjustment of the salaries of the officers I have mentioned. Nothing effective was d6ne in that direction, and I regret very much that during the past five years the present minister has been unable to devise some plan whereby a more equitable adjustment of the salaries could be made and the grounds of complaint-and there are substantial grounds of complaint made by the fishery officers who are paid small salaries -removed. The salaries of fishery officers in the county of Richmond are: Mr. S. Boudrot, Petit de Grat, $100; Mr. Anthony Sampson, L'Ardoise, $125 ; Mr. Thibeau, $100. Probably a larger portion of the population of Richmond is engaged in fishing than in any other county in Nova Scotia. The work that is expected of the fishery officers of the county of Richmond, whose names I have just mentioned, is quite as important and exacting as , the work that pertains to the offices of gentlemen occupying similar positions throughout Nova Scotia. If those who are enjoying a salary of $600, $700 or $800 are not paid top much for their services, then certainly the officers in my county are not paid sufficient salary. The discrepancy is entirely too great. I have to congratulate my hon. friends representing Lunenberg, Shelburn, Queens, Digby and Annapolis upon their ability to impress upon the Minister <of Marine and Fisheries the necessity for securing larger salaries for the men discharging those duties in their respective constituencies. I find no fault with them whatever. I regret that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not been able, during the five years that he has been head of the department, to readjust the salaries so that the other fishery officers, whose names I have mentioned, would enjoy a salary adequate to the services which they perform. I am very glad to hear from the minister that the Government is contemplating a readjustment of the scale of salar-

ies, and I trust he will find himself able, during the present session of Parliament, to give some increase to the fishery officers tp whom I have referred, who aTe in receipt of small salaries. No possible defence can be made that will adequately explain the discrepancies in the salaries which I have quoted to this committee, and if a more equitable adjustment of the salaries were made, I am sure it would give satisfaction to all those who are interested in the fishing industry. -


John Douglas Hazen: As I stated this afternoon,
I am disposed very largely to agree with what my hon. friend says, and I have no hesitation in saying that there should be a reorganization and a readjustment of these salaries in a very considerable portion of Nova S-cotia. We have been able to get that Organization effected at the present time in the western counties of Nova Scotia. The result is that the number of fishery officers has been very greatly reduced in the western counties, and those who remain are given larger districts, and paid better salaries than previously. In Annapolis county there is one fishery officer, in Digby county, two, Kings county, two; Lunenburg county, two; Queen county, two; Shelburne, two; and Yarmouth, one. Those gentlemen are all receiving salaries that are fairly reasonable. They are not too large, and in addition to their salaries, instead of being allowed a mileage rate for the number of miles they travel in making their tours of inspection, they are allowed $150 for horse hire, where they keep horses themselves. Coming down to the other end of Nova Scotia, in which my hon. friend is specially interested, I find there are in Cape Breton, eight fishery officers, and these fishery officers receive small salaries, running from $55 to $155, but in addition to that they are allowed ten cents a mile travelling allowance going from one place to another. Henry A. King, Little Bras d'Or, Edward Hall, Main-a-dieu, Angus McLean, Clarks Boads, Cape Breton; J. M. Gillis, Grand Mira, Allan McDonald, Ga-barus Lake; Murdoch McLean, Leitches' Creek, Norman Ferguson, Port Morien; William Burke, Mira Ferry. In Inverness county there are six fishery officers; in Victoria county, seven.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister give me the names?


John Douglas Hazen: J. T. Donovan, Ingonish; Angus M. McDonald, Plaster, North Shore; J. M. Campbell, care of Marine Agent, Halifax; Allan McAulay, Big Baddeck; William Hellen, Cape North; Daniel J. Grant,
Boulardarie East; A. F. McKenzie, Middle River.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The name of the officer at Middle River is McDonald, not McKenzie.	[DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: The name is given here as A. J. McKenzie. While the salaries in Cape Breton are lower, many more fishery officers are employed there than in the western part, of Nova Scotia, where we have effected a reorganization. I believe it is much better to have a few officers adequately paid and allowed a fixed amount of $150 for horse hire than to have a large number of officers who are paid small salaries and who receive a travelling allowance of 10 cents a mile. I hope to be able to effect a reorganization in Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia in line with the reorganization which has been worked out during the last few years in the western part of Nova Scotia. There would not be much difference between the amount paid the officers in the island of Cape Breton by way of salaries, expenses and charges for mileage afid the amount paid the officers in western Nova Scotia.
Mr.'SINCLAIR: How many officers are there in the county of Lunenburg?


John Douglas Hazen: Two, Austin J. Evans and L. J. Hebb. Mr. Evans has enlisted for overseas service. His salary, $700, is paid, less $1.10 a day, the amount of his pay from the Militia Department.


John Howard Sinclair: How much do the two officers in Guysborough receive?


John Douglas Hazen: $200 each.


John Howard Sinclair: In Lunenburg the two officers receive $1,450, against $400 received by the officers in Guysborough.


John Douglas Hazen: The fishery officers in Guysborough receive a travelling allowance of 10 cents a mile, which would amount to a considerably larger sum than the amount paid the fishery officers in Lunenburg for horse hire.


John Howard Sinclair: The travel and outlay of Mr. Hebb last year was $309.50, and that of Mr. Evans was $247.20.


John Douglas Hazen: Under the reorganization effected in western Nova Scotia, the fishery officers are allowed $150 for the keep of their horses. In Cape Breton and the other counties the officers get a mileage allowance of 10 cents a mile.


George William Kyte: The travelling expenses of the fishery officers in the island of Cape

Breton who are receiving salaries of from $50 to $100 are no greater than those of the fishery officers in western Nova Scotia who receive salaries as high as $500 and $700. Mr. Aymer, of Meteghan, whose salary is $500, received $248.58 for travel and outlay, whereas Mr. Thibeau of Richmond county, who gets a salary of $100, expended for travel and outlay only $212.21. Edward Chute, of Canada Creek, whose salary is $500, expended for travel and outlay $278.91, while Anthony Sampson, of L'Ar-doise, whose salary is $125, expended for travel and outlay $239.45. The minister must be mistaken when he says that the fishery officers of Cape Breton are getting more for travel and outlay than the fishery officers of western Nova Scotia.


John Douglas Hazen: In the county of Cape Breton, where there are eight officers, the travelling allowances are about equal to those of the two officers in any one of the counties in western Nova Scotia. I do not think that the services in the former case are as effective, because if a man gets a fair salary he devotes his attention largely to the duties of the position, but he gets only a trifling salary of from $50 to $150 he regards the work as a kind of side-line and does not give it the attention that he otherwise would. I think it would be far better to reduce the number of officers in Cape Breton and pay adequate salaries to those who do perform the duties, as we do in western Nova Scotia. I do not say that the condition of affairs in Cape Breton is satisfactory; there must be a reorganization there as well.


George William Kyte: The county of Cape Breton has a much larger area and a much longer coast line than any of the counties in western Nova Scotia. It necessarily follows that more officers are required there. But the gross amount paid to the eight officers in the county of Cape Breton by way of salaries is very much less than the amount paid the two officers in the county of Digby. The same applies to all the counties in the island of Cape Breton. The total amount paid for salaries and allowances of officers in the county of Cape Breton is less than that paid the smaller number of officers in any of the counties in western Nova Scotia. Either the officers in western Nova Scotia are too well paid, or those in eastern Nova Scotia are not sufficiently paid.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. member for Digby the other day made a proper statement of the present business methods of the Fisheries Department. This afternoon I cited 
a case where a fishery overseer or warden in New Brunswick, whose salary is $150 a year, received last year for travel and outlay, $718.20. The minister accounted for the amount of the travel and outlay by the fact that the overseers are given a travelling allowance of 10 cents a mile. The fishery overseer to whom I referred has certain duties in connection with the lobster fisheries, the open season for the district affected being from May 24 or 25 to August 10. I am not finding fault with this man or the amount that he is paid, but I contend that it is unbusinesslike to allow a man to be his own judge in the matter of the amount of travelling that he does, for which he receives 10 cents a mile.
I contend that Mr. Morrison, the inspector of the district which comprises five counties, who is paid a salary of $2,000 a year and who has received six or seven hundred dollars for travelling expenses, should organize those counties on a business basis, finding out what would be a reasonable remuneration for the overseers and paying them that amount. This is a matter of vital importance to the people. The same thing is true throughout the whole of New Brunswick, and I presume that the same thing exists in other provinces where fishery regulations require to be enforced. I find in the same county, within twenty miles of where Fishery Overseer Prescott lives, another overseer, Mr. Vinneau, of Barachois, who has a salary of $140 a year, and whose travel and outlay amounted to $1,008.54. Such a charge for travel and outlay is absolutely unjustifiable. I know the man and the district he has to work in. This matter should not be left in its present condition, because it is not conducive to good business or an honest expenditure of public money. I understood the minister to say that he had made a change in some portions of Nova Scotia, and I hope he will do the same in New Brunswick. I am not offering any*' criticism as to the amounts these men are paid; they should be paid a reasonable remuneration for their work, but they should be paid in. such a way that the chief inspector will have a check on this expenditure, so that he can see that they are not paid for what they do not do or for any expenses not connected with their district. I find another man in Barachois in exactly the same district, with a salary of $140 and travelling expenses of $549. This man must have practically the same area to look after. When I was at home a few days ago, a gentleman from Prince Edward Island happened to call at

my office, and he asked me to bring a certain matter to the attention of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes), who I see is not in his seat. This gentleman told me that fishermen on that island started fishing for smelts without licenses for the reason that the officers had no licenses to grant them. They did not fish before the season opened, but they fished before they received licenses; they went on fishing without licenses, and they were fined for doing so. I do not say that my information is correct, but if it be so, it only goes to prove that the business of the department is not being looked after as it should be. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) said the other day that the department was getting into a rut and that it was time it got out of it. I do not criticise the minister for finding the rut because the department was in that state when he took office, but there is no excuse for the minister, after five years, not getting out of that rut and placing his department on a business-like basis.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is quite
correct in saying that the system which he is condemning so forcibly to-night-and I do not say without some justification-is the same system that I found in force when I came into office, and which has been in force since Confederation; but if he says that I should have got that system out of the rut in five years, I would like to know what my hon. friend has to say about his own party who were in power for fifteen years and never got that system out of the rut. I have got it out of the rut so far as western Nova Scotia is concerned, where we have made a reorganization that is working satisfactorily. We have a reorganization effected in all the western provinces and in. British Columbia, and we hope to effect a reorganization along similar lines in other parts of Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island, and in a section of Quebec. With regard to Prince Edward Island it is claimed that the habit has been for the fishermen to go on fishing and take out their licenses in the middle of the fishing season or after the season is over. That is a very bad and improper system, and notices were issued by the department-with the desire to get out of the rut that the hon. member refers ' to-that these licenses would have to be taken out before the season commenced, and these notices were distributed throughout the district where the fishing takes
place. In view of that, if fishermen are allowed to continue fishing without taking out licenses, and if no attention is paid to such notices, how is one ever going to get business methods introduced or get out of the rut? In consequence of fishermen having disregarded those instructions, and having violated the law, they were in some cases brought before the Court, and where offences were proved against them, they were fined.
I have been informed that the old habit had prevailed so long that people did not think we were in earnest when we said we intended to have a better system, and in view of that, that perhaps it would be a proper act this year, when we were for the first time enforcing the conditions, to have the fines refunded, and this matter is being considered by the department. My hon. friend, however, will see how unwise it would be to allow that system to continue, instead of to put it on more businesslike lines as he himself is advocating in this House to-night. It is represented to me that the statement made by my hon. friend that these licenses could not be procured is not the case. The licenses were there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My information was that these men could not obtain their licenses in time for the opening of the season. As my hon. friend says, they had been in the habit of starting fishing without a license, and they fished for two or three days, not with any idea of evading or infringing upon the law or regulations with regard to the fishing of smelts, but because of the licenses not being procurable. They got, the licenses two or three days later on, but informations were laid against them, and fines were imposed of $5 or $10 apiece and costs.


John Douglas Hazen: It was nothing of the kind; the amount they were fined was the amount of the license fee they would have had to pay in any case. Of course, there would be a certain small amount of costs.


Mr. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, since the committee is now considering the salaries of certain employees of the Marine'Department, I shall take upon myself to offer a few remarks as to the electoral district of Rimouski-Matane. I have just heard my hon. friends on the other side of the House intimating that in their own constituencies the employees of the department are not as well paid as others in different parts of Nova Scotia, owing to political considerations. I shall point out to the lion. Minister of Marine that in the county of Rimouski, although

we are represented by a Conservative member, there are also public servants who are poorly paid, the more so during the present emergency brought on by the high cost of living. For instance, there is at Matane a lighthouse keeper who only gets $400 a year. He is not one of my political friend, but I think that in all fairness his salary is not high enough. A salary of $400 is hardly .sufficient to support a family at the present juncture, and that man has to attend to the lighthouse day and night. Beside the salary I have just mentioned he gets $50 a year as telegraph operator, forming a total amount of $450. Now, I will point out to the hon minister that there is in the county of Bimouski another man who is not by any means a Government employee, Mr. McWilliams, who gets $500 either from the Marine Department or the Public Works Department. 'It is a bonus which has been granted to him toy the, former Administration. That man is a telegraph .operator and Teports each vessel the same as the operator at Matane. He gets $500 from the Government merely for reporting vessels, while the other who attends to the lighthouse day in and day out and who moreover acts as telegraph operator gets only $450.
It seems to me that this is a case of discrimination and that it would be an act of justice on the part of the Marine Department to adjust the salary of the operator at Matane. I shall go further and ask that the operator at Father Point be dispensed with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has
not Mr. McWilliam been dismissed?


Herménégilde Boulay: He has been dismissed
as lighthouse keeper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was his
salary as lighthouse keeper?
Mr. BOULAY':	He gets $1,400 I think.
In the course of May last I put the following question on the Order Paper:
Q. Has J. McWilliams, G.-N. w. telegraph agent at Father Point, any position in the Government telegraph service? If so, whait are his duties?
A. The Government telegraph has no wires on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. The work in connection with the shipping and signal service, which is mainly on that side of the river, is performed on the lines of the G.N.W. Telegraph Company, and the Government, to secure efficient service, makes an allowance towards the maintenance of the Father Point telegraph station, which is the most important one on the river. This allow-

ance is $500 a year and has been paid since 1902 to the company's agent, Mr. J. McWilliams.
I am going to continue in English, -so that my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) cam understand better. There is another matter about the county of Bimouski to which, while I am on my feet, I desire to call the attention of the minister, and. that is the rate allowed for the pay of the board of the pilots. That rate is only twenty-five cents a meal, the same rate that has been allowed for many years past. But for the last two years at any rate, that Tate is much too low. The poor hotel-keepers ought not to be called upon to board these men at less than they pay for their provisions, even if they get nothing for their trouble. I think the Government should look into this matter and dio justice not only to the public tout also to the hotel-keepers.


Mr. CUBBIE:: Does the Government employ the pilots?


Herménégilde Boulay: There is an agreement 'between the Government and the Pilot Board that the hoards of the pilots while at Father Point -shall he paid toy the Government.


Morley Currie: They draw large sums of money from private corporations do they not? They serve steamer lines and get so much a day, and the Government implement jt toy a -grant of so much -for each meal.


Herménégilde Boulay: As I understand it, the arrangement was made some years ago between the Government and the Pilot Board. The question of their salaries did mot enter into it, tout, owing to special circumstances, the Government agreed to allow them 25 cents a meal for their hoard. With the present prices of food-, unless this rate is increased, the -situation will be intolerable.


John Douglas Hazen: I understood the hon. -member (Mr. Bonlay), in the first -place, to complain of the salaries paid to guardians on the* river -at Matane. That is a matter he would have to ibring to the attention of the Government of the province of Quebec, because the guardians who protect the river at Matane are appointed by the provincial government and paid by them, or under arrangement with the local government, by the lessees of the river. Begard-ing the matter at Father Point, to which he refers, this, of course, affects the Marine Department. The Estimates of that department were passed the other evening. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman did not bring this matter forward then,

because the Deputy Minister of Marine was present, and more definite information could have been given than I am able to give at this time. I understand that an arrangement was made by which Mr. McWilliams, telegraph operator, is paid ?400 a year for supplying certain information of value to the signal service and for information of the boats going up and down the river of value to the agents of those boats. I understand the hon. gentleman to complain, that the amount paid to Mr. McWilliams is in excess of the amount paid to an officer elsewhere. I will look into the matter to see if there is any discrepancy and whether the allowance made to the operator at the other point rhould be brought up to that paid to Mr. McWilliams. The hon. gentleman also referred to the allowance made for hoard of the pilots. My attention was called to this matter for the first time few days ago. It was represented to me that years ago an agreement was made that the pilots that go to Father Point, and wait there to take vessels up the St. Lawrence from the sea, were allowed 25 cents a meal. It was represented that, in view of the high cost of living, this rate was not sufficient, and that it ought to be increased to 40 cents a meal. I instructed the officials to look up the file and get the facts, so that I could look into the matter and see just what the liability of Parliament was. As soon as I get the facts I shall be prepared to deal with the case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened to the
hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) with some regret. I thought he had forgotten his recent quarrels with Mr. McWilliams. I regret that Mr. McWilliams was dismissed as lighthouse keeper some years ago, but, of course, the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr, Hazen) had to yield to the pressure which was put upon him. I do npt know whether it may have been Mr. McWilliams' Sins of omission or commission, but let it be said that the Shipping Federation has stood by Mr. McWilliams' from the very beginning. He is a man of great ability and one who thoroughly knows his business. He has fortunately 'been kept as the telegraph operator. It is admitted amongst those who know him in the province, and particularly amongst the business men, that he is pne of the ablest operators in Canada. It is really a pity that Mr. McWilliams was dismissed and that he lost such a good income as .the one he had when he was lighthouse keeper. He is highly respected by
the business community. He was one of the few English-speaking employees of the Government in the whole district pf Quebec. I repeat that it is a pity
9 p.m. that such a man was dismissed from office but fortunately the minister did not yield to the pressure put upon him to dismiss him as telegraph operator. If my hon. friend from Rimouski will accept the opinion of such men as Lord Shaughnessy, or the president of the Shipping Federation in Montreal, he will know that Mr. McWilliams is one pf the safest, one of the ablest, men they had in the service. I think my hon. friend ought now to insist that Mr. McWilliams be restored to his former position. I know that he had some petty quarrels with him but after all a man is a man and in times like the present we pught to forget these old feuds. I regret exceedingly that Mr. McWilliams' salary has been curtailed to the extent that it has and my hon. friend should do an act of justice, be a man, and have him restored to his former position.


Herménégilde Boulay: I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) should attempt to vindicate the worst case of political partisanship extant in the county of Rimouski and Matane. If ever public officer was rightfully dismissed, Mr. McWilliams is the man. He was for a period of thirty-six years in the service of the Government and he acknowledged to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he had been an active political worker against the Conservative party during that period. I believe the Liberal party would not have been slow in dismissing him had he worked against them.


Charles Marcil: A fault confessed is half pardoned.


Herménégilde Boulay: The Liberal party has never been very much in the habit of pardoning, and I do not think he would have been pardoned under such conditions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is never too late to reform.


Herménégilde Boulay: I may say. to the hon.member for Rouville that should he wish to vindicate political partisanship, he might surely select a better case; Mr. McWilliams' case is the worst to be found not only in the county of Rimouski, but throughout the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: WS11 the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Herménégilde Boulay: Please
speak French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Herménégilde Boulay: Certainly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Apart from politics, is it not a fact that Mr. McWilliams was a first rate man, perfectly well posted and known as such to the shippers?


Herménégilde Boulay: I cannot say anything as to his 1 qualifications and his standing with the shippers; all I know is that Mr. McWilliams. apparently performed his work fairly well, though he ignored the regulations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in reference to political partisanship. To my knowledge he even went so far as to start a riot against a Conservative candidate in 1904. As to his qualifications, the hon. member for Rouville has just stated that he was a first rate man and that he should never have been dismissed. To that, I may reply, that his successor is vastly superior to him, as he knows a great deal more about machinery. When that newly appointed man reached the lighthouse after Mr. McWilliams' departure, he found the signalling apparatus utterly out of order. I noticed the fact myself when I went to Father Point.
I have no hesitation in saying that as a telegraph operator he was perfectly qualified, but I do not see why he should receive $500 for that work, while Mr. Banville, of Matane, who is quite as capable, is allowed only |50 for the same work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is
not the station at Father Point of greater importance than that at Matane?


Herménégilde Boulay: The Father Point station receives and sends out more telegrams than the one at Matane, but most of these telegrams are sent out by travellers on board the vessels, and the -agent is paid a commission on them, over and above the salary he gets from the Government. As regards the signalling of ships, the Father Point operator has no more to do than the one at Matane.
In justice to Mr. Banville who, by the way, is not -a political friend of mine, I think the Department of -Marine and Fisheries should grant him- an increase such as to enable him to live comfortably; and that increase will be well merited, while 
Mr McWilliams gets $500 which he does not earn, though it was granted to him by the previous Administration.
I happen to know something of the inner story of those representations made by the shipping federation in favour of Mr. McWilliams; and the hon. member for Rouville is also well posted in that regard. He knows that Mr. McWilliams speaks both languages perfectly, and is universally known, besides being an -expert at selfadvertising.
-Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX: (Translation) Is he not an honest man?


Herménégilde Boulay: He managed to ingratiate himself with the Shipping Federation and -many of the shippers, and obtained- from them letters of approval when dismissal was staring him in the face; he even succeeded in inducing our respected bishop of Rimouski to write on his behalf. Th-at is some evidence of the wiliness of that gentleman, but not proof of any superiority of his over the man who has -been appointed1 in his stead. I, for one, knowing both men personally, I may say, without prejudice, that the newly appointed man is greatly superior to -his predecessor.


William Stewart Loggie: I wish to ask the minister if he considers $120 a fair salary for a man who travels 10,000 miles, as I see in one case in the Auditor General's Report?


John Douglas Hazen: He gets ten cents a mile for travelling.


William Stewart Loggie: He gets $1,008 for travelling expenses. Is $120 a reasonable remuneration for a man who will give sufficient time to travel wi-th a horse and waggon from Sydney to Vancouver and back again?


John Douglas Hazen: That includes ten cents a mile for the distance he travels, and in addition to that his living expenses while he is travelling, the baiting of his horse, etc. That method of payment was adopted many years ago, and has been continued.
I do not say it is a desirable system, but it has long been in existence. I have no doubt that when that plan was first adopted the idea in mind was that the payment of 'the ten cents a mile would be an inducement to the man appointed to keep moving, and so to cover the greatest possible distance in his district, which would tend to make his inspection more useful.


William Stewart Loggie: This seems an unreasonable proportion. In the same district

another man received $509 for travelling expenses, which would mean another 5,000 miles. So in that district, which I know to some extent, these two men seem to have travelled 15,000 miles, and between them they received in salary $260.


John Howard Sinclair: What duties are performed by Mr. Ward Fisher?


John Douglas Hazen: He is the assistant in the department to Mr. Founds, the Superintendent of Fisheries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And where does he travel?


John Douglas Hazen: He does not do very much travelling nowadays, but he has been sent on several trips to investigate matters that have arisen in the Maritime Provinces. He was sent down to look into certain breaches of the legislation that were alleged in Prince Edward Island and to report an them.


John Howard Sinclair: I see his travelling expenses for the' year were $438. How many trips did he make to the Maritime Provinces?


John Douglas Hazen: Whatever expenses there are charged are subject to be audited by the accountant of the department. -


John Howard Sinclair: What is his salary?


John Douglas Hazen: 


William Pugsley: Would the minister
kindly give me the regulations as to the minimum size of lobsters in the Maritime Provinces? I am anxious to have them placed on Hansard.


John Douglas Hazen: We shall allow one item to stand and I shall place on record the regulations showing the size limit, close seasons, etc.


William Pugsley: Some time ago a dealer in St. John showed me samples of lobsters that were allowed to be caught in Nova Scotia. They were about three or four inches in length. It seemed a sin to destroy these very small lobsters, long before they were capable of reproduction. Several years ago I asked a question in regard to a condition which was being inserted in licenses for catching fish in the waters of Charlotte county. These regulations were inserted by the minister before the provincial election of 1912.


John Douglas Hazen: After that, I think.


William Pugsley: The minister provided by regulation that fishermen should be obliged to give the Canadian canners the preference; even although an American
buyer might be alongside his boat, if a Canadian eanner made an equal offer to the fisherman he would be obliged to give the preference to the Canadian. There was quite a rumpus about it in Charlotte, and just before the provincial election my hon. friend suspend the order.


John Douglas Hazen: That clause was put in at the time on the recommendation of Mr. Calder, who for a good many years past has been inspector in the counties of Charlotte and St. John. A large sum was being invested in a sardine factory at St. Annes and it was Mr. Calder's view, which was confirmed by the department, that it was desirable with a view of getting fish from our waters manufactured in Canada, that some preference should be given in order that this factory might be able to get plenty of material to manufacture the sardines. Unfortunately, however, the factory did not prove a financial success. It hardly got under way before it got into difficulties, and the result was that, after reconsideration of the matter, that clause was taken out of the license.


William Pugsley: Its operation was suspended before the factory ceased operations; it was suspended just prior to the provincial elections of 1912.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not remember the
date.


William Pugsley: I wonder that it would not impress itself on the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think there was anything that, in the language of the Minister of Finance, would synchronize.


William Pugsley: Oh, they synchronized, because there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among the men and an order went out from the department suspending the operation of this regulation until further orders. I was curious as to what happened afterwards.


John Douglas Hazen: It has never been restored.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hartt) is not present, but he will have an opportunity of seeing my remarks in Hansard. My hon. friend will find among the correspondence in his department and in a return which he brought down upon my motion, a letter from the deputy minister asking Mr. Hartt's opinion upon this regulation, whether it would be advisable to put it into force, showing that the opinion of the member was being taken; and the minister will also find in that correspondence a letter

of a very extraordinary character from Mr. Hartt, the member for Charlotte, in which the hon. member approv s of its being done, but recommends that new licenses be issued and that this restriction be printed instead of being written in so that it would not attract the special attention of the fisherman getting a license. That is a curious letter to come from an hon. member. I ask if my hon. friend's attention was ever called to it and if he ever took any steps with regard to the matter.


John Douglas Hazen: My attention was never called to it.	,


William Pugsley: The hon. minister would not approve of that extraordinary position. I trust he will, at a later date, refer to the letter, and ask the hon. member from Charlotte to explain to the House, if he can, why he should have written such a letter. If it meant anything at all it was intended to deceive

perhaps not to deceive, hut to shut the eyes of people-


John Douglas Hazen: When was it sent?


William Pugsley: Either two or three sessions ago. That evidently was written with a knowledge on the part of the hon. gentleman that the regulation would he likely to provoke hostility among the fishermen, and the department was advised to have new licenses issued with this restriction in print, so that it would not attract the attention of the fishermen, as it would if it were written in the license. I intended last session to bring it to the attention of my hon. friend and the hon. gentleman from Charlotte.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Referring to Ward
Fisher, I find his name figuring in the Auditor General's Report, as a fishery inspector. Is that the same Ward Fisher, of Shelburne?


John Douglas Hazen: He was inspector in Nova Scotia before he was brought to the department here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How did he get transferred from the position of inspector to the hon. minister's department? Did he go through the hands of the Civil Service Commission?	*


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Passed his examination? Mr. HAZEN: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How old was he when he passed the examination?


John Douglas Hazen: Forty-three.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there an age limit
in the Civil Service?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, thirty-five.


John Douglas Hazen: He came in as an expert.


John Howard Sinclair: Under section 21.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand he is a
God-fearing man, who knows theology well. Is that the extent of his expert knowledge?


John Douglas Hazen: I have always considered
it an admirable thing to have a thorough knowledge of Holy Writ, and a man who is a good fisher of men should also become a good official in the Fisheries Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is authority for
saying that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel, and that the servant is worthy of his hire, and I suppose he made a failure of preaching and thought he was fit for the department of my hon. friend.


John Douglas Hazen: That would not be a natural conclusion.


Charles Marcil: Merely an inference.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the same man? Mr. HAZEN: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And he came in under section 21?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. My recollection is
that we asked the Civil Service Commission for an officer. They advertised foT applicants; he was an applicant and the commission stated that he possessed the necessary qualifications and gave him the certificate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that when you appoint a mam under section 21 it is largely a matter for the minister, apart from the Civil Service Commission.


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If he passes as an expert, he does not require to pass an examination,


John Douglas Hazen: They have to endorse him. They consider whether he has the technical knowledge requisite; they endorse him and he passes through the Civil Service exam- ' ination, as many others do.
(Mr. McKENZIE: Section 21 of the Civil Service Act reads:
If the deputy head reports that the knowledge and ability requisite for the position are wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of the

department based on the report in writing of the deputy head, may appoint a person to the position without competitive examination and without reference to the age limit, provided the said person obtains from the Commission a certificate, to be given with or without examination, as is determined by the regulations of the Commission, that he possesses the requisite knowledge and Ability and Isi duly qualified as to health, character and habits.
What was the technical knowledge which was required in the department, and which this man possessed?


John Douglas Hazen: That was the knowledge
which would be obtained by practical experience in connection with fishery work. Mr. Fisher had that practical knowledge through his experience as inspector in Nova *Scotia. To appoint a man who had no knowledge of fisheries to assist the Fisheries Commission would be an absurdity. We wanted a capable man and applied to the Civil Service Commission for him. They advertised for such a man and there were a number of applicants. The view of the Civil 'Service Oommission was that Mr. Fisher possessed the qualifications necessary for the position to a greater degree than any of the other applicants, and, therefore, on the report of the deputy minister, Mr. Desbarats, being made, as required by the Act the appointment was made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister tell
us how long it was between the time this man gave up his calling as a preacher and the time he qualified as an expert in fisheries?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not that knowledge.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told that he distinguished himself, not so much as a preacher, but as a politician, and as a political preacher and ward heeler, he brought himself conspicuously to the notice of the Conservative party, and that that was his recommendation and he required very little else. His expert knowledge of fisheries, which he gained perhaps in a year as inspector, was very slight indeed, perhaps they rulb'bed him over a codfish and he smelt pf fish, and that is about all the knowledge that he possessed. I find in the Auditor General's Report a name which attracts my attention, W. E. Fraser, of Liverpool, Nova Scotia. It is the wandering official of my hon. friend's department that I met down at Cape Smoky in the county of Victoria, in the midwinter of 1912, in the midst of a local election?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know, I am sure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I asked this question
before, and the hon. minister told me yes, this was the same man, and I am curious to know whether, in his travelling expenses, he has been dividing and adding so much each year to make up for what it cost him to go down to Cape Smoky.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know if he was our officer then. ,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is strong evidence that he was the officer of the department both before and after that.


John Howard Sinclair: What did he tic at
Smoky?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He told them that he had been sent there as a special officer of the-Militia Department. I assume that he was the expert whom the Minister of Marine lent to the Department of Militia to go down there and talk about the $100 that each man was to get as his share of the Fenian Raid bounty. He made a specialty during that campaign of telling the old men on that shore that he had the authority and the money to pay them a share of the Fenian Raid bounty, the only condition being their signing a. declaration that they would vote for the candidate of the Tory party. That was sworn to in the Supremo Court at Baddeek by one man to whom he offered the money. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister on previous occasions, but he still thinks the gentleman in question to be a very deserving official. I should not be surprised if his salary should be raised as compensation for the excellent service which he rendered.
I should like to get some idea from the minister as to the duties of the fishery overseers. I find that Mr. Hellen, of the district of Cape North, whose salary is $120, gets a travelling allowance of $262.49. Cape North is a very small district, and unless the overseer is busy all the time, I do not think he could earn that much money. As the member for Westmorland has said, these men should be paid on a more businesslike basis. Ingonish is also a comparatively small district. The overseer, Mr. Donovan, receives a salary of $60, but he travels qpite a distance to earn it, for his allowance for travel and outlay last year was $389.32. Mr. McDonald, of Plaster, North Shore, gets a salary of $60, and last year his travel and outlay was $187.51. I think I was in error in saying that the officer for Middle River was Mr. McDonald. The member for Inverness informs me that Mr. McDonald has been replaced by a Mr. REVISED EDITION

McKenzie. I should like to know whether Mr. McDonald resigned or was dismissed; I know that he is still living in the district and that he was appointed by this Government. Another man whose district is near the others that I have mentioned gets a salary of $60 and received $220.92 last year for travelling expenses. These districts are all quite small. It is possible that the fishery officers have much travelling to do; if they are earning the money, it is all right, but if they are not, they should not be getting it. How is this mileage made up? Is there any check on it?


John Douglas Hazen: Formerly there were two fishery officers did the work now performed by Mr. Hellen, but the districts were amalgamated, and given to Mr. Hellen. The other inspectors received $60 each; he receives $120. The officers are allowed 10 cents a mile lor their actual travelling expenses in addition to whatever expenses they may incur by way of board and the keeping of their horses. They are under the direction of the inspector for the district, by whom their accounts are checked before they are sent forward for payment. The fishery officer jhimself certifies to the correctness of the account before it goes to the inspector. The inspector goes over it, and if he thinks an improper charge is made, he cuts it down. It is then passed on to the accountant of the department. That is the system that has prevailed for a great many years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What travelling had to be done in Ingonish last year?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be very glad, if the hon. gentleman is interested, to produce the accounts of the inspector showing the returns made from month to month, so that the hon. gentleman may examine them for himself.
Mr. McKENZIE; Are these inspectors expected to look after the lobster factories only?


John Douglas Hazen: They are appointed in connection with all fisheries.
Mr. McKENZIE; What other fisheries would they have to attend to in a district like Ingonish?


John Douglas Hazen: A lot of trap fishing is done about Ingonish under license.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What has the inspector to do after the licenses have been issued?


John Douglas Hazen: From month to month he has to make returns of the fish that are fMr. D. D. McKenzie.]
caught. It is his duty to see that no illegal fishing takes place.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That would not require any travelling as far as Ingonish is concerned, because all the fishermen land at the same place.


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot speak of my own knowledge about that.


John Howard Sinclair: In regard to the men in western Novd Scotia who get $150 for the expense of keeping a horse, as well as certain travelling expenses, I may point out that the salary of Mr. W. E. Fraser is $750 and that his travelling expenses last year were $665.78. Deducting $150 for the keeping of his horse, there remains $515.78, or about $1.50 a day, for expenses not including his salary and the keep of his horse.


John Douglas Hazen: That would be for his
board, such railway fare as he might have to incur, and everything of that sort.


John Howard Sinclair: He is not supposed to use his own horse except when it would suit him to do so.


John Douglas Hazen: He is supposed to use it in places where it is more suitable to use a horse than the railway. In some places it would be cheaper to use the railway.


John Howard Sinclair: As we know something about this man's career, and as we would like to have the details, at the same time as the minister furnishes the details for my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), would he give us the information in regard to Mr. W. E. Fraser?


Herménégilde Boulay: I would like to have an explanation from the minister in regard to the lighthouse keeper at Matane. I understood the minister to say that he was an officer of the Quebec Government.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend was, of
course, speaking in a language with which I am not very familiar, but I understood him to complain about the salary paid to the guardian on the Matane river.


Herménégilde Boulay: No, the lighthouse keeper. The man of whom I was speaking was Mr. Banville, the lighthouse keeper at Matane.


John Douglas Hazen: I misunderstood my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The man is a good Liberal.


John Douglas Hazen: What does my hon. friend say about him?


Herménégilde Boulay: His salary is only $400 a year, and he has ito attend to that lighthouse during the summer season night and day. He receives far too small a salary for the work he is doing in comparison with the salaries paid to other lighthouse keepers.


John Douglas Hazen: The lighthouses are divided into classes, and each man is paid the salary of the class in which his lighthouse is placed. That class depends upon the importance and character of the light, the work that is to be performed and the qualifications necessary. In lights of a very high order, you need a man of much higher technical knowledge and skill than you do in a case where the light is not in the same class. This gentleman is getting the salary of the class in which his light is placed. It may be that there is an improper classification; that he ought to be in a higher class. I will have inquiry made into the matter, but I think inquiry will show that the light is properly classified, and that the man is receiving the salary for that class, no matter in what part of the country he is situated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some days ago I received a letter from a citizen of Matane complaining about the department having changed the range lights. I think white lights were replaced by re#d lights, much to the disadvantage of the mariners. I am informed that the entrance at the mouth of the river Matane is very difficult, and that the old lights, which were provided by the department, were quite acceptable and much better for the mariners. Letters have been sent to the department inquiring why the change was made, and no one has been able to give a reason.


John Douglas Hazen: I answered that question in this House the other day. Letters came from people in the neighbourhood of the Matane who were interested; the question was referred to the department by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). In the ordinary course of routine the matter was referred to the Lighthouse Board for investigation and report, and having investigated the matter, the Lighthouse Board recommended a change which has been carried into effect. Since the change has been made some complaints have been made by people who think it would be better to return to the old system. My hon. friend spoke as though a red light was a better light than a white light. A white light is seen better at a distance
than a red light, and the mariners prefer a white light. There are places where for certain reasons you cannot put a white light, and you have to put a red light.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with the minister that a white light is much better than a red light, but I am making no complaint personally. I have received correspondence upon the subject, and if the Lighthouse Board has passed judgment in the matter I have nothing more to say, but as fresh complaints have been made I would be glad if my hon. friend would ask the board to look into the matter again and see if the complaints are warranted.


Herménégilde Boulay: I know all the particulars. When the red lights were put in, we believed they would be a great improvement to navigation. Recently I was speaking to some sailors that frequent the port of Matane, and they told me that they would not, on any consideration, have those' lights removed. Those two. range lights have-been put in to improve the navigation of the harbour. Before they were put in there was a white light at one end of the wharves. I understand that this white light has been removed, and Doctor Bouillon, for one, wants it replaced. I never requested that this white light be taken away, but I insisted strongly upon the two red range lights, being put on, and , all the sailors think that it is a great improvement.


Charles Marcil: I would not like this interesting discussion on fishery inspectors to 'close without having a word with the minister, because he told the committee some time ago that this reorganization had also been extended to a part of Quebec.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I said that, a reorganization had been made effective in western Nova Scotia and that we hoped soon to get it extended to otheT places.


Charles Marcil: I wish to point out that the officers in Quebec are not so well treated as those in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I find that Mr. Bouillon received for travel and outlay $5.88. I know him very well; he is connected with a large fishing firm down there. I do not know what he couldi have done for $5.88. I pass on to Mr. William Henry of Bonaventure East, who received for travel and outlay $64.40, and Mr. James Poirier of Sbigawake, who received for travel and outlay $87.20. Does this comprise salary as well as travel and outlay ?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Bouillon has practically no travelling to do at all. He is employed for the purpose of sending ue statistics of fisheries in his immediate district.


Charles Marcil: I would like to know
whether these men are paid a fixed salary.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that the
ho>n. minister will furnish me with a copy of the recommendations to council on the appointment of Mr. Ward Fisher, and the Order in Council.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall lay them on the
Table.


George William Kyte: With regard to the bounty
claim work, is that don'e by the fishery officer?


John Douglas Hazen: In nearly all districts.


George William Kyte: I think it has been taken
away from Mir. Boudreault, the fishery officer at Petit de Grat.


John Douglas Hazen: I think there were complaints as to the manner in which Mr. Boudreau discharged the duty, and it was thought undesirable to place the work in his hands again, and my recollection is that he has ceased to be an officer of the department. I believe that his successor also is named Boudreau.


Charles Marcil: Has an appointment been made in the case of Mr. Jos. Eiendeau of the Montreal -district, who died?


John Douglas Hazen: No appointment has been made.


Charles Marcil: Who does the work formerly done by the late Commander Wake-ham?


John Douglas Hazen: Dr. Bernier.


Charles Marcil: I see here the name of
Captain Chalifour of L'Islet who was paid $300 as an inspector. What is that for?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Chalifour in addition to his other duties, acted as inspector after the death of Commander Wake-ham, and before the appointment of Dr. Bernier.
. Mr. -MAECIL:	Does his salary remain
what it was -at his appointment?


John Douglas Hazen: It has not .been increased.
Oyster culture, $6,000.


George William Kyte: Will the minister say wh^t is b<fing done in this service?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will find a full Teport of the work done last year at page 300 of the Fisheries Eeport.	,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: An oyster bed was established at Cariboo in my county. What has been the result?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that an experimental bed' was planted there, under the direction of Mr. Kemp, six or seven years ago. My attention has not been called to it. Some years ago, as my hon. friend will remember, the provincial government, under agreement with the Dominion Government, took control over the barren bottoms, some of which are now leased to private parties for the planting of oyster beds. I fancy that the bed to which the hon. gentleman refers passed to the provincial government at the same time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the Dominion Government supervision of the oyster beds recently planted along the shores of New Brunswick?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They are managed by private companies?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, under lease from the government of New Brunswick. There was a question of jurisdiction as to these barren bottoms, and five years ago we made an arrangement by which we gave over to the provinces authority to deal with them. It is under arrangement with the provincial government that these are now taken over and cultivated by private companies.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, what has the Dominion Government to do with oyster culture now?


John Douglas Hazen: We control the public beds.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How do you distinguish the public beds from the others? The particular place to which I refer is in a public harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: The public beds are those in which the oysters grown naturally, and which are resorted to by the fishermen to rake oysters; private beds are those where the oysters are planted on barren bottoms under arrangement -with the government of the province. The oysters in these latter beds cannot be taken by parties other than those who own the rights, but access to the

public beds in Price Edward Island, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is open to those who have licenses from the Dominion Government to rake oysters. These public beds are being looked after and kept in order, and as far as possible improved, by Mr. Kemp, the advisor of the department in regard to oysters.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By permission of the minister and the committee, I desire to call attention to another matter, as I was not here the other night when, perhaps, it might more properly have been brought up. I have a letter from a gentleman in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, who is interested in an account for food material supplied to Mr. Byrnes, steward of the Minto, on 24th November, 1913.	The
amount of the account is $74.91, and the food supplies were procured to serve the passengers on the D.G.S. Minto. He was an official of the department, and it is stated in the correspondence that he gave bonds to the department that all these accounts would be paid. It is said that the bondsmen were John Messerny and Maurice Blake, of Charlottetown. I do not know what became of Mr. Burns, but he did not pay all the accounts, and they are still owing. The department said to those who supplied these goods: "You will have to go and collect the accounts yourselves." Subsequently, it appears that they said that they had so much money in their hands and they were making a pro rata division. These are the facts as they have been presented to me. It is hardly fair to people who supply goods to the Government steamers, in the belief that they are being supplied to the Government, and, therefore, that they have the Government to look to for payment should be told afterwards that the persons who purchased these goods, and who had all the ear-marks of purchasing for the Government, was purchasing for his own account, and when it turned out that he was financially embarrassed the Government would not see that thp accounts were paid where the goods were actually furnished. I have read the correspondence and I think I am fairly stating the case. I would not ask the minister to give me an answer to-night, hut if he has another item relating to marine matters I would like him to get the facts and let me know why it is that the parties who supplied goods to Government steamers are not able to get their money.


John Douglas Hazen: I think my hon. friend has stated the facts of the case correctly. This
man, however, was not an official of the Government. The Government made a contract with him to supply food to the officers and crew on board this Government boat. For a great .many years a system prevailed by which the Government appointed a steward on a Government boat and the steward purchased for it, charging the accounts to the Government. It was found that that system resulted in a great deal of extravagance and a number of years ago a different system was entered into under which the Government made a contract with the steward who undertook to supply, according to a bill of fare that had been laid down, the officers and men at so much a meal. The Government, every year now, gives notice in the newspapers in the localities that the boat will visit that the Government will not be responsible for the bills contracted by this steward. In the first year or two of this new system these notices were not given and it was represented to us on a number of occasions that stewards got credit through representing that they were acting on behalf of the Government, and that they went away, or disappeared, or did not pay their bills and the people came and claimed these bills from the Government. I remember that when the first of these items was claimed, and before public notice was given in the newspapers, I got authority by an estimate in Parliament to pay to these people seventy-five per cent of their claims, it being felt that was a fair amount to pay and that they would have to forego any profit that they would have made. We then undertook to get bonds for these stewards. We found it impossible to get any guarantee 10 p.m. company to guarantee them.
However, they gave individual bonds. Mr. Burns gave the bond of two gentlemen resident in Charlottetown and when we demanded payment of the bills left unpaid there was objection made. Then we placed the matter in the hands of the Department of Justice and I understand that an arrangement has been come to by which the amount has been paid and it was distributed pro rata among the creditors of the steward. That is my recollection of the circumstances but I will endeavour to look into the case and see whether my recollection is absolutely correct or not. I have no doubt that in some cases people may have been deceived and may have thought that this Government was at^the back of these people and was responsible. But in none of the cases where they claimed that, we found on investigation that the charges
*2176

on the books were not to the Government or to the ship but to the individual and the evidence was very clear that they knew that-the individual was simply a contractor of the Government and was himself responsible and that the Government was not responsible. I have stated the facts as I remember them but we have a marine item , standing and I will give them more accurately to my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As to the Justice Department, the gentleman who writes me says that Mr. Macdonald, who was the agent of the Department of Justice, told him that after he had issued the papers he received a wire from Ottawa instructing him to discontinue the proceedings. Then he states that this spring the agent of the department offered fifty cents on the dollar to certain creditors and that quite a number of creditors were in favour of agreeing to the settlement rather than waiting. In the case of J. P. Crockett & Co. of Charlottetown, they had a bill of $450 and attached certain moneys of the Government and were paid in full. Messrs. Drake & Co. also should be paid in full.


John Douglas Hazen: I will be very glad to look into it.	'


John Howard Sinclair: I see in the Auditor
General's Report that this item, No. 253, covers the services of Dr. Hjort who was employed, I understand, by the department for some months in 1915. I was very glad to know that the minister was able to secure the services of Dr. Hjort as he is one of the most eminent men in Europe on questions relating to the fisheries. I believe he has been deputy minister of fisheries in Norway and he has written some scientific works which are greatly valued by fishing interests. Incidentally, there is no country in Europe that has done more to give practical information to the fishermen than Norway. I find in the Canadian Fisherman a very interesting item in this connection which I would like to read to the minister:
Fishing By Telephone.
A strange way of discovering the whereabouts of fish is practised in some parts of Norway, and the method was discovered by a clever Norwegian. A microphone, which is an instrument that will transmit the slightest sound, is lowered into the water from a fishing-boat and a wire from the microphone is attached to a telephone fixed in the boat. The operator takes the receiver of the telephone and places it to his ear, ready to signal to the fishermen when he hears the least sound beneath the waters, and the fishing-boat is then immediately steered in the direction whence fMr. Hazen.]
the sounds come. The result is-a splendid haul.	-
As cod, herrings, and mackerel swim in enormous schools, their passage through the water causes a rushing sound which is clearly heard by the fishermen, who immediately steer in the required direction and let down their nets.
Has the minister heard of this very interesting invention and has he made any experiments, and with what results?


John Douglas Hazen: I never heard of it until
my attention was called a short time ago to the article which h.as just been read. It is certainly a most interesting subject.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister take
some interest in the question?


John Douglas Hazen: I will ask my fishery officers to look into the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: Have the services of Dr. Hjort. been dispensed with?


John Douglas Hazen: He is no longer with us,
he would not stay any longer.


John Howard Sinclair: Has he made his final
report?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, and the report is, I think, in the printer's hands now, and will spon he ready for distribution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the minister doing
anything for cold storage for bait this year?


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing more than in previous years. We are following on the same lines, but we have no new projects.
Fisheries-To provide for the reduction of dogfish by means of experimental works or otherwise, $60,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the minister propose to do with this dogfish since he has adopted him into the family and christened him with a new name?


John Douglas Hazen: I fancy it will be a few
years before we can convert all the dogfish into food. We will continue the operation of the reduction plants.


Onésiphore Turgeon: What about the dogfish reduction works at iShippegan? Last year the minister advertised it for sale.


John Douglas Hazen: 'It was sold by public
tender to the highest bidder and handed over to him.


Onésiphore Turgeon: On the condition that it be operated?


John Douglas Hazen: Np, it is to be discontinued.


George William Kyte: Has the dogfish reduction
plant at Canso been able to take care of all dogfish offered each season?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, and it could have
taken care of many more.


George William Kyte: What is the price now paid for dogfish?


John Douglas Hazen: It is $4 a ton.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: The minister
says that the plant at Canso was able to take care of all dogfish available. How far along the coast does the minister go for the dogfish?


John Douglas Hazen: It is brought in to us by
the fishermen and we collect it at different places. We go across as far as Arichat and down along the coast. The works took in last year 1,092 tons, 1,680 pounds. From that was. produced 134i tons of fish scrap and 8,876 gallons of oil. The Clark's harbour plant took in of raw material 164 tons, 774 pounds and produced from that of offal 111 tons and livers 228J buckets. These works produced 34 tons, 450 pounds of fish scrap and 693i gallons of dogfish oil and 1314 gallons of cod oil.


Alexander William Chisholm: My information is that the department sent a boat down the coast of Inverness as far as Port Hood to gather dogfish twice during the whole season. It must be apparent to the minister that he cannot expect to get much dogfish by taking two trips in three months. It is difficult to keep any quantity of fish for two or three weeks in the hot season, particularly fish of this kind without a proper cold storage protection.


John Douglas Hazen: My understanding is thatthey keep in touch from the factory with the buyer down in that locality and when there is enough accumulated to make it worth while they send down a boat to get it. Some seasons two trips are made, and some seasons more.


Alexander William Chisholm: The fact is that there is no inducement offered to the fishermen there to catch any quantity of the fish. When the minister says that the plant at Canso is capable of taking care of all fish available, I think he is not quite correct in his statement or acquainted with the industry. The capacity of the plant at Canso is 50 tons a day. If it is a good thing to continue this industry, my idea is that it should be extended a little. If there is any justification for keeping it going, there is three times the justification for establishing plants along the coast of Inverness county where there is abundance of fish available. To say that a plant with a capacity of 50 tons a day would take care of all fish caught along the coast of Inverness is an extreme exaggeration saying the least. There are thousands of tons of fish available if reasonable prices are paid and proper means of transportation facilities provided.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps I did not use a very fortunate word. I meant to say that we were able to take care of all the dogfish offered that was available to us during this year. I do not mean to say that it could take care of all the dogfish that could possibly be got together. I perhaps used a word that conveyed a wrong meaning.


Alexander William Chisholm: If the minister had a system of collecting these dogfish-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Crayfish, since yesterday.


John Douglas Hazen: The Act has not passed yet.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think the
change is a good one. I think if the minister proposes to continue the operation of the plant at Canso, it would be necessary for him to send boats along the coast of Inverness to gather fish and also along the shores of Richmond county. I have made that suggestion to the minister several times. I would suggest that he establish a plant along the coast of Inverness county for two reasons: From the standpoint of the fishermen it would he really a great relief. I had the promise of the late Government that this would be done in the winter of 1911 had the change come in the fall of that year and my hon. friend took charge of the Department. Our fishermen suffer for about two and one-half months from the ravages of these fish. It is impossible for them to carry on their fishing from the time the dogfish strike the shores of Inverness until they leave. We cannot keep our nets in the water, nor can we fish with lines. That is the in-shore fishermen from the straits of Canso to Cape North. It would be an important thing for them during the period when they cannot fish, to catch these dogfish and get a market for them. There is an abundance to keep two or three plants going, and there are plenty of fishermen along the shores who, in the season when they are doing nothing on account of the destruction of their gear by these fish, could devote their energies to catching them. I am also approaching this question from the angle of the farmer. We are told that the products of the dogfish plants is very valuable just now; that fertilizer is very scarce and difficult to get. This is proving to be a first-class article as a fertilizer, and if these plants were multiplied there would be no" difficulty in getting a market for the product. In fact the far-

mers through that country are looking for fertilizer, and have found great difficulty this year and last year in getting it.
The minister might look into this matter, and find what it costs to put up a plant, and, if a plant can be erected fairly economically, I think it would be a first class idea to start the plant somewhere else. I am not selfish enough to say that it should be along the coast of Inverness. The reason I mentioned Inverness was because we are suffering from dogfish, and we need the fertilizer and another reason why I now renew my application for a reduction plant in my county is that I had made arrangements with the Laurier Government to have such a plant built in my county and it would have been built in 1912 had the election of 1911 hot taken place a year and a half before the usual time. The demand was not then as great as now from the standpoint of more farm production, as the country had a liberal supply of fertilizer. I desire to emphasize as strongly as possible the necessity of establishing these plants all along the shore. I refer to the counties of Inverness, Victoria and Richmond. The minister last year gave us the reason whv he could not see his way clear to establish any more of these plants. He said it was because the plant at Canso cost a great deal. I am of the opinion-and my opinion is based on information I have been gathering from time to time-that these plants can be erected for a much smaller figure than the amount paid for the Canso plant, and I may point out that, when this Canso plant was erected, the proposition was in the experimental stage, and, since then, a great deal of information has been gathered with regard to the construction of the plant, and it is generally supposed by those who know something about it that a plant can. be erected for much less any place along the coast. I claim, on that account, that the minister could very well appropriate an amount sufficient to erect a couple of those plants, and, in doing this, he would he rendering great assistance to the fishermen and farmers along the coast. I have addressed a few observations of this kind to the minister on several occasions. I do not think my efforts have produced very great results, but I believe in persisting, and I think the cause a sufficiently good one to warrant me in continuing my efforts, and probably in the end the minister will see that there is a great necessity for these plants. I hope he will take the matter into consideration and give it a little more thought than evidently he has given it in 
the past, and I will expect better results.
If there is any great reason why this should not be done, I would like to hear it. So far, I have heard no good reason.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not want the hon.
gentleman to think for a moment that I do not pay Tespect to suggestions made by him or by any other member, because I do, but I am sprry I cannot hold out much hope to my hon. friend that there will be any increase in the number of these factories. The policy of building these factories was inaugurated in 1904, when Mr. Prefontaine was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the expectation then was that the operation of these factories would prove so successful that private individuals would be glad [DOT] to follow the example of the Government, and establish factories at different points for the purpose of manufacturing fertilizers, to be sold to the farmers throughout the country. This has not occurred. It may be that individuals could manage these plants perhaps more economically than governments are able to do, but the result of the enterprise and of what has taken place-and it was regarded largely in the light of an experiment at the time-has not been such as to justify any private individuals placing their money in enterprises of this sort, from the standpoint of a commercial undertaking, although it was stated t* the House in 1904, I believe, that it was expected that that would be the case. The fertilizer produced is of a very valuable character, and very useful to the farmer, but it is found very difficult to get a sufficient supply of fish to keep the factory working to its capacity; in fact, the factory in my own province has been shut down altogether, the results have been so absolutely unsatisfactory. The result at 'Clarke's Harbour and Canso were more satisfactory, but at the same time every year there is a considerable deficit, and the number of dogfish procured would not have any appreciable effect upon, the great number of dogfish that frequent the Atlantic all the way from Florida up almost to the waters of the arctic region. In the United States, although the establishment of factories of this sort has been advocated time and again, the authorities have always refused to establish them, and have taken the ground that it would be impossible to exterminate the dogfish by any means of that sort. All they are doing in the United States to-day is to encourage, as far as they are able, the manufacture of the fish for food under the name of grayfish, which is the name applied to them there. I assure

my hon. friend that I realize that he is making these suggestions in the best of good faith. Any suggestion of that sort is always considered by myself and the officials of the department, but at the present time we do not feel justified in acting upon my hon. friend's recommendation.
Mr. K.YTE: I am inclined to think this work has not been carried on with that degree of vigour with which it should be carried on, and, if it were, I think probably better results would have been obtained. I suppose one of the largest fishing communities in Nova Scotia is situated in my county, at L'Ardoise, along the southern shore of the coast. There are probably 1,500 people engaged in the industry there. They are net fishermen, and they suffer grievously from the depredations of the dogfish. I have never heard of a case where the steamer from the reduction plant came to L'Ardoise to gather dogfish. It is possible she comes, but if so, her trips are very irregular. I know the fishermen in that district complain very bitterly that they are not getting the opportunity for furnishing dogfish to the reduction plant at Canso that they would like. Another point is that probably the fishermen are not paid sufficiently for the work of catching those dogfish for the reduction .plant. If the plant is not getting a sufficient quantity each year to make its operation profitable, perhaps if they were able to handle a larger supply each year the profits would, in the aggregate, arpount to considerably more than at the present time. I should like, for my part, as I said, to see the work carried on with more vigour, and in a way to Teach the fishing districts in southern Cape Breton better than in the past. I know that there are large -quantities of dogfish to be had there, but the fishermen do not sell them to the plant. I do not know just why it is, but such is the fact.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister please state the names of the officers employed in the Canso reduction work and the salaries paid to them?


John Douglas Hazen: The officer in charge is Charles Lhonnes, I think.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the salary being paid to him?


John Douglas Hazen: I will get that information.


John Howard Sinclair: Is Mr. White how in the employ at the Canso plant?


John Douglas Hazen: When the work is going on he is employed as bookkeeper.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not see his name in the list of employees in the Auditor General's Report. I know he formerly was in the employ.


John Douglas Hazen: As a matter of fact, while they are manufacturing, he gets $50 a month.


John Howard Sinclair: His name does not appear in this blue book at all.


John Douglas Hazen: He must be there somewhere.


Alexander William Chisholm: Who was the buyer of dogfish whom you had at Port Hood?


John Douglas Hazen: The officer in charge of
the factory goes along the coast each year and makes the necessary arrangements. I do not know who was the buyer at Port Hood, though I assume that the information is in the department.


Alexander William Chisholm: When the fishermen go out in the morning looking for codfish or mackerel or any other fish, often the first difficulty they meet is a shoal of dogfish. They then have to give up fishing, and if they had any fixed market or any regular visits from the Government boat-they would obtain large quantities of dogfish and thus help to supply the plant at Canso with material for its work. If the Government boat could go down the coast more regularly, say once a week, there is no doubt that she would bq well supplied with dogfish provided a reasonable price were paid for them.


John Douglas Hazen: I am told that the boat goes as often as there is sufficient fish to justify a trip. On some occasions when the boat has made the trip, it has not obtained enough fish to pay for the coal used. If we could be sure of getting tw_enty tons a day, we should be very glad to send the boat along the coast every day. I shall be glad to ask the officers of my department if any scheme can be devised by which more of these fish can be got, along the lines suggested by the member for Inverness.


Alexander William Chisholm: Could not the minister have this boat sent along the codst of Inverness as far as Cheticamp? If he should do that, I assure him that he would get at least a boatload every third day at this season provided reasonable prices were paid.


John Douglas Hazen: How far is Cheticamp from Port Hood?


Alexander William Chisholm: About forty
miles.


John Douglas Hazen: It is 100 miles from the factory to Port Hood. To go to Cheticamp would involve an additional forty miles, making the trip a long and expensive one.


Alexander William Chisholm: I realize that, but the Government have established the plant at Canso for the purpose of carrying on the industry, and if they hope to make it successful they must make sacrifices. I think it is a small sacrifice to send that boat along the coast twice a week and I surely believe that if the Government had the interests of fishermen at heart they would not hesitate one moment to come to their aid to this extent. The Government spends immense sums of money aiding other industries which are not half as important as the fishing industry, but when I suggest that the boat should go 40 miles further north I am told this is expensive. Poor encouragement indeed for our fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: I am told that if the boat were sent to Cheticamp, by the time it got back to the works the dogfish would not be fit to be manufactured into fertilizer.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think I know as much about dogfish as the officials from whom my hon. friend gets his information. Dogfish can lie on the shore for two or three days without getting in very bad state. If the minister would establish some system under which the fishermen would be assured of a market for their fish, I am confident that they would take the trouble of covering the fish on the wharves so that the rays of the sun would not get at them. Certainly, if the boat makes only two trips a season, practically no results can be accomplished, but could not the Government furnish cold sheds for keeping these fish at each port?


John Douglas Hazen: In order to carry out my
hon. friend's idea, we should have to have three boats, as we should have to go in three different directions from the factory. However, I will have the matter looked into. If my hon. friend will write to us giving us his ideas-'because he is familiar with the whole locality-we might be aided in arriving at a decision.


Alexander William Chisholm: 
John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman has
already brought the matter up in the House; there is no doubt about that.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is true that the boat would have to go in three different directions. But under ordinary conditions, the boat, leaving Canso in the morning, should be able to go down to Cheticamp and, get back the next day. At least they can make one trip a week to all the places and call at all the ports where dogfish could be fished.


John Douglas Hazen: I am prepared to say now that I will do that this year, if we can get any guarantee that the fish will be there for us. We do not w'ant to send the boat over that long route, at the expense which is necessarily involved, to get only a few tons of fish. If we had a guarantee that we should get at least twenty tons of fish each trip, I should not hesitate to do at once what my hon. friend asks.


Alexander William Chisholm: All I expect of the officials is that they make the fishermen acquainted with the fact that the boat is going there and that the Government is anxious to buy the fish and pay a proper price for them. If the do that, I will do what I can to see that the fishermen are made acquainted with the way in which they can sell their fish. If the minister takes this step, I will admit that he has done all that one can reasonably expect in this regard without a reduction plant on our shore.


George William Kyte: The district of L'Ardoise, one of the largest fishing communities in eastern Nova Scotia, is'only twelve miles from Canso. But I never heard of officials of the department or any persons connected with the reduction plant at Canso going to L'Ardoise and giving information as to what the Government are prepared to do in the matter of handling these fish. The difficulty that the minister suggested with regard to reaching the district of Cheticamp, which is forty miles from Canso, would not apply to the district in Richmond county that I have mentioned.


John Douglas Hazen: The Superintendent of Fisheries informs me that before the factory opened last fall, Mr. Lhonnes went to that district, saw the people there, told them that the Government were willing to buy whatever fish they could get, and urged on them the desirability of catching tihe fish.

He offered to send the boat across every day if they would furnish a certain amount of dogfish, but there was no response.


George William Kyte: L'Ardoise is an unprotected harbour and no fishing operations are carried on in the fall. The boats are hauled up in September, but in the months of May, June, July and August, fishing operations are carried on. If the Government would supply tanks in various places in which the dogfish might be placed, in order that they should not be exposed to the sun, the fish would last much longer and the necessity of making more frequent trips would not be imperative. The piling of dogfish on a wharf under the hot sun is apt to reduce them to a very undesirable condition.


John Douglas Hazen: My information is that the dogfish are found in largest quantities in the month of September. My bon. friend from Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) shakes his head, but that is my information. At one time, when they attempted to operate these factories during June, July and August, the loss was simply tremendous, because it was found impossible to get any supply of dogfish. If that be the case-and my information comes from my official here- then no good point would be served by trying to have a factory running during the summer months.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is quite possible that a few dogfish may be found in July, although I have never heard of that being the case. August and September are the months when you have dogfish in shoals, in thousands of tons.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister lay
on the Table at a convenient time Professor Prince's Te-port with regard to those lakes to which I referred?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I still think the minister
was in error in regard to the statement he made to the House, and ini order to have the facts, I would be glad if he would lay the report on the Table.


John Douglas Hazen: I may be in error. I know that Professor Prince was instructed to inquire into conditions both at Lesser Slave lake and at Lac la Biche, and he reported with regard to both lakes. I will have the papers to which the hon. member refers laid on the table of the House.


Frank Oliver: What is the limit of catch fer the winter fishing season at Lac la Biche?


John Douglas Hazen: 400,000 pounds.


Frank Oliver: What is the limit of catch at Lesser Slave lake for this summer season and for the winter season?


John Douglas Hazen: In the summer season it
is 500,000 pounds of whitefish, although the
fishermen can take the other coarser fish with that.


Frank Oliver: Jackfish is not included?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Frank Oliver: There are whitelish, pickerel and jackfish in Lac la Biche. Does the 400,000 pounds limit apply to white-fish or does it include pickerel and jack-fish?


John Douglas Hazen: It includes all fish in Lac
la Biche.


Frank Oliver: But in Lesser Slave lake it includes only whitefish?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Pickerel are not considered?


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing but whitefish.


Frank Oliver: The fishermen can catch
as many pickerel and jackfish as they like?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: What is the catch for
Lesser Slave lake for the coming winter? I am anxious to have these facts so that these people will have notice before hand.


John Douglas Hazen: 760,000 pounds.


Frank Oliver: Is there any limit to the fishing on White Whale or Wabamun lake?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


Frank Oliver: Or Pigeon lake?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so. Those
lakes have never come under my notice.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to object to the principle of establishing a limit pf catch because that must be within the judgment o? the experts of the department, but I may point out that in the case of Wabamun and Pigeon lakes, which are both located about fifty miles from Edmonton, those lakes to my knowledge, have been fished continuously for twenty years, both commercially and for other purposes.


John Douglas Hazen: Probably it would have
been better if a limit had been placed on them years ago.


Frank Oliver: No, the fish are quite plentiful yet.


John Douglas Hazen: Are those lakes as large as Lae la Biehe?


Frank Oliver: No, none of them is as
large as Lac la Biehe. One of them is immediately adjoining the railroad track.
Mr. HAZENMy attention has never been drawn to the matter before, but I will consider whether a limit should be imposed.


Frank Oliver: I am not suggesting that there should be a limit; I am simply pointing out the facts. Two lakes, Lake Win-nifred and Lake Christina were opened last winter. Are they to be subject to a limit?


John Douglas Hazen: My attention has never been drawn to them. Where are they?


Frank Oliver: On the Great Waterways railroad, north of Lac la Biehe. Is there any limit to the catch on 'Calling lake?


John Douglas Hazen: No, the only laies I am aware of on which there is a limit are Lac la Biehe and Lesser Slave lake.
To pay customs officers for services in connection with issuing modus vivendi licenses.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister state what his policy is with regard to these modus vivendi licenses?


John Douglas Hazen: This matter is now the subject of negotiation with the United States Government. There is no harm in saying that I trust a conference will be entered into, by which arrangements will be made that will be satisfactory to the United States, and that at the same time will remove the disabilities under which our fishing vessels are placed at the present time in taking their catch into the United States and in clearing again from United States ports for the fishing grounds, and that the conference will also include the question of the prohibition of the well-smacks the Americans are sending over now, and which lie right outside the three mile limit in the close season and capture our lobsters, that is, lobsters that we are helping to preserve, although they are not ours legally, and taking them back to the United States.


John Howard Sinclair: You will not permit them to come within the three, mile limit?


John Douglas Hazen: That is not what I say. At the present moment they are coming over, and when we have our close season, they are lying outside the three mile limit, catching the lobsters there and putting them into those wells that they have in their smacks and taking them to the United States. We want to prevent that. That is

one of the subjects in which we think there ought to be a quid pro quo. There are matters on the Atlantic and on the Pacific in which both our fishermen and the United States fishermen are interested, and negotiations are being conducted now with a view to get such settlement of all those outstanding difficulties as will be satisfactory to the people of both countries.


George William Kyte: Will those negotiations
include a change in the license fee charged?


John Douglas Hazen: That is one of the matters in view.


John Howard Sinclair: Does it include the admission of American vessels that are propelled by steam? [DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. At the present time the modus vivendi applies only to vessels propelled by sail. The contention on the part of the United States is that it should apply to vessels propelled by steam or by gasolene. The argument always advanced in the Parliament of Canada was that this concession was given at a time when vessels were not propelled by steam, and that the modus vivendi applied only to fishing vessels propelled by sail.
There are a number of these outstanding difficulties. The United States would like to have the modus vivendi license reduced from $1.50 a ton to a merely nominal rate, and they would like to have the right for their vessels to come into our ports for the purposes mentioned, whether those vessels are propelled by sail or otherwise. On the other hand, while our fish are admitted free into the United States, we labour under the disadvantage that our fishermen, who take their catch direct to an American port, after selling their catch, cannot clear again for the fishing banks. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. We are endeavouring to have an arrangement come to which will be fair to 'both, by which the disabilities will be removed as regards our Canadian fishermen, and at the same time we are willing to give advantages in the directions suggested to American fishermen. I hope that this will prove the psychological moment for the arrangement of these matters.


John Howard Sinclair: It would he very satisfactory if the minister could bring about a settlement. A great deal of interest is taken in these matters by the people along the coast. For several years back I have held the view that it would be 'better to admit vessels propelled by gasolene or steam to the same privileges as ar4 given to sailing

vessels. They purchase bait and supplies from our fishermen and dealers; they are good customers and pay well for what they get. If we permit them to tranship their catch on our railways to the United States it will give traffic to our railways. In every way I think it would be an advantage to have the matter dealt with. I am glad the minister also bears in mind the question of our vessels clearing from American ports. Our fishermen arrive at Boston, the great distributing point, with a'cargo of fish, and after selling their catch they wish to. clear again for the banks. But, as I understand it, under the present law, they must clear for a Canadian port and call at that port before they clear for the banks. I trust the minister will stick to this point until he carries it, for there is no reason that I can see why it should not be conceded by the United States. There are other questions, no so important, perhaps, which it would be wise not to mix up with these others, and so delay a settlement.


George William Kyte: Have American vessels free access to the ports of British Columbia?


John Douglas Hazen: If they ship their catch
over Canadian railways in bond to the United States.


George William Kyte: That is where the ports of British Columbia have the advantage over the ports of Nova Scotia.


John Douglas Hazen: What was done in British Columbia was really a concession to the United States, but the effect of it has been to help Prince Kupert very materially.
Fisheries patrol service, $190,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister tell us something about the patrol service in connection with naval matters.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) will allow ,that discussion to wait until the Naval Estimates are before the Committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes. And then the
minister will be prepared, I suppose, to give us the names of the different craft, the owners, and so on.


John Douglas Hazen: I would be prepared to give such information as it is desirable should be given. I am doubtful as to the advisability of making public many of these facts. I should not have the slightest objection, if my hon. friend would come to my department, to giving him privately full information with regard to all the boats we have charted for patrol in connection with the
Naval Service, the amounts we are paying, and all details of that sort.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I intend to bring some facts to the notice of the minister, rather in the way of criticism. There are many of these boats, and some of them may be of service. I am as careful as any member could be that no information should be given in this House that can be made of advantage to the enemy; but, many of these boats are of no good to the enemy or anybody else,-like a chip in porridge, they are neither good nor harm, except that they draw money from the public treasury, and draw it because they are owned by partisans and wire-pullers-


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And when it is discovered that they belong to a Liberal, they are dropped.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not the case. If the hon. gentleman will come to my department-	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can give him the
name of one man, Mr. William Scott of North Sydney, who had two or three boats in the service, but when it was discovered that he was not an orthodox Tory he and his boats were thrown on the shore.


John Douglas Hazen: That is news to me and I think that investigation would show that it is not correct. However, this is a matter to be discussed when the Naval Estimates come up.
To provide for a fishery exhibit at the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto, $10,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the minister continuing that exhibit?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, and the restaurant. It has been a very great success in other years.


George William Kyte: The next two items, Nos.
259 and 260, I desire to discuss, I would suggest that they be allowed to stand.


John Douglas Hazen: Then, when we pass 261, in compliance with the request of my hon. friend we will let the items to which he has referred stand until some other occasion.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen for the adjournment of the House-
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE E. McORANEY (Saskatoon) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the Government a telegram that I am in receipt of this evening from Saskatoon in regard to the coal situation. I think this telegram should toe in the possession of the House. It is as follows:
Saskatoon, Sask., June 8, 19.17. Geo. E. McCraney, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Resolution of special meeting of Saskatoon Board of Trade held 8th June, 1917 :
Whereas, it has been brought to the attention of this board that the coal mines from which western provinces draw their supplies of coal are in general raising only a small proportion of their normal operating capacity at this season owing to the labor situation;
And whereas, in the interest of railway transportation, power production on farms and in cities, it is essential that the raising of a winter's supply of coal should be proceeded with at once before the small reserve stock in the country is further depleted.
Therefore, resolved, that this board urges upon the Government of Canada the necessity for taking drastic action at the earliest possible moment to secure the resumption of operations at western coal mines and to settle the differences between the operators and workmen and that copies of this resolution be sent by telegraph to the Premier, Sir Robert Borden, and to the member for Saskatoon county, at Ottawa, and the resolution sent to western boards of trade for their consideration.
(Signed) W. P. Kirkpatrick,
President.
I hope the Government will take this telegram into consideration in dealing with the matter.
John Douglas Hazen: I understand that a similar telegram has been sent to the Prime Minister?


Mr. McORANEY:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Monday, June 11, 1917.