[Stage Direction]
Report of the Minister of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1908.- Mr. Pugsley.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Niagara-Welland Power Co.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.-Mr. Con-mee.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Salisbury and Harvey Railroad Company.-Mr. Em-merson.
Bill (No. 36) respecting The Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Western Canadian Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company. - Mr. Dubeau.

Mr.  W. B.@: NORTHRUP (E. Hastings) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 39) to amend the Railway Act. He said: Last session the government introduced a Bill to amend the Railway Act so as to confer certain additional powers on the Board of Railway Commissioners, giving the Board jurisdiction in complaints made by the Crown or by a corporation with regard to certain specified matters. The list included a number of matters on the face of it, but mainly matters with regard to which negotiations are not usually conducted as contracts made between a corporation or the Crown and the railways. I propose to add to, along the same line, that the commissioners should have power in contracts made with regard to the operation of the road. It is well known that contracts are made between municipalities and the government or a railway company, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases, they refer to the operation of the road. In consideration of the operation of the road, a bonus is given by the municipality or a subsidy granted by parliament. Exactly in the line with the government measure of last year, I propose to give the commissioners authority with regard to such contracts.
In one other respect this Bill goes further than the amendment of last session. Under that law, appeals of the kind to which I have referred can only be made in cases between the Crown or corporation and the railway with which the contract was made. It is well known that, in this country, there are practically only two or three railways. In the great majority of cases contracts are made between the Crown or a corporation and some minor railway which has been subsidized for a part of the country through
which it runs; and, usually, after the contract is made and the railway constructed, this minor railway is absorbed by one of the larger railway corporations. The result is that the larger railway has the benefit of the money which the municipality or Crown has expended, while the municipality or the Crown loses the benefit of the contract on account of which alone the money was advanced. The Bill which I have now the honour to propose would aiiow the board t, >
act in such a case, and would provide that the railway which has_ possession of the property in consideration of which the bonus is given should be held responsible for carrying out the contract made by the road which has been absorbed and which, having gone out of operation, cannot be held to its contract. This, it will be seen, is on the same line as the government Bill of last session, but it extends the principle a little further in the two directions I have indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR asked:: 1.	Outside of the Chamber of the House of Commons, the reading room and library, how-many rooms are available in the parliament buildings for members of the House of Commons including members of the administration and the staff of the House of Commons?
2.	What is the total floor space of the said
rooms?	.
3.	By whom are the said rooms occupied, to whom have they been allotted, and what is the floor space of the rooms in question in each case?
4.	Under whose direction has such allotment or arrangement been made, and when was it last made or revised?


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: 
William Pugsley: | Room Nos.	Occupants.	Rooms occupied.	Floor area.
67	Col. Hughes and Conservative		
members	i	550 068	Mr. Stanfield and Conservative members	i	523 369	Chairman of Debates and Liberal members	i	223 170	Dr. Belaud and others	i	211471	Chairman of Debates and Liberal members (Quebec)	i	173 372	Conservative members, Mr. Lennox and others	i	181673	Dr. Barr and Mr. Marshall...	i	114 1174, 75	New Brunswick Liberals	2	C17'276, 77	Nova Scotia Liberals	2	550-278	Northwest Liberal members..	1	41G779	Mr. Gauvreau and others	1	385-280	Prince Edward Island Liberal members	1	401-881	Hon. Minister of Militia	1	188 182	Quebec Liberal members	1	855-683	Ex-Ministers (Liberals)	1	390 484	Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries 	1	456 1185	Secretary of the Premier	1	253 680	Right Hon. the Premier	1	460-687	Liberal Whip (Mr. Calvert). .	1	241-688	1 I on. Secretary of State	1	180-089	Conservative Headquarters . .	1	801 090	Conserv. Whip (Mr. Taylor)..	1	189-091	Conservative Whips	1	324-092	Northwest Liberal members..	1	460 693	Mr. Lapointe and others	1	264 994	N.B. and P.E.l. Conservatives and Mr. Doherty	1	177-595	Dr. Reid and other Conservative members	1	174-696	Mr. Rivet and others	1	177-597	Conservative members	1	486-698	Sessional clerks	1	915-299	Sergeant at Arms (quarters)..	5	1,927-5100	Mr. Dube (quarters)	8	2,849-0101	House cleaning stores	1	206 0102	Stationery store room	1	372-4103	Store room-Sgt. at Arms....	1	178-3104	Blue-book room	1	233-2Steward of the Speaker	0	1,661-7Vaults, Distribution office.. .	2	478-10Paste room	1	316 6Messengers' waiting room....	1	330 10Mr. Dube's office	1	214-8Totals	158	53,245-912, 13	Telegraph office-G.N.W. and C.P.R	2	510-0Restaurant, dining rooms, kitchen, store room, etc	12	8,883 9Totals	'	14	9,393 9Grand totals	172	32,639 6BAND	GRANT OF QU'APPELLE,	LONG


LAKE AND SASKATCHEWAN RAILWAY.
Mr. McCRANEY asked:: 1.	What was the area and approximate , location of the land grant to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and

Steamboat Company for the construction of the railway from Regina to Prince Albert?
2.	Under what authority was such grant made, 'and when was it earned?
3.	What persons and corporations have acquired this land grant, and in what amounts?
4.	What quantity of land has been patented to each?
5.	Has 'the Saskatoon 'and Western Land Company acquired any other lands from the government 'than those which form part of the grant above-mentioned?
6.	When were the selections of the 'Saskatoon 'and Western Land Company made, and what has 'been the cause of the delay?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior).: 1. 1,625,344 acres. The area reserved by the original orders in council dated respectively December 30, 1884, February 4,	1891, June 10,	1892, and
August 1, 1902, was all in what is now the province of Saskatchewan, and the selection of lands to satisfy the area earned as above was all within the tracts so reserved. The location of the tract may be described as an irregular shaped block in central Saskatchewan, extending from the north limit of the Canadian Pacific Railway main line belt reserve to township 52.
2.	By Chapter 60 of 48-49 Victoria, assented to July 20, 1885, and Chapter 23, of 50-51 Victoria, assented to June 23, 1887.
3 and 4. An area of 128,000 acres was assigned to the Land Corporation of Canada by assignment dated February 5, 1892. These lands have all been patented.
Applications for the issue of patents in the name of sundry persons were filed in the department by the company to the number of 117 for areas in each case of one section or less area between March 20, 1891, and September 5, 1902. These lands have all been patented.
A patent for an area of 2,240 acres was applied for in the name of Harvey Matthews of White Bear lake, Minnesota, dated September 22, 1902. This land has been patented.
An area of 30,614-90 acres was assigned to Edmund Boyd Osier, and Herbert Carlyle Hammond, of Toronto, and Augustus Meredith Nanton and Harry William Nanton of Winnipeg by assignment dated December 30, 1902. These lands have all been patented.
An area of 97,164 06 acres was assigned to Augustus Meredith Nanton of Winnipeg by assignment dated December 30, 1902. These lands have all been patented.
An area of 839,640-97 acres was assigned to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company by assignment dated October 25,	1902.
These lands have all been patented.
An area of 239-92 acres was assigned to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company by assignment dated March 21, 1903. This land has been patented.
An area of 493,269-34 acres was retained by the government as security for certain
advances to the railway company under an agreement dated August 5, 1889; of these lands an area of 1,442 acres has been patented in the name of sundry persons on the application of the assignees of the railway company.
5.	Of the above area of 1,442 acres, 1,284 acres has been patented to the Saskatchewan and Western Land Company, Limited.
No other lands comprised in this railway company's land subsidy have been patented to the said Saskatoon and Western Land Company, Limited. The said Saskatoon and Western Land Company, Limited, has not acquired any other lands from the government.
6.	The Saskatoon and Western Land Company had no right of selection on account of this railway company's land subsidy. The selection of the area of 493,269-34 acres retained by the government as security as above and of which area the said Saskatoon and Western Land Company, Limited, is the grantee of 1,284 acres as above, was completed on September 13, 1906, by the assignees of the railway company, and was confirmed by order in council dated May 8, 1907. The unpatented lands comprised in this selection have been recently assigned by the said assignees to Canada Saskatchewan Land Company, Limited.


MEN EMPLOYED ON WELLAND CANAL.
Mr. LANCASTER asked:: 1.	How 'many men, not on the regular staff, v ere employed on the Welland canal during the months of September and October, 1908?
2.	What wais the nature of the work for which the said men were so employed?
3.	On whose recommendation was the work required to be done?
4.	What rate of wages was paid bo the .said
men?	,	*,	.
5.	What is the total amount paid, or to be paid, for the said work?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Exclusive of staff pay-list, there were employed on the Welland canal during the month of September, 1908, 416 men, and during the month of October, 1908, 611 men.
2.	These men were employed on the following different works: ' Repairs,' ' Electric lighting and power "plant," ' Survey of canal,'
*	Repairs to foundation of lock No. 2,'
Deepen ditches and enlarge culvert at Marshvile,' ' Heavy repairs.'
3.	The work was required to be done on the recommendation of the superintending engineer.
4.	The general rate of wages was $1.50 per day of 9 hours for labouring men; $2 to $3.50 per day for foremen; and teams from $3.50 to $4 per day. At the Marshville culvert work, an extra allowance was made to cover board of men who did not live in the vicinity.

5. The amounts of the .appropriation for
the said works are:
Repairs	$80,000
Electric lighting and power plant 50,000
Survey of canal	 20,000
Repairing foundation lock No. 2..	12,000
Deepen ditches and enlarge culvert
at Marshville	 15,000
Heavy repairs	 30,000
ROSS RIFLE-REPORT OF COMMITTEE. Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:
1.	What were the dates of the two last meetings of the Small Arms Committee, and what iis the present composition of such committee ?
2.	Has this committee reported on the Ross rifle, Mark II? If so, what is the nature of the report?
3.	Has this committee reported on any rifle *manufactured by the iRoss Rifle Company other than Mark I and II?
4.	Is the government aware of any defects, structural weaknesses or deficiencies in Ross rifle Mark II? If so, what is the nature of these defects?
5.	Has the Ross rifle Mark II been definitely accepted by the government as the service rifle of the miilitda of Canada?
6.	What was the date of the last contract with the Ross Rifle Company for rifles, or what mark are 'they to be, and how manv have been delivered on the contract up to the present time?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	(b) The personnel of the Small Arms Committee is as follows:
President-
Bvt.-Col. S. Hughes, M.P. Railway Staff. Members-
Lt.-Col. W. P. Anderson, R.O.; Lt.-Col. J. H. Burland, R.O.; Lt.-Col. C. Gre-ville-Harston, R.O.; Major R. A. Helmer, D.A.A.G., for Musketry; Major A. O. Fages, R.C.R.; Major J. B. Pym, I.S.A. &M.G.; Major W. H. Davidson, 8th Regt.; Major J. E. Hutcheson, 43rd Regt.
Associate members-
Lt.-Col. F. M. Gaudet, R.C.A., Supt. Dom. Arsenal; Lt.-Col. J. W. Harkom, R.O.; A. E. McIntyre, Esq., Ph.D.; A. H. Walters, Esq., M.A.
4.	The Ross rifle in common with all other rifles, military or sporting, may be said to have certain defects, structural weaknesses, or deficiencies. It is not the custom of any government to publish to the world what it considers to be the weak points or strong points of the arms with which its troops are equipped.
6. The date of the contract (there is only one), is March 22, 1902.
As regards the other particulars asked for in questions 1 (a), 2, 3, and 5, the department proposes to adopt the principle followed by the Imperial War Office and Mr. GRAHAM.
to reserve to itself the right to make public only such information as may be deemed to be advisable in the public interest.


STRAIGHTENING OF ASSINIBOINE RIVER.
Mr. MEIGHEN asked:: 1.	What requests, petitions or prayers, if any, from public bodies or others, were received iby the government urging the straightening of a portion of the Assiniboine river, southeast of Portage la Prairie City, and what were the dates of receipt of same?
2.	When was the work on same first commenced and when finished?
3.	Were tenders called for the said work or any part thereof? If mot, why not?
4.	If not done by contract under tender, what plan was adopted for accomplishing the work and paying the men employed, and through whom were they paid?
5.	What was the immediate urgency f-or undertaking this work at the time it was done ?
6.	What has been the total amount expended to date, what was the nature of the necessary excavation, and what [DOT] is the cost per cubic yard?
7.	What, if any, provision has been made by the government for disposal of the sewerage of the city of Portage la Prairie, as the present method of disposal of same is said to be interfered with by the work so done?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Petition signed by residents along the Assiniboine river, received March 19, 1903; letter from C. Winslow, Dacotah, May 2, 1904; petitions signed by residents of Portage la Prairie, January 10, 1905; letter from J. O. Smith, Elie, November 6, 1905; letter from J. O. Smith, Elie, January 29, 1908.
2.	Commenced 19th September, 1908, closed 31st October, 1908.
3 & 4. Tenders were not called for the work as it was considered more satisfactory to perform same by day's labour. Work was done by a staff of men under a foreman in the employ of this department, and payments were made partly through Joseph Cauchon, departmental paymaster, partly by direct cheque from department.
5.	To prevent the flooding of a portion of the city of Portage la Prairie and the surrounding country.
6.	$4,152 to excavate earth, at an estimated cost of 22 cents per cubic yard.
7.	No provision has been made as this is a public work, constructed by the government, at the request of citizens of Portage la Prairie, and for the benefit of the city and the adjoining country.


FLOW OF WATER IN HOLLAND RIVER.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE asked:: 1.	Has the government caused to be made or received a report from any engineer on the flow of water per minute through the east branch of the Holland river, dn the vicinity of Newmarket?

2.	If so, what is the flow of water in cubic feet -per minute over the weir at Newmarket?
3.	Has the government any information or estimates of the number of lockages that can be -made through, the Newmarket branch of the Trent Valley waterways at Newmarket each day (a) at high water, (b) at low water?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 
EXTENSION OF TRENT VALLEY WATERWAYS.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE asked :: 1.	Has the government caused any report and survey -to be -made of the proposed extension of the Trent Valley waterways from Lake Swneoe to the Georgian bay (a) by way of the valley of the Nottawasaga river, or (b) by way of the Severn river?
2.	Is it the intention of -the government to lay this report before the House? If so, when?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes. Surveys have been completed; but the plans in connection with the report, are not yet ready.
2.	Yes, when the report is received and considered by the government.


DREDGE AT SELKIRK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRADBURY-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	What was the total amount expended in converting the snag boat at Selkirk into a dredge ?
2.	What was the total cost of the dredge as completed?
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$9,0S2.
2.	$39,092.


POST OFFICE IN ELMWOOD, MAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRA DBURY-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Ha-s any negotiation taken place to purchase a site for the proposed post office at Elmwood, Manitoba ? If -so, by whom, and las a site -beei purchased? If so, when, and what price?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed this spring with the construction of the -post office at Elmwood?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Site purchased by Joseph Greenfield, superintendent of Dominion public buildings, Winnipeg.
(c)	6th October, 1908.
id) $5,500.
2.	It is not the present intention of the government to proceed this spring with the construction of the post office at Elmwood.


FORTIFICATIONS AT ESQUIMALT.
Mr. BARNARD asked :: 1.	Has any expenditure in connection with the naval -station -at Esquii-malt -been authorized by the government of Canada, or to the knowledge of the government of Canada, by the imperial -government ? If so, to what amount, and for what purpose?
2.	How; -many guns were lef-t by the imperial authorities -at Esquimalt when the -imperial troops -were withdrawn from British Columbia?
3.	Is the government -aware that one or more of said guns are said to have been left lying unprotected from the weather for months beside the public highway leading from Victoria -to Esquimalt?
4.	W-ha-t -was the numerical strength of the 'mperial troops -at Esquimalt immediately before they were withdrawn?
5.	What is the numerical strength of the permanent corps -at Esquimalt at the present time ?
6.	What is the numerical strength of the permanent corps at: (a) Halifax, (b) Kingston. (e) Quebec, (d) Toronto, (e) Winnipeg, (f) London?

7.	What force is considered by the Militia Department to be of adequate strength to maintain and man the fortifications at Esquimalt?
8.	What was the cost, for the last fiscal year, .and upkeep of the permanent force at:
(a)	Halifax, (b) Quebec, (c) Kingston, (d) To-'ronto, <(e) Winnipeg, (f) London?


Mr.  W. S.@: .
1.	This is confidential and cannot be giv

2.	The same number of guns as were left at Esquimalt by the British government are, however, still there. *
3.	The guns are where they were placed by the imperial troops. Their future disposition has been arranged with the full concurrence of the Imperial War Office.
4.	Approximately 350, but the department has no information as to the exact strength.
5.	142.
6.	It varies considerably from time to time, but by the latest returns it is :
Halifax," 1,269 (This includes 69 civilians paid out of the vote for the permanent force).
Quebec, 363.
Kingston, 317.	.
Toronto, 262 (This includes 1 civilian paid out of the vote for the permanent force.
Winnipeg, 106.
London, 107.	.
Esquimalt, 142 (This includes 6 civilians paid out of the vote for the permanent force).
7.	152.	,
8.	This cannot be precisely stated, for the cost of the active militia attached for instruction to the several schools cannot be separated from it, and further it is largely affected by the number of men stationed at each place at a given moment which fluctuates for various reasons, e.g.: recruiting. The expenditure at each station during last fiscal year was as follows :
(a)	Halifax	$761,086	90(b)	Quebec	
226,540	13(c)	Kingston	
165,702	16(d)	Toronto	
229,207	07(e)	Winnipeg	
81,028	48(f)	London	
75,545	58(g)	Esquimalt	
103,052	50
I have added Esquimalt, as I suppose that information is desired.


WHARF AT WESTPORT.
[Stage Direction]
3.	Will the government; advertise for tenders in connection therewith, and when?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed work?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	No.
2 and 3. It is not the intention of the government to proceed with this work at present. It has not been thought prudent to engage at the present time upon such a large expenditure as the work would involve.
4.	$33,000.


WHARF AT LITTLE RIVER, N.S.
Mr. JAMESON asked :: 1.	Has any portion of ithe appropriation voted at the last session of parliament for erection of a wharf at Little River, in the county of Ddgby, province of Nova Scotia, been expended? If fSo, what (amount has been so expended?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to proceed with the work? If so, when? If mot, why not?
3.	Will the government advertise for tenders in connection therewith, and when ?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed work?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	No.
2 and 3. It is not the intention of the government to proceed with this work at present. It has not been thought prudent to engage at the present time upon such a large expenditure as the work would involve.
4 $16,500.


MAGNETAWAN RIVER.
Mr. ARTHURS asked :: 
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	No expenditure.
2.	Yes; $16,182.80, including the construction of a lock and dam.
3.	It is not the intention of the government to proceed with this work at present.


Mr. JAMESON asked :: 1.	Has any portion of the appropriation
voted at last session of parliament for the erection of a wharf at Westport, in the county of Digby, province of Nova Scotia, been expended? If so, what amount has been so expended?	.
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to proceed with the work? If so, when? If not, why not?


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY THEDFORD, ARKONA FRANK, ONTARIO. BETWEEN AND PORT
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	Has the government decided to establish rural mail delivery on the routes between Thedford, Ontario, and Arkona, and Thedford, Ontario and Port Frank?
2.	If so, wbat is the cause of delay in establishing said routes?


Mr. BARNARD.: 


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (for Postmaster General):: 1 and 2. An application was, recently received at the department for the establishment of a rural mail delivery service between Arkona and! Thedford, and has been referred to the proper officers for inquiry and report.
. The department was also asked to establish a rural mail delivery service between Thedford and Port Frank, but on account of the courier refusing to undertake such service, tenders are now being invited for a new contract for the conveyance of the mails between the two terminal points, including the collection from and delivery to the rural mail boxes.


MAIL CONTRACTS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	Have any contracts for the carrying of mail, which expire in the month of April, 1909, been renewed without asking for tenders ?
2.	If any such tenders have been renewed, where are the routes situated, what is the price paid for carrying the mail, and what is the name of the carrier, and his place of residence?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This information is so voluminous that I would suggest that the hon. gentleman's question stand as a notice of motion for a return.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.


SWAN LAKE, INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. STAPLES asked:: 1.	Has the government consummated the purchase of any portion or portions of the Swan Esike Indian reserve in the province of Manitoba? If so, what portion or portions, and what was the consideration?
any ^le lan<l so purchased been so, : .14 so' to whom, at what price and on what terms?
3.	If unsold, when is it the intention of the ^ovtiriijnoni. to put it on the market?
4.	Will it be sold by auction or otherwise, and on what terms and conditions?
. Is it the intention of the government to throw open any or all of it for homestead-


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1. On the 21st of January, 1908, the Swan Lake Band of Indians surrendered to the Crown 5,283 acres, comprising portion of the Swan Lake Indian reserve, No. 7, Manitoba, containing 2,880 acres, and Indian reserve 7A, in the province of Saskatchewan, containing 2,403 acres, which surrender was on the following conditions,-
(a)	. That the minimum price at which the Swan Lake lands are to be sold will be ten dollars per acre.
(b)	. That the minimum price at which the Battleford lands will be sold will be six dollars per acre.
(c)	. That the Indians' equity shall be considered as one-third of the price of the land.
(d)	. That the first payment to be made to the Indians at the time of formal surrender shall be equal to one hundred dollars to each soul of population.
(e)	. That the second payment, being balance of the one-third of equity, shall be paid as soon as sufficient funds are realized from the sale of the land.
(f)	. That the interest on the funded moneys placed to the credit of the Indians from the sale of these lands shall be paid to them on the per capita basis at the time of the annual treaty payments.
2.	The land has not as yet been placed in the market.
3.	It is the intention to place the land in the market at an early date.
4.	It is the intention to sell in the usual way by public auction, terms of sale being one-tenth cash and the balance in nine equal annual instalments, with interest at five per cent.
5.	No.



CONSTRUCTION OF DRY DOCKS.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: Are any negotiations in progress or have any proposals been made for construction or extension of dry docks under the provisions of the Dry Docks Subsidies Act of 1908 ? If so, by whom and at what places?


William Pugsley: The answer is: Yes, by the Vancouver Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, at Vancouver, B.C. In order that my hon. friend may not be misled by this. I may say that there were applications made to the government under the previous legislation, and it has been intimated that they will ask to come in under the new legislation, but no new proposals have been actually received except this one.



IMMIGRATION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	How many immigrant British subjects, have been prevented from landing in Canada by reason of the provisions of the order in council passed on May 27, 1908, upon the authority of chapter 33 of the Act of last session?
2.	How many immigrant British subjects, not coming from the country of which they are natives or citizens, and upon through tickets purchased there, have entered Canada as settlers since May 27, 1908?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	None.
2.	1,466.



INTENDING IMMIGRANTS PREVENTED FROM LANDING.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	How many persons have been prevented from landing in Canada by reason of the pro-

visions of the Order in Council of May 27, 1908, founded on chapter 33 of the Acts of last session?
2.	Of what countries were they natives or citizens, specifying how many of each country^
3.	How long in each case had they been
absent from the land of their birth or citizenship ?	.
4.	From what countries or places did they come in each case?
5.	Have any remonstrances or representations been made to the government on behalf of persons prevented from landing by the countries to which they belong or from which they embarked ?
ti." Will the government bring down and lay on the table of the House these documents, if there are any?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	1,049.	,2.	Australian	
44Croatian	
23Galician	
4Hungarian	
8Belgian	
11Bulgarian	
45French	
3German	
16Greek	
10Hebrew	
37Italian	588Japanese	
16Polish	
13Roumanian	
4Russian	
20Finnish	
6Spanish	
2Swiss	
6Danish	
3Swedish	
45Norwegian	
26Armenian	
7Syrian	
41Not stated	
113.	Not recorded. _4.	From the United States.5.	No.6.	See answer to No. 5.



PAYMENTS TO THE W. S. LOGGIE CO.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Wright-asked:
1.	What amounts of moneys were paid during the years 1906, 1907 and 1908, to the W. S. Loggie Company, Ltd., in respect of contracts with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Railways and Canals, or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission?
2.	What were the dates, and amounts of such payments, respectively and for what purposes ?
3.	Were all the supplies, or work for which such payments were made, let by tender, and to the lowest tenderer?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 


Haughton Lennox: Marine and Fisheries Department.
1. 1906-7	$129 42
1907-8	 788 32
2.	W. S. Loggie Co., Ltd.
1906-	7.
Aug. 16. $62 00 Shippegan hatchery.
Oct. 9.	18 89 Shippegan hatchery.
Feb. 11. 48 53 fog-alarm, Escuminac.
1907-	8.
June 12. $ 83 68 Miramichi lightship.
"	18.	35 17 construction lights."	22.	12 00 meteor service.Aug. 3.	4 60 maintenance light.Oct. 3.	42 22 Shippegan hatchery."	24. 413 25 Escuminac fog-alarm.Nov. 13.	45 90 Miramichi hatchery.Dec. 9.	5 62 Miramichi buoy service."	20.	37 30 Sheldrake island light.Jan. 18.	13 50 Miramichi hatchery.Feb. 26.	94 58 Miramichi hatchery,
for purchase of lumber, hardware and various construction material.
3.	No tenders were called for.


Mr.  W. S.@: The answer for the Department of Militia and Defence is as follows:-No payments have been made by the Department of Militia and Defence during the three years in question to the W. S. Loggie Company, Ltd.


Hon WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: The answer for the Department of Public Works is as follows This company had no contracts with this department during the years mentioned.



MR. W. T. R. PRESTON.

Mr. GERMAN asked :: 1.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce received any complaints from any Japanese board of trade in Japan, other than the foreign boards of trade, criticising Mr. W. T. R. Preston's work as Canadian Trade Commissioner ?	.
2.	Has the said department received any complaints against Mr. Preston or his work from any officials of the Japanese government?
3.	Has the said department received any
complaints against Mr. Preston or his wont from any newspapers or trade papers published in Japanese?	,
4.	Has the said department received any Japanese newspapers or opinions of Japanese complimenting Mr. Preston upon his work? If so, what is the nature of that?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. The statement is made by the ' Yorodzu Choho ' of Tokio that Mr. Preston is a gentleman to whom the best thanks of all the Japanese are due and complimenting Mr. Preston upon two articles of his which appeared in the ' National Review.'



STEEL RAILWAY CARS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Mr. George Taylorasked:
Has the government had their attention drawn to the alleged fact, that in the railway wreck which took place only a few days ago on the Pennsylvania Railway in the Allegheny Mountains, where both the engines and wooden cars were crushed into a mass of ruins, that a steel Pullman car immediately behind the engine escaped without, as account states, a scratch? If so, is it their intention to make inquiry, and if true, introduce the use of steel cars on the Intercolonial Railway, so as to ensure the greater safety of life to the travelling public?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. No. The government has not had its attention drawn to the wreck; but the experience had with the strongly built sleeping-cars has shown that they have gone through wrecks time and again, without injury. There is no doubt whatever that steel cars would have a higher resisting effect than wooden-framed cars ; but sufficient experience has not been had to reach any definite conclusions with regard to the same. The greatly increased cost of changing to the service of steel cars, however, will preclude the possibility of this being done for many years to come.



USURY ACT, 1908.

Mr. STAPLES asked :: 1.	How many persons were prosecuted under tlie Usury Act of 1908?
2.	Under what clause or clauses were those prosecutions taken?
3.	Who were the persons prosecuted, and what was the penalty enacted in each case?
4.	What amendments, if any, have been made to the Act since 1906 ?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: The answer is made in the supposition that the intention was to refer to the Money Lenders Act, 1906.
Prosecutions for offences against this statute form part of the administration of justice in the different provinces of the Dominion, and are entirely under control of the provincial authorities. This government is therefore not possessed of any information from which any statistics on the subject could be given. No amendment has been made to the statute.



MAIL AND STAGE ROUTES.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: What is the total number of existing mail and stage routes in Canada and the total number of miles covered by such routes?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Owing to the time that will be involved in obtaining this information, it is requested that this question be allowed to stand.



TRADE WITH GERMANY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	What means, if any, has the government taken to improve our trade relations with Germany?
2.	What was the total exports of agricultural products to Germany from Canada in the year 1908?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	The answer was given to a similar question put by the hon. member last session, and which the hon. member will see in Hansard.
2.	The total exports of agricultural products from Canada to Germany during the calendar year 1908 amounted to $551,920.



PRE-EMPTIONS AND HOMESTEADS.

Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	Between April 1 and December 31, 1908, what has been the total acreage sold as preemptions and purchased homesteads?
2.	What total amount of money receivable by the government does this represent?
3.	How much was paid in during the above M mentioned period?
4.	Approximately what quantity of agricultural laud remains undisposed of within the surveyed area?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Pre-emptions-1,979,860 acres.
Purchased Homesteads-99,279 acres.
2.	$6,229,699.43.
3.	$129,295.82.
4.	41,500,000 acres.



PROTECTION OF OUR COAST LINE AND SEAPORTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self help and self respect which alone benefits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.-Mr. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries asked me to notify him beforehand when this resolution would be taken up. If the Prime Minister sees no objection I would like to take it up on Thursday next.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: That is quite agreeable.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do you mean tomorrow?


George Eulas Foster: A week from to-morrow.



DEVELOPMENT OF OUE FISHEEIES.

Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Guysboro) moved :: That in the opinion of the House it is advisable to appoint a Select Standing Committee of the House to deal with questions relating to Marine and Fisheries as they arise from time to time, and that the rules of the House be amended accordingly.
He said:	Mr. Speaker; during the last
session of this House I had the honour to ihove a resolution similar in its terms to the one I now propose, and while no opposition was offered, yet no action was taken to carry its purpose into effect. Of course, you will recollect that the government were so very much engaged during the last session, and the opposition were so very busy trying to get into power that my resolution necessarily did not receive that attention which its importance deserved. I trust, Sir, that I will have better luck this time and that some action will be taken by parliament to give effect to my proposal. I was very much interested' in the speech of the leader of the opposition delivered in the ^House last Monday in favour of conserving our natural resources. That speech contained a great deal of valuable and useful information, and we will of course all agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) as to the vital necessity of conserving the natural resources of Canada. However, in the motion which I now place before the House I am not thinking so much about conserving natural resources as I am advocating the development of a great Canadian industry which has enormous possibilities for adding to the wealth and prosperity of our land. My idea is that it would be a great improvement over existing conditions if we should have a special Marine and Fisheries committee meeting year after year and devoting its labour an'd research, to the development of the fishing industry of this country. There seems to be a growing tendency amongst all legislative bodies to relegate the general work of legislation to special committees which have opportunities for ascertaining the facts, considering them, tabulating them, and placing them before parliament so that parliament may consider the results, and take whatever action is needed, or that may be recommended. For example, 100 years ago there were only five select standing committees in the Congress of the United States, but as the country became larger, as new states were added, and as new interests arose the committees of Congress increased until during last session there were no fewer than 50 committees considering different questions.
They have such committees as that on elections, ways and means, appropriations, judiciary, banking and currency, coin and weights and measures, commerce, rivers Mr. FOSTER.
and harbours, the merchant marine and fisheries. Thirteen members constitute this latter committee of congress which deals with all questions relating to . the merchant marine and the fisheries. It was made a standing committee on December 21, 1887. They have also committees on agriculture, foreign affairs, military affairs, naval affairs, the post office and post roads, public lands, Indian affairs, territories, railways and canals, manufactures, mines and mining, public buildings and grounds, Pacific railroads, improvement of the Mississippi river, education, labour, militia, patents and so on, 50 committees in all to do the work of congress, which is apportioned to these various committees and tabulated and made ready for consideration by the House. In the Canadian parliament, as you are aware, we have ten select standing committees of this House, the committees on agriculture and colonization, banking and commerce, railways, public accounts and so on, all doing useful work. In Great Britain there is a committee on trade which under the rules of the imperial parliament, deals with questions relating to marine and fisheries. In the province of Nova Scotia, for 50 years prior to confederation, there was a select standing committee of the legislature of that province for the consideration of questions relating to the fisheries. This was also true, I believe, of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, I am not familiar with the practice of the other provinces. At the time of confederation, when all questions relating to the fisheries were handed over to the federal parliament, these committees were discontinued in these local legislatures and it is rather a remarkable circumstance that we have allowed fifty years of confederation to pass away without a select standing committee of this House to deal with questions relating to marine affairs or to our fisheries.
In raising this question last year I gave the House considerable information that I had collected showing the great importance of our fishing industry. I pointed out our immense coast line on the eastern shore of Canada being about 6,000 miles in length. Then we have also, a very prolific fishing district on the western coast, and including the northern waters we have about 15,000 miles of coast line in this country. We have a great many people engaged in this great industry. In the province of Nova Scotia alone there are 25,000 men engaged in it. If you multiply that number by five, to include their families, you have about 125,000 persons, about one quarter of the whole population of our province directly dependent on the fishing industry. Taking all of the provinces of Canada we have about 76,000 men on our coasts making a living on the sea in this

way. If you include the men and boys .gnd girls engaged in packing, there are about 88,000 in all, showing that a very large proportion of the population of Canada are engaged in this industry. A very large amount of capital is invested in the industry and the output each year amounts to something in the vicinity of thirty million dollars. The industry is only in its infancy. It is capable of great development. The two great requisites for the development of this industry are better transportation facilities and a better market.
The source of supply, the ocean, is inexhaustible; it is simply a question of putting the fish on the market in a proper way.
The present administration have done a great deal in that direction for which they should receive credit. They have provided a system of cold storage for bait which has done a great deal in Nova Scotia to assist the fishing industry. In former years it was very difficult in the spring to find bait for the fishing vessels. The bait visits the coast in the fall of the year and disappear in a few weeks. But by the present system it is preserved until the spring when it is ready for use and in that way the ships and fishing boats are able to fit out and go to sea and to work in the early part of the season which they could not do formerly. Then the present administration have done a great deal in the way of the propagation of fish along the coast, the propagation of lobsters for example, which is one of the most important branches of the industry. They have also given us better transportation facilities, they have given us an increased number of refrigerator cars and have placed a daily fast freight between Halifax and Mulgrave and Montreal. The train of course does not reach Montreal in a day but it leaves daily, it has a schedule time and we know it will arrive there in reasonable time. The express rate per hundred for carrying fish from Halifax or Mulgrave to Montreal has by this arrangement been reduced from $1.50 to 38 cents which has done a great deal to stimulate the industry in that direction. Then the government has done something in the way of subsidizing steamers to collect fish at points where the Intercolonial Railway touches the sea, which is also very important and at those points where the steamers have called the trade has expanded in much greater ratio than at other points where they have not these facilities. I believe that a great deal more can be profitably done in that direction. An expansion of this system would not only furnish business for the Intercolonial Railway but also develop this important industry along the coast. Then we have also had, as you know, a number of break-16i
waters and wharfs constructed along the shores of the maritime provinces all of which have been useful in the development of this great industry. The coast has been well lighted and buoyed during the last few years. All of these things are assisting but a great deal remains to be done. I am glad to see that the Department of Trade and Commerce has taken this matter up and shown some interest in it. I am also glad that the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is showing an interest in this great question and that the government are continuing the good work they commenced some years ago. I submit that there is a great deal of work for this committee to do, and I feel sure that there will be no opposition to it on either side of the House. I shall therefore not take up more of your time but shall move the resolution which is in your hands.


Mr. C. JAMESON (Digby).: Representing, as I do, a constituency the people of which are largely interested in the fishing industry, I cannot refrain from making a few observations with regard to .this resolution. There is an impression throughout the country, I think I may go further and say there is a belief throughout the country, that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is in need of the services of a surgeon. I do not know how deeply that belief has penetrated this House, but the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution, instead of suggesting the bringing in of a surgeon, has advised calling in a standing committee. Well, Mr. Speaker, standing committees are no doubt of great value. For instance we have a standing committee of this House on agriculture which has done excellent service, but the value of which is not perhaps always recognized, because notwithstanding the fact that the Standing Committee on Agriculture has done excellent work, we find that the different governments of the day have, each in its turn, from time immemorial, claimed all the credit for abundant harvests and leaving Divine Providence, the farmers and the Standing Committee on Agriculture out in the cold. My hon. friend who has moved this resolution, has made, it seems to me, a very excellent case for some change in the administration of the Atlantic fisheries. There can be no doubt that those fisheries are of the utmost value and capable of great development, but it is equally undoubted that they are not to-day in that flourishing condition they ought to enjoy and which, with better methods of administration, they would experience. I have no desire to occupy much of the time of the House, but I think it well, at this particular stage, to draw attention to the decrease in the number of those permanently employed in the Atlantic fisheries during the past quarter of a century. In doing this I

take, as the basis of my computation the number of persons to whom the bounty has been paid out of the funds set aside by the Dominion government for that purpose. It seems to me that such is the only true test to be applied in order to arrive at the actual number of those constantly engaged in that industry; and I find that these figures fall very much below these given in the Year-book from time to time.
In the year 1882 the total number of fishermen drawing bounties was 29,932. In Nova Scotia the number was 17,473. Eight years later-and I may say that I have divided the quarter of a century into three periods-in 1890 the number had increased to 39,050, being an increase of 9,118. In that year there were 20,673 fishermen employed in Nova Scotia who drew bounty, being an increase in that province alone of 3,200. In 1898 the number had fallen to 29,402, a decrease of 9,648; and in the province of Nova Scotia the number fell to 17,278, or a decrease, in that province alone, of no less than 3,395. In 1907 there was a further decrease. The total then stood at 25,920, showing a falling off of 3,482, while in Nova Scotia it stood at 13,917, or a decrease of 3,361. In other words, in less than 17 years, the total decrease in the number of drawing this fishing bounty was no less than 13,130, and in Nova Scotia alone no less than 6,756.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Has my hon. friend the figures showing the catch of fish in those years?


Clarence Jameson: I have not the figures under my hand, nor do I think it possible to secure figures giving accurately the catch of fish in any statistical work published by the department. A great deal of what would be valuable statistical matter, if accurate, is obtained by the department from year 'to year, but I fear that in this connection very little importance can be attached to those statistics because they are _not altogether reliable. The same condition prevailed in Great Britain a few years ago, and when it was brought to the attention of the particular board or department having charge of such matters, the suggestion was at first scoffed at that anything could be wrong in connection with the statistics published; but a most careful and complete investigation showed that these figures, published from year to year, were absolutely without value, and, upon the best information which I can obtain, the statistics regarding our Atlantic fisheries are to-day utterly valueless as giving any accurate idea of the total catch of fish or its market value. Let me point out one instance in which these returns are untrustworthy. A certain quantity of fish is caught and later on the fish is dried and exported as dry fish. The fishery officer comes along and asks each fisherman how many thousand pounds of green Mr. JAMESON.
fish he has caught, and takes down his reply. Then he goes to the man who cures these fish and asks him how many cured fish he has handled during the year, and this man says so many thousand quintals. The fishery officer then adds the total of green and cured fish together, and thus, in many cases, double the quantity of fish actually caught is included in the total column. I am not saying that any particular blame attaches to the fishery officers or the department. The practice is one which has grown up and which is due more or less to the fact that it has been found very difficult indeed to get reliable information of this character. So that it is high time, if we are to make these statistics of any value to the country, that a careful revision of the work should be undertaken; and no better means for doing that could be found than this committee which my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has suggested. The fact that there has been a decline in the fishing industry of the maritime provinces is one to which I wish to draw particular attention. That they are declining many of our fishermen are ready to admit and at least throughout Nova Scotia, our fishermen have for some time become alive to the fact that some change is necessary, if they are to get the most profit that can be had out of the fisheries. With that obect in view they have associated themselves together at the different fishing stations along the coast into organizations known as Fishermen's Unions. These unions meet together from time to time to discuss everything relating to their interests and frame resolutions. Then, annually or more frequently, delegates from these unions meet and endeavour to harmonize the resolutions which have been passed by the various local committees or unions and transmit them, perhaps I might say for the benefit of the department, at least I can say for the benefit of those concerned. In this connection, I wish to pay a tribute to the gentleman who was instrumental in having these unions organized and who, I was informed almost single-handed, carried through the legislature of Nova Scotia the Act under which they have come into existence. That gentleman is Mr. M. H. Nickerson, a member of the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia, sitting, I think, for the county of Shelburne.
There has been, throughout the province of Nova Scotia, an agitation on the part of many interested in the fisheries in favour of the creation of what is known as a fishery board, after the pattern of the board of that name which exists in Scotland. I am not personally inclined, with the information I have under my hand and with such study as I have been able to give to the work which the Scotch fishery board has carried into effect, to say that I would advise the creation of just such a board at this

moment but it is a fair subject for careful consideration. The conditions in Scotland differ very considerably from those in Canada with respect to the legislative status of the board. In Canada, we have the administration of the fisheries under a department of the government and the department should do practically what the fishery board might be expected to do, with the exception, perhaps, that the Fishery Board of Scotland is composed in part of men appointed to represent the fishermen themselves. That fishery board is composed of seven members, four representing the fishermen, one a legal adviser, one an expert, and the chairman. The chairman is the only one who receives a salary, the others getting only their travelling expenses. The object of the fishery board in Nova Scotia, if created, would be, briefly, to remove, if possible, the administration of the fisheries absolutely from the caldron of party politics. That, I think, is a condition which, gentlemen on both sides of the House will admit, is most desirable. Then, they would endeavour to devise and frame suitable regulations with respect to the fisheries and would see to the proper enforcement of these regulations. They would also establish a standard pack and package in connection with the fisheries. Some of the fish which are put up in Nova Scotia are not of as high quality as they might be, or as are put up in some other countries while some are of the very highest quality. This possibly, is owing to the fact that no standard of cure, or pack, or package, has ever been established- That course would necessarily be along educational lines, which would be most desirable, and could well be carried out through the medium of these fishermen's unions, to which I made passing reference a moment ago. Another object of the fishery board would be to seek wider and more profitable markets for the product of our fisheries. That is something most devoutly to be desired. As it is now, the ordinary fisherman has no market beyond the purely local one; but through the medium of these fishermen's unions some plan might be devised whereby a more cooperative work could be carried out, so that the fishermen would gain greater profit from his labour. And let me tell the hon. members of this House that the fishermen are worthy of the utmost consideration that can be bestowed upon them, and that any assistance that can be rendered them by the administration of the day or through the medium of this standing committee would be no more than they are properly entitled to. They are men who, day after day, and year after year, are obliged to go out, and, at the risk of their lives and property, endeavour to win a livelihood for themselves and their families from the turbulent sea. I know that in my own county there are a large number of men who are
fishing throughout the entire year; and to prosecute the fisheries in the winter season on the rugged and blustery Atlantic coast or in the Bay of Fundy is certainly no child's play. The man who follows such a life needs a hardy frame, strong limbs, and the heart of a lion.
Now, I wish to refer, before closing, to a new feature which has developed in respect to the in-shore fisheries of certain parts of Nova Scotia and more especially within my own knowledge, to those of the western part of the province: that is, the doing away with the old-time sailboat and adopting in its stead the more noisy but more profitable vessel propelled by a gasolene engine. In a speech made in this House a year or two ago, in moving a motion similar to that now before the House, the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Sinclair) said, or quoted from some writer who said, that the initial cost of embarking upon the inshore fisheries was comparatively insignificant, that all that was necessary was a boat, a few nets, or lines and hooks, and a tub of bait. Conditions have changed in the fisheries, as in almost everything else, and to-day, the fishermen who win their livelihood from the sea have to adopt modern methods and bring their appliances strictly up to date. The cost of a staunch and fairly roomy fishing boat now is much greater than it was even four or five years ago, because it must be made strong enough to carry the gasolene engine. Then, the cost of the engine itself is very considerable, and the expense of operating it amounts to from 25 to 50 cents a day. So, hon. gentlemen will see that the fishing which is prosecuted now throughout the entire year, entails a much greater expense to the individual who carries it on than when sailboats only were used. And the advantage, not only to the fishermen themselves, but to the country, is that in .using these boats they can go out even against an adverse wind, and can get off at almost any time of the tide, and in that way many valuable days are saved and the fishermen are enabled to take advantage of the slack tide to* ply their avocation, which they could not always do in the old-time sail boat.
In conclusion, I heartily endorse the motion of the hon. member for Guysborough in favour of the appointment of this committee. Perhaps I have trespassed unduly upon the time of the House in speaking as I have. As a new member, perhaps I am scarcely justified in occupying so much time. My apology for taking up the time of the House is the importance of this matter from the standpoint of the people of the county I represent, and of many other counties in the province of Nova Scotia. I trust it will be the aim of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to unite in an earnest effort to put this industry upon the best possible basis, in order that the fishermen as

491
individuals, and the country generally, may benefit and prosper thereby.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: I *wish to make a suggestion in connection with this motion. We have a good many committees in this House, and the members of those committees have a good deal to do. I think the moving of this resolution is a proper time to bring to the attention of the government and the House the need of a better distribution of the work between this House and the Senate. I believe the time has come when the Senate of Canada ought to be reorganized and be put in a position to take up some of the work that this House now has to perform. If that were done, instead of the Senate now being off on a holiday for a month, they would be discussing fishery questions, they would take up the question of the conservation of the natural resources of this country, they would take up the bankruptcy matter, which was before them some years ago, and which they handled very well. While I have every sympathy with this motion, and would like to see a committee of this House appointed to deal with the question involved, I desire also to say that this House, and perhaps the other House-because I believe they are ready to consider the question as a co-ordinate branch of parliament-should unite in a reorganization, so that the Senate may take up some of these great public questions and deal with them, and thus relieve this House of some of the work it has now to undertake. This House has at present a great deal to do, probably it has more than we can do, and do it as well as it ought to be done. So I take occasion to suggest to the government, not only the consideration of this motion, but the consideration of some plan by which the work would be distributed between the two Houses to the advantage of the performance of public business.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: The motion introduced by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is one of great [DOT]interest to me as a member from the maritime provinces. The question he has discussed whether we shall have a standing committee of this House to deal with questions relating to Marine and Fisheries. The arguments advanced by the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) afford a strong reason why we should have such a committee. Such a committee would relieve this House from considerable work and dis-cusion that now devolve upon it in relation to these matters, and would undoubtedly be able to give to them better and more consideration than single members of the House could do. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has suggested an argument for this committee that I had not thought of before, and that was that the Senate had adjourned no doubt to go a fish-Mr. JAMESON.
ing because they had nothing else to do, and if such a committee were formed, some of them might find something to do in connection with it. When you travel along the shores of the province of Nova Scotia- and I am now speaking in the presence of hon. gentlemen who are acquainted with the facts-you will frequently come to a fishing district which, some years ago, was very prosperous, whereas the district is now more or less depleted. You will understand of course that I am now speaking of the shore fisheries. You would probably find some empty houses in the district, whose former occupants, the fishermen, have gone to town or somewhere else. When you go through an interior county and find a farmhouse without a tenant, you make up your mind that the farmer has gone somewhere else, and that the soil is not being tilled. So it is with the shore fishermen. I do not blame this on the government, but I do say, as the hon. member for Guysborough has said, that it is time we had a committee of this House to which matters of that kind might be referred. I have no desire to disparage the manner in which the fisheries are administered by the Marine and Fisheries Department, I do not mean to say that anything has been left undone by the department that should have been done, because I presume they are doing all they possibly can. Nevertheless, our shore fisheries are becoming less every year, and I could say a great many things in relation to that question which might perhaps not be pertinent to the motion before the House. Now my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) said that a fisheries board was required. I think every hon. member of this House has received some resolutions or a report of some gentlemen in the east who are interested in the fishing industry, and who wish to form a fisheries board. I think this also is a matter that could well be referred to such a committee as has been suggested. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the fishing industry generally of Nova Scotia is less prosperous than it has been, but the shore fisheries have certainly become almost a thing of the past, but I may say especially with regard to that good old county of Lunenburg, that were it not for the deep sea fisheries that have been carried on and developed by the good people of that county, our Nova Scotia fisheries generally would not make as good a showing as they do make to-day. Any one who is acquainted with the shore fisheries and with the deep sea fisheries, and can make a distinction between them, will recognize that while the fisheries generally have increased greatly during the last twenty or twenty-five years, the increase in our deep sea fisheries has been very good, but not what it should have been. I do not mean to say that last year was better

than the previous year, because variations are sometimes caused, not only by the condition of the fisheries, but by the way the returns are made, and the lack of good luck that happens to deep sea fishermen. Our deep sea fisheries have increased by leaps and bounds in the last twenty-five years ; but our shore fisheries-and by shore fisheries I mean those which are worked within the three mile limit by what we call boat fishermen-that industry 1 am sorry to say has decreased in Nova Scotia, and that is an industry that we should strive in every way to revive and develop. We talk about our great valuable lands in the west, and we are proud of them. We talk about the development of these lands, and we are proud of it, and are determined to do everything we can to promote that development. But even if you were to do nothing with those lands and let them lie uncultivated, they would still be' there just the same. But if you fail to help and assist the shore fishermen, if you allow the shore fisheries to die out, it will be very difficult indeed to re-establish them in the position we have seen them occupy. I think therefore that the appointment of such a committee as is proposed will be a step in the right direction The cold storage matter has also been referred to, and I congratulate the government on having carried on the cold storage system. But a great deal yet remains to be done, that system is not yet doing all we expected it to do, it is not giving all the accommodation that the government no doubt expected it would give. Now one of the ways by which we can help that system is to appoint a committee who will consider matters relating to cold storage. Cold storage is intended to provide bait for the shore fishermen as well as for the deep sea fishermen. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that any further argument is required to show why such a committee should be appointed, after we have heard the strong arguments advanced by the hon. member for Guysborough. I think this House should have no hesitation in appointing such a committee and I am sure that this industry, which is of very great importance to us and of paramount importance to the Dominion of Canada, will be benefited by the appointment of this committee. This resolution takes a long step in the right direction and I trust this House will have no hesitation in passing the resolution of my hon. friend from Guysborough.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg).: Mr. Speaker, when a resolution similar to the one now on the Order Paper was discussed last year it met, if I remember correctly, with favour from my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and, I think, from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as
well as others. I think that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his followers also concurred in the resolution. Unfortunately, however, it evoked some lengthy discussion, which, I think, occurred on a Wednesday sitting. When six o'clock arrived some hon. member was on his feet discussing the resolution and he unfortunately moved the adjournment of the debate which placed the resolution at the foot of public orders and it was never reached again during the session. I am very glad that the remarks made by all the other speakers to-day have been very brief and to the point, and I desire to say that my observations will not unnecessarily prolong the debate as I would like very much to see this resolution carried before six o'clock. Before giving a few reasons why I think this committee should be appointed, I wish to say that my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), presented some statistics which J think were intended to give to the House the idea that because there were in recerit years a lesser number of applicants for fishing bounties in the province of Nova Scotia there was a reduction in the total value of the fish taken in these waters. I do not think that is correct. I do not wish to provoke any discussion upon the value of our statistics, but I want to say to my hon. friend that in recent years the statistics regarding the number of applicants for fishing bounties have been far more reliable than they were in the years to which my hon. friend referred. The fishing industry is doubtless a great asset. I think that even we who come from the maritime provinces are apt to overlook its great value. We are apt to think of the great agricultural resources of the west, of the mineral resources and of the timber resources of our country, but we should remember that we take, I think, according to statistics, fish from the seas to the value of $40,000,000. I agree with the hon. member for Digby that there is a necessity for better statistics relative to our fisheries. If I remember correctly last year the value of the fisheries, according to the blue-book issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, was about $38,000,000. I think these figures considerably underestimate the value of our fisheries. There is this to be remembered concerning our fisheries: While we are taking annually fish to this great amount from the seas, exporting them to foreign countries and bringing back to Canada coin or some other valuable returns, we are not necessarily depleting our fisheries. We all know that the constant production of crops from the soil lessens its value and productivity and that if we cut down our timber resources it takes considerable time for the timber to reproduce itself. Without any expense on the part of the government our fishermen can go to the waters surrounding this country and take from them fish to a

*very considerable value which adds very much to the national wealth. I wish to give just a few reasons why I think this committee should be appointed and I just wish to refer to four or five matters which I think this committee should deal with. If the committee is appointed I have not the slightest doubt that the work which it will do will be proof of the wisdom of its appointment. A year or two ago I discussed the treaty of 1818 between Great Britain and the United States of America which related principally to the north Atlantic fisheries. On that occasion I took particular pains to discuss a feature of the treaty of 1885, I think the treaty of Washington, which established what is called the modus vivendi and which permits American fishermen certain rights, which rights are prohibited to them in the treaty of 1818. On that occasion I found that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a great many of my colleagues from the province of Nova Scotia, and a great many members of the House, were of the opinion that the people of this country did not wish to abrogate the modus vivendi clause of this treaty. I thought it was a great mistake to have ever given these privileges to the United States, and I was always very much surprised that that very eminent statesman, Sir Charles Tup-per, should have consented to these privileges being granted However, they were granted and they have been continued by this government since they came into power in 1896. If I appeared before the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or before any member of the government, or before the Governor in Council, and ask for a revocation of the modus vivendi, I probably would be asked to give reasons for it. [ probably would be asked the question if the people of my province desire the revocation of these privileges. It would be very difficult for me to answer that question. As far as my own county is concerned I could answer that question very quickly in the affirmative, I could say the same concerning many other counties in the province of Nova Scotia, but in some counties there would be some opposition to it. I think it is very important that the government should know what is the opinion of the people of the maritime provinces on this ques tion. We should summon before that committee men competent to) give evidence on this question and have it made a matter of public record. The other day my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) was called to Washington to act in conjunction with a representative of the Newfoundland government to prepare a case for reference to the Hague tribunal during the present year. I have no doubt that the interests of Canada and the interests of the maritime provinces in particular were well safeguarded by the Minister of Justice, but he has very little information which he can Mr. A.'k. MACLEAN.
gather in the Department of Marine and Fisheries concerning this question, and I think that if we had had considerable evidence from people who understand the operation of the modus vivendi clause of this treaty in the blue-book, it might have been very valuable to the Minister of Justice the other day at Washington. Last year we had some legislation regarding the Norwegian coasting trade in Canada. I understand that under some old treaty and under some order in council passed by the Canadian government, Norwegian vessels were per mitted to engage in the coasting trade in Canada. When the resolution came up before the House of Commons last session very few men in this House were in a position to give an intelligent vote upon that measure. It is true there were some gentlemen in the House who had given some attention to it, but it was largely a one-sided expression of opinion that came from them. There was a great deal to say for and against the abrogation of that order in council. Now I say had that committee been in existence last year we might have had some representatives of those who wished to continue this order in council and we could have summoned representatives of those who were opposed to the further continuance of the order in council. In this one respect, such a committee could have done valuable, service for this country and it might have contributed very much to the enlightenment of hon. gentlemen on that measure.	.
We heard the complaint made year after year that our Canadian shipping is decreasing and so it is. It is difficult to see what the remedy for that is, but a remedy there may be, and a committee to which would be specially delegated matters relating to Marine and Fisheries could very properly summon to Ottawa gentlemen who are capable of giving expert opinion in reference to the decay of our shipping interests, and making suggestions which might tend to revive and develop it. Another important question is that with reference to steam trawl fishing. In our Atlantic waters, fishing operations are carried on by steam trawlers which come from France. These steam trawlers ply out of two or three ports and in many of the other fishing ports of France there is considerable opposition to this mode of fishing. In certain parts of Nova Scotia it is a very live issue. I hear many complaints from fishermen in my own county who suffer injury to their nets and trawls by the operation of these French steam trawlers. This is a question which has engaged the attention of the British government for many years and they have appointed one or more commissions, but I suppose like all other questions there are two sides to it. However, it is high time that the Department of Marine and Fisheries should take this

question up for consideration. It would be a very easy matter, if this committee were constituted, to summon persons who are acquainted with this mode of fishing and ascertaining their best judgment as to whether steam trawl fishing is injurious or otherwise. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) spoke of the appointment of a fishery board. No doubt there is a great deal to say in favour of the appointment of such a board, and there is something to be said against it. That also is a question on which this committee might advise the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his officers. There are many gentlemen in Nova Scotia who have given a great deal of attention in recent years to this question, and I am sure they would be glad to come before such a committee and give valuable information. On many occasions this government and preceding governments have appointed commissions to travel through the country in order 'to ascertain the views of the people upon lobster fishery regulations ' and other questions concerning our fishing industry. My experience of these commissions is, that while they visit a great many sections of the country and examine a great many witnesses and present a report to the department, the evidence taken is generally so voluminous that it is not, and indeed cannot be read by members of parliament or by anybody else. I doubt very much if even the officials of the department can afford the time to acquaint themselves with the details of the evidence taken by these commissions. In my opinion a special committee of this House would do better work in connection with many of the questions, do it more expeditiously, and at less cost, and give more practical results. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that the committee called for by this resolution shall be appointed, and I doubt if amongst all our select standing committees there can be found one which can do more excellent work than this committee would be capable of doing. I am sure such a committee will prove a very valuable aid to the Minister of Marine, to his department, to the officials, to every member of the House of Commons, and to the country generally.


Mr. GEORGE  W.@: KYTE (Richmond, N.S.) I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two by way of supplementing what has been said by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. McLean). I can assure you, Sir, that it is with great interest I have listened to the discussion which has been promoted by the resolution moved by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). In this parliament we are called upon, from time to time, to deal with great questions; questions in which are involved the prosperity and the happiness of our people, but in my opinion no more important question
than the one now under consideration could be submitted to us. I was very much edified by the speech of the hon. gentleman who moved the address in reply to His Excellency's speech at the opening of parliament. I was much pleased that he gave such prominence to the agricultural industry as one of the great sources of our national wealth, nor do I think that the hon. gentleman over-stated the importance of that industry, but, Sir, the vast importance of the fishery industry of Canada must not be forgotten by this parliament. I think I may fairly conclude from the tenor of the speeches of hon. gentlemen that there is no controversy as to the propriety of adopting this motion. I take it for granted that the consensus of opinion is that a committee such as that proposed is a proper insitution to add to the existing organization of the House of Commons, and that being so it is perhaps not necessary for me to prolong the discussion. But, Sir, may I have your permission to make one or two observations with respect to the statement made by the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) to the effect that the fisheries of Nova Scotia are declining. I am not disposed to accept that as a fact. I believe that the changed conditions which undoubtedly do exist in respect to our fisheries are not due at all to their depletion, but rather to change in the methods of prosecuting the industry. We must not forget that many years ago the most remunerative return from the fisheries of the maritime provinces accrued from the salt fish. Forty or fifty years ago there was a large and remunerative market for salt fish, but from year to year that market has dwindled, until to-day the necessity has arisen for the fishermen of the maritime provinces placing the products of their industry upon the markets of the world in the form of fresh fish.
I	believe that there are great opportunities of development in this country that can keep the fishing industry quite apace with all possible demands which may be made upon it by reason of the increased population of the western provinces. The government are each year spending large sums of money to induce immigrants to occupy the fertile plains of the west, and are building railways to afford these people railway accommodation and such means of transportation as will give them the best possible facilities for the handling of the products of their labours. One of the most important of all the duties which this committee would be called upon to discharge would be to consider that very question of transportation. We are face to face with the fact that the fishermen of the maritime provinces are not able to send the products of their industry into the centres of population throughout Canada and as a consequence the fishing industry is not as remu-

nerative for them as it otherwise might he. I do hope that one of the first matters to be taken into consideration by this committee is that very question of transportation, in order to see if we cannot devise some means by which the fresh fish of Nova Scotia can be sent forward to Ontario, Quebec, and the west with that facility with which the manufactured goods and the flour of Ontario and western Canada are sent into the maritime provinces. The interchange of commodities spoken of some thirty or forty years ago as likely to arise from the construction of the Intercolonial Kailway has not taken place with that plenitude that the supporters of confederation at one time hoped for. I am rather inclined to think that the balance of trade has been altogether against the maritime provinces; the people of Ontario and Quebec, enterprising as they are, have got rather the best of us in the matter of trade, and while they have sent down hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their manufactured products into the maritime provinces they have taken very little from us except the actual money paid for the purchase of their goods.
It is upon the natural resources of the maritime provinces that we must rely to make up that interchange of commodities which should exist between the eastern and western provinces. We do send some coal into Quebec and a very small portion into Ontario, but apart from that item we send scarcely anything into western Canada or into the great central provinces. The question of transportation is the obstacle which has retarded the development of the increase which I have suggested, and I am firmly of the opinion that that condition might be ameliorated if this question of transportation were taken up and the products of the fisheries of the maritime provinces were given a special rate by which they would be able to reach the populous centres of Canada.
I have said that the apparent decline in the fisheries of the maritime provinces is not due to the depletion of that industry but rather to a change of conditions. The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) referred to the fact that in western Nova Scotia the sail boat is largely disappearing and the fishermen are resorting to gasolene boats for the prosecution of their industry. I must confess that I am not sufficiently familiar with the customs regulations on that point, but as the time has come when it is absolutely necessary for the fishermen of the maritime provinces to prosecute their calling by gasolene boats rather than by the ordinary sail and row boats, the purchase of these engines is going to amount to a considerable item to the fishermen. The Minister of Customs might then well consider if he cannot find his way clear Mr. KYTE.
to reduce to some extent at least the duty on gasolene engines which will hereafter become an actual necessity for the fishermen of this country.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) referred to another question which is of vital importance to the people of the maritime provinces, that of the coasting privileges enjoyed by vessels flying a foreign flag. That question was to some extent settled, I understand, by an order in council passed some six or seven months ago, but there are, it appears to me, other questions involved in that which may well occupy the attention of this House and the appointing of a committee as suggested this afternoon would simplify to my mind a great many of the difficulties that would be encountered were we obliged to present these questions to the full House. I do not imagine for a moment that the people who are engaged in the fishing industry of Canada are less capable of prosecuting their calling than they were in the past. I am convinced that were the opportunities given to them and were the changed conditions which have come about in the last twenty years in relation to that industry, simplified and made easier for them by means of such legislation and such acts of co-operation as this parliament can bring about, the shore fisheries of the maritime provinces would be as profitable as ever they were.
To illustrate this point, let me say that in the last season the fishermen of the maritime provinces, or of Nova Scotia at all events, enjoyed the satisfaction of getting the greatest amount of shore fish that they have taken in any season during the last forty years.	The catch of mackerel in
Nova Scotia far exceeded that of any other year and naturally we would be inclined to the opinion that last year was a most profitable year for the fishermen. I regret, however, to have to say that the very contrary was the case. The fishermen of Nova Scotia, not having markets or means of transportation available which would enable them to send their fish fresh into 'such markets as purchase fish in that condition, lost a large proportion of their catch by reason of being unable to cure them; and when they cured them they lost a great proportion of their profit by reason of the falling market resulting from the large catch in eastern Nova Scotia. Thus we come back to the great question of transportation, which after all is the one affecting the price of fish to our people and I would be glad indeed if this committee, if appointed, would take into consideration that question, which transcends, I believe, all others affecting the prosperity of our fishing population.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North).: Mr. Speaker, representing as I

do a very large body of fishermen in the maritime provinces, and as almost all of the members of this House who represent fishing counties have spoken, it would probably be regarded as indifference on my part if I allowed this opportunity to pass without saying something on behalf of the large body of fishermen in my county. At the outset, let me congratulate the hon. gentlemen who are new members in this House, like myself, who have spoken on this question, particularly the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) who has just taken his seat, upon the very excellent presentation of his case and of his own abilities as a representative which he has made in this House. The same would apply to my hon. friends, the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) and the member for Digby (Mr. Jameson). The only little cloud upon the horizon in the remarks of my hon. friend from Digby was the introduction of party politics into this matter. That was not at all necessary and did not add at all to the strength of his argument.


Clarence Jameson: What politics did I introduce?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I refer to my hon.
friend's statement at the outset that it was very necessary to perform a surgical operation on some part or limb of the Marine and Fisheries Department. He almost provoked me into saying that possibly an operation might be beneficial somewhere else just as well. But leaving that point- and I have no other fault to find with the observations of the hon. member-and possibly his introduction of politics to the extent he did was because he may have thought it necessary to stamp himself clearly and distinctly so as to show to which side of the House he belonged, and we know that some of the men in the colony opposite might be charged with supporting the Opposition while they are supporting the Government-let me say that, although I may be called a new member, I was in this House a little while once before, and had then the opportunity of saying something very much along the lines of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution (Mr. Sinclair) and I wish to express my endorsation of what he said. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) has given much credit, and with perfect truth, to Mr. Nickerson, member of the local House for the county of Shel-bourne, for what he has done to improve the condition of our fishermen. But let me tell my hon. friend that I was also in the local House at that time and so was my hon. friend who moved this resolution (Mr. Sinclair), and the first time that Mr. Nickerson ever appeared as a member of a committee appointed to deal with fishery matters, was upon a committee moved for
by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). Yet it would almost appear, from [DOT] the remark of the hon. member from Digby that Mr. Nickerson had to fight a battle in the local House in order to get such concessions for the fishermen of Nova Scotia as they were entitled to and in order to bring their case before the public. My experience in the local House does not bear out that contention. I always found that the members of that House were ever willing to do whatever they could in behalf of any industry in the maritime provinces or in any part of Canada which could be benefited by anything our local legislature could do. I would not like to charge any member with a desire to do otherwise than promote to the best of his ability any industry in this country which might tend to the general welfare and add to the comfort and wealth of the people. The consensus of opinion expressed to-day in favour of the resolution before us would bear out that remark. I do not think that we have to expect from either side other than the fullest and best assistance in all such matters. As regards this resolution, it is not necessary that I should say anything in its behalf because there is only one side to it. No one can question that the case is a strong one and that the fishing industry is most important and if the appointment of the committee is going to aid the further development of that industry there can be no possible objection. So far as the county I have the honour to represent is concerned, I may say that we catch more fish on the coast of Victoria county than; possibly in any other county in the Dominion, and we enjoy the reputation of making the best cured fish that can be procured in the maritime provinces. There is a gentleman in Halifax, whose name I do not recall at the moment, who last year was called upon to gather for some people in the United States a large quantity of first-class fish. I am proud to say that he found more of ythe high grade fish he required along the northern part of Victoria county than in any other part of the maritime provinces. I agree with my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) that it is not the Department of Marine and Fisheries alone which can assist in developing this great industry. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his department have done much, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), but the Department of Railways can also come into play in this matter. That department can do a good deal in furnishing the proper kind of cars fitted for this industry, and we look to it to furnish first-class cars and give us such rates as will enable us to place our fish in the markets of central Canada and incidentally in some of the markets further west and also in the United States. The Department of

Public Works can also do much to help out the fishermen, especially along the exposed coast in Nova Scotia, and in that connection our position is perhaps not as well understood by some of our members from the west as it ought to be. We find that our fish are taken away from our very doors by Americans who are better equipped than we are, and with whom we cannot compete successfully on account of our lack of harbour facilities and of large vessels and boats. The consequence is that American schooners come from Boston and other places along the coast right up to the edge of the three-mile limit and sometimes within that limit, and catch our fish and carry it to the United States markets and sell it there whence it often finds its way back to Canada and is sold in Toronto and Montreal and other large centres. That is the condition of things which exist to-day, and it does not require any argument to point out how much better it would be to have our fish caught by our own people, along our coast, and carried directly to, our own markets and sold to our own people. Our fishermen would then get better prices than they can to-day, even when they sell to Americans and our consumers would get fresher fish at less prices. It will therefore be necessary for the Public Works Department to spend some money in giving us harbours of refuge at different places and thus enable our fishermen to compete wdth the Americans who have larger vessels and are in a better condition to catch fish. I cordially endorse what my hon. friend from Richmond has said to the effect that wherever possible we should do something for our fisheries, by lowering the customs duties, particularly upon their nets or engines or whatever else enters into that industry, and in every other possible way. I may say in conclusion that I agree entirely in the observations of the different gentlemen who have addressed the House in this matter. I did not rise for the purpose of making out a case because that was made out by the mover of the resolution, and the case required only to be stated to the House in order to make it clear that whatever we can do to carry forward this great industry should be done by the government with the assistance of every hon. member of this House.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (Cape Breton South).: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to take part in this debate and to express my approval of the resolution as moved by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). I agree with some of the speakers who have preceded me that the fishing industry in Nova Scotia has decayed to some extent of late years, and that this is true of the fisheries of the whole Atlantic sea-board of Canada. A number of causes have contributed to the decadence of this industry, most of which have been enumerated by the Mr. McKenzie.
speakers who preceded me. But I would suggest that one reason why the fisheries of Nova Scotia, and the maritime provinces generally, are not prosecuted more closely than they have been of late years i;s to be found in the local conditions obtaining in the fishing villages. The social conditions and environment are so different from those of other parts of the province that there are but slight inducements to the rising generation to remain in these fishing villages. For instance, I would call the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to the fact that there are a large number of fishing villages on the Atlantic sea-board in which they have only one mail a week. Cut off from railway facilities, from telegraph and telephone lines, these places are so isolated, so cut off from society, that there is but little to attract the rising generation to continue to live in them and prosecute the fisheries. I agree with the speakers who have preceded me on both sides in approving this resolution. I believe a committee such as is proposed, will have a far-reaching effect in restoring conditions in connection with the fisheries of the maritime provinces. And, if the scope of this committee is made wide enough, and its inquiries go far enough, they may develop a number of causes that have led to the conditions now existing and that are not generally known to the members of this House or to the people of this Dominion. It was only a matter of eighteen months ago that I counted 31 American schooners fishing off the coast of my county in broad daylight and well within the three mile limit, and no gunboat there to protect the interests of the people of Nova Scotia. It is pretty well known that a large percentage of the mackerel catch of the Gloucester fleet around our Coast 'are taken within thte three mile limit. And it is well within the knowledge of some members of this House that a vessel loaded to the hatches with mackerel, caught within two miles of the shore was taken to the port of Halifax, and that, after the vessel had lain there two or three weeks, her owners paid $400 and she was released. Our law is clear on this subject. If that vessel was guilty of infringing our law both cargo and vessel should have been seized and confiscated, but if she wa3 not guilty, both should have been released without penalty. There are American capitalists who would readily capitalize companies to-morrow to come within our three-mile limit, deplete our inshore fisheries, and load their vessels to the hatches with mackerel, if they could do. it on paying a fine of $400. Then, if I may, I would bring to the attention of the House the question of license for the packing of fish. In the province of Nova Scotia, I believe, the whole catch of the lobster fishery is packed by ten or twelve concerns. Under the con-

ditions that exist, whilst the fishermen are paid a certain amount per pound live weight, they are not informed with regard to market values of the packed article and so do not know what value to put upon their catch. I am at a loss to know, and should be glad to be informed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any hon. member of this House, why it is that a man who catches lobsters cannot come ashore and can them as he dries his codfish or pickles his herring or mackerel. Why so important an industry as lobster packing should be a monopoly in the hands of ten or twelve people who are enabled to get a license to pack the catch is a matter wholly beyond me. With regard to the other aspect of the question, the social conditions in the fishing villages, this might be helped by daily mail services, and this is a subject that the Postmaster General might take up in the broad manner which has characterized him in other things. I do not wish to approach this question in a partisan spirit or drag politics in. I well believe that it is the desire of the Postmaster General to facilitate the mail service and to grant services as far as possible. If he would take into consideration the claims of the fishing villages in the isolated parts of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-and perhaps in the province of British Columbia for all I know-it would go a long way to make the homes in these villages more attractive to the young people and so induce them to remain. I strongly endorse this resolution of the hon. member for Guys-borough, believing that it will result in good to those who go down to the sea in ships and brave the perils of the deep, who are such an important class to the Dominion of Canada, and who at great danger to themselves are contributors in no small measure to the wealth of Canada on both the Atlantic and Pacific sea-boards.


Mr.  W. S.@: LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.) It seems to me that we have wandered far over this resolution, and that we have discussed the merits of the fishing industry more than the merits of the resolution itself. I may add, however, that there can be no question that the problem of transportation is so intertwined with that of the fishing industry, that if anything can be done to improve transportation it certainly would be in the interest not only of the producers but of the consumers of fish in Canada. It seems to me that Ontario and Quebec should consume more of our eastern fish than they do. It is to be regretted that fish coming from the American sea-board should be brought in under duty and consumed by the cities of Toronto and Montreal instead of their bringing in fish from Halifax or other sea-board towns in Canada. In my own county, the urgent matter is transportation.
For example, a petition has been presented to the government asking them to build a branch line along the Miramichi river, and along the sea coast, a coast where large quantities of smelts are at present taken and during the summer season large quantities of Atlantic salmon. These fish, during the winter season, have to be teamed about twenty miles to the nearest Intercolonial railway station, and then, if they are to be sent off in a fresh condition, must be sent by express. I want to say that the express rates, although they are lower than in former years, are still too high, and if anything can be done to bring about a reduction in the express charges on fresh fish. I believe it would be in the interest of all concerned, of the consumer as well as of the producer. It seems to me that if the committee suggested in the resolution can assist in any way to bring that about it would certainly do some good. It is really singular that now we seem to be united on the importance of this resolution, and yet parliament has been discussing the management of the Marine and Fisheries more or less for the last forty years without action in this regard. Judging from the expressions we have heard from both sides, we wonder why a committee of this nature was not heretofore appointed. I certainly think it would be in the interest of the country at large that it should be appointed at once.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: I did not anticipate making any remarks on this resolution, but after hearing the statements that have been made by hon. gentle men on both sides, I feel that I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without saying a word or two. I have great pleasure indeed in supporting the resolution which has been brought before the House by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). Although I come from a part of the country where the inhabitants are perhaps not so deeply interested in fishery questions as they are in Nova Scotia, still I can say that the fisheries of the Bay of Fundy are very valuable, and should be preserved and developed. We have there, on both sides of the bay, both on the Nova Scotia side and the New Brunswick side, very valuable fisheries indeed. The regulations that have been framed, I was going to say enforced, but I cannot go that far-the regulations of the Marine Department in regard to bay fishing, and inshore fishing, and river fishing are not carried out. I have heard it stated over and over again that the fishery overseers find it almost useless to prosecute men for breaking the regulations, because as soon as a man is reported, influence is brought to bear in his favour, the fine is remitted, and the fishery officer is discouraged from doing his duty. A great deal of that is done. I

think that, if a special committee such as proposed by this resolution were appointed to look into these matters, and were given some measure of control, the regulations of the department would he better carried out. Several other important matters in connection with the fisheries have been brought up this afternoon. There is the curing of fish, and the packing of fish. I understand from a little booklet that has been distributed among the members that the packing of fish in the maritime provinces is very badly done, that there is no standard package, that the packages leak, and the fish put into them are allowed to deteriorate in quality; the packages are not tight enough and strong enough, and the brime leaks out to the consequent damage of the fish. These are some of the important matters that such a committee might look after. Then there is the matter of dynamiting fish. I saw in the press the other day that some American fishermen were driven off from some of our inland waters for dynamiting fish. I may say, although I have heard it contradicted in this House, that the inland waters of Canada are not the only waters on which dynamiting takes place. I have myself, when sailing on the Bay ofj Fundy, heard shots fired by persons who were dynamiting fish. This is something that ought to be looked into, along with the other matters I have mentioned.
Then there is the matter of the dogfish nuisance which has several times engaged the attention of this House. Last year I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was presented with a petition from the Board of Trade of St. John, who were requested to do so by a large number of fishermen residing on the Bay of Fundy, the petition dealing with the Dogfish Reduction Works. A copy of it was put into my hands, and I took the trouble to communicate with several persons whom I thought would be able to give me some information as to the success or non-success which was attending the establishment of these reduction works. I will ask the House to listen while I read some of the communications I have received. They are from practical men, and would be of value in a consideration of this subject. The first letter I wrote was to A. H. Whitman, of Canso, N.8., whose name I think the minister will remember, andj I am sure the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) is acquainted with it. I asked my correspondents to reply to the following questions:
1.	Are the reduction works an advantage to the fishermen? If so, in what way?
2.	Is the price paid for dogfish fair and reasonable ?
3.	Do the establishment and use of the reduction works have any effect in diminishing the numbers of dogfish?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will first read Mr. Whitman's letter, which is signed by A. H. Whitman & Son, Ltd.:
Canso, N.S., January 23, 1908.
J. W. Daniel, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-We have yonr favour of 13th instant, and may say in reply that the dogfish reduction works here have not yet reached a point where they can be called a commercial success.
They operated only a few weeks last season while the dogfish were so plentiful as to interfere with the catching of food fish. We were much less troubled with dogfish in 1907, than for several years past, and are of the opinion that they are leaving these shores.
The quality of both fertilizer and oil manufactured each year has improved as the men have become more familiar with the work. The fishermen will not catch dogfish when they can get any other fish to catch. The quantity caught makes so little impression upon the hordes that used to infest the coast that it cannot be noticed.


Messrs. E. K.: Goodwin, George Walsb, Jobn McNeary and James Lumsden are four intelligent fishermen here who probably have opinions of their own about this dogfish work. As a rule the fishermen are glad to have it in operation, hut unless dogfish are very plentyful it is operated only at a loss.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I asked this gentleman to furnish me with the names of some fishermen who would be able to give information as to the success or otherwise of these reduction works. I will read the replies I received from these men, every one a practical fishermen:
Canso, N.S., February 15, 1908.
J. W. Daniel, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yonr favour inquiring about the dogfish reduction wojks, and in reply beg to say.
This is the question :
1.	Are the reduction works an advantage to the fishermen, if so in what way? Materially in giving employment at the time when no other branch of fishing can be successfully prosecuted on account of the dogfish pest.
2.	Is the price paid for dogfish fair and reasonable? No, I think not, it does not warrant a general outlay for catching them.
3.	Does the establishment and use of the Reduction Works have any effect in diminishing the number of dogfish? I cannot say, there is so few caught that they are not missed much from the great schools that invade our shores. I might say that one of our oldest citizens, who has made a success of fishing, says in his opinion the Reduction Works is the best thing the government has ever done for the fishermen.
Hoping you may use your influence for the establishment of a number more along the coast, I remain, yours very truly, E. M. Goodwin.

The next letter is from James R. Lums-den:
1.	Are the Reduction Works an advantage to the fishermen? If so, in what way? Yes, in the first place when the dogfish come in on the shore it puts a stop to all other fishing as they destroy nets and gear. The fisherman can make very good pay in catching them.
2.	Is the price paid for dogfish fair and reasonable? Yes.
3.	Does the establishment and use of the Reduction Works have any effect in diminishing the numbers of dogfish? I do not think the Reduction works has been in operation long enough to answer that question, but the dogfish in our bay for the year 1907 were the scarcest they have been for years. Whether the Reduction Works had anything to do with it or not or some other cause I don't know. My opinion is that there ought to be several reduction plants along the shore as it is quite a task for one plant to do the work because it cannot grind up all that is caught in this place.
I remain, yours truly, (Sgd.) JAMES R. LUMSDEN,
The next reply is from George Walsh:
Dear Sir,-By the use of the Reduction Works these pests become an industry and are disposed of for value which certainly is an advantage to fishermen.
The price paid for dogfish is fair and reasonable.
Use of the Reduction Works has an effect in diminishing the dogfish.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) GEORGE WALSH.
There is only one more letter and I will read that:
Sir,-In reply to your; respective inquiries re the Reduction Works at Canso, I wish to say they are a great advantage to our fishermen; they afford a market for dogfish which infest our fishing grounds from August until about the end of October and which formerly prevented our men from fishing during those months.
At the price paid for dogfish a man can make a fair day's pay when fish are plentiful.
Dogfish were not nearly so plentiful on our fishing grounds last year as in former years. I believe the numbers of dogfish will decrease in proportion to the number of reduction works in operation.
I am, sir,	, ,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) JOHN McNEARY, Canso, N.S.
These are the opinions of practical fishermen and each one of them approves of the establishment of dogfish reduction works. As far as the Bay of Fundy is concerned we have no dogfish reduction works there and I know from practical experience, having seen them, that the Bay of Fundy is filled with these pests to the detriment, I was almost going to say, destruction, of the food fish which come
into that bay in such large quantities. They are so destructive that they destroy the nets, they destroy the food 'fish that are on the hooks of the trawls even as they are being hauled from the bottom of the sea up to the boats to be taken in by the fishermen. When I spoke upon this question before I referred to a very graphic description given to me by one of the fishermen whom I interviewed after he had come ashore and who assured me that of a.catch upon the trawls, which contained about 2,000 hooks, 1,700 food fish, as they drew them up to their boats, had been eaten off to the heads by the dogfish and destroyed; so that instead of having a good haul of food fish the man who had spent his time had simply made a haul of heads of food fish and the hooks that were hanging to the trawls. That is something that took place to my own knowledge in the Bay of Fundy and it is a striking example of what is taking place there all the time. I think that matter is one that might well be taken up by a committee such as is foreshadowed by the resolution before the House moved by the hon. member for Guysborough. There are other points which I might bring up but most of them have already been brought before the House by those who have preceded me. I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.


Mr. HONORS GERVAIS (Montreal, St. James).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to be allowed to say one word in support of this resolution. There is only one course to be taken by the House and that is the adoption of this resolution. Many things have been said and well said in favour of the resolution. There is no doubt that the trouble with regard to the fishing industry does not lie with the lack of improved apparatus or of facilities for catching fish, but I think that the whole trouble comes from the lack of proper facilities for selling the fishermen's product. As a matter of fact, most of the fish caught along the shores of the maritime provinces are sold in the United States, and the people of Montreal have been in the habit for the last twenty years of importing part of this same fish into Canada. We have been paying for the last ten years as much as $5,000 per week to the railway companies for the transportation of fresh fish from the United States to Montreal. We have been paying to this government as much as $3,000 per week for duty on that fish. I think that the difficulties against which the fishermen of the maritime provinces are now contending arise from the lack of proper facilities, such as refrigerators and fish markets, in the great cities of the central portion of Canada. By establishing a system of fish refrigerators along our coast, by building especially equipped railway cars for the transportation of live fish ac-

cording to the German fashion, by transporting the fish rapidly from the seashore to the great cities and by the construction of buildings or fish markets in Montreal, Toronto and elsewhere for the proper handling and sale of fish, the existing difficulties will be largely overcome and the fishermen of the maritime provinces will again enjoy that progress and prosperity with which they were blessed in bygone days.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, before the minister replies I would like to say a word or two with reference to this question. Those who are older in time and experience in the House I think cannot but feel very great satisfaction in listening to the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. The discussion has not been directed to the end of passing the resolution. That I suppose was a foregone conclusion from the first; the discussion has rather tended towards eliciting information and suggestions from a great many different points of view as to the fishery industry in all its phases. With reference to the resolution itself, I have not heard any good reasons why the two departments of Marine and Fisheries should be included in it. There is a very wide field of work for such a committee with reference to the fisheries, but it seems to me that the department itself ought to be quite capable of dealing with what are peculiarly marine matters. Now, we are going to have this committee and very possibly it is but the forerunner of other such committees. _ We must keep in mind that while economizing the time of parliament we must not by the appointment of committees deprive the House itself of its proper workers. As a rule our committees are too large; they might with a very great deal of profit be very largely diminished in the numbers of their members, because the larger the committee the greater the aggregate of party feeling in it and the more numerous the extraneous questions which are discussed. In my opinion the actual power for work of a committee increases in the ratio of the fewness of its members. We lose a vast deal of time in some of our large committees, and holding this opinion I would not have this committee composed of more than 15 or 20 members, selected from both sides of the House. I would have it an absolutely good working committee, not a committee which would be fishing for this or fishing for that, but a committee which went straight at its object of conserving our fish resources and broadening and developing the industry. If we are to have committees on our great natural resources there will be three or four more of such, and, in my opinion, no man can serve efficiently upon more than two committees. If he does his work well on one important committee, that, _ together with his work on the floor of this House, Mr. GERVAIS.
and the conduct of his correspondence, gives him plenty to do. With reference to the fishery question itself, I think it will be acknowledged by all members of this House that the tendency is, each year that passes, towards the greater depletion of the fisheries. That is the tendency in our lumber industry, it is the tendency in our coal and mineral industries, but it is more particularly the tendency with regard to our fisheries. Our population is continually increasing, fish foods are more eaten, the means of transportation are every day becoming better and cheaper, fresh fish is more easily obtained and there is a greater consumption of it. As the price of fish rises, and it is constantly rising, old methods give place to new; the less destructive methods of catching fish are supplanted by more destructive methods and the constant effort is to take as many of the denizens of the waters as possible from their habitat and transfer them to the tables of the people. All this is a constant menace to our fisheries. There is more than that. Don't let the people of the maritime provinces think that the only fish in the world are to be found in the salt water. The fisheries in our inland waters are of immense benefit to our people. The source of supply from these inland fisheries is near to the people and it is most important that there should be a perennial never failing supply of fish from these inland waters. Both the inland and the salt water fisheries are of course important, but with the distribution of the increased population in our country, the inland fishery industry is perhaps more important still. If, in view of the increasing demand, you allow destructive methods of fishing then the inland fisheries will be depleted in such a ratio that it does not require very long vision to see the practical disappearance of our food fish. To-day the vast majority of fish that are taken from our inland waters are transported to the markets of another country and are eaten by people in Chicago, Detroit, or Boston, who do not care if it is the last fish in the stream so long as they get it on their breakfast table. The Minister of Marine, the members of the government, the members of this House, have read the statistics and they know that this is the truth. It is time there was a stop put to it. It may be ultra doctrine but it is a doctrine that every good Canadian will subscribe to that the food fishes of this country exist primarily for the consumption of the people of Canada, not even for the consumption of this generation of Canadians but for the consumption of future generations. If we set our minds to it, it is possible for us to keep up a perennial supply of fish in these inland waters, as well as in our salt waters, so long as Canadians require fish food. I do not believe that any one will doubt

that. But we have to be more heroic than we have been. The minister has got to be able to say to the supporter who comes to him, when both of them are absolutely certain that all the fish have been taken out in that season that ought to be taken out, that he will not permit any extension of the close season, or any departure from the regulations, that he will not yield to any request or any pressure, however strong. I know as an administrator in that department and as an observant member of the body politic, that this is a tremendous force in this country, and we have got somehow or other to eliminate patronage from the fisheries of this country. That one sentence contains it all. We have got to place this branch of the public service either departmentally or by a commission, under hard and fast, scientific, reasonable, common-sense jurisdiction and administration. If we do that we can have fish, if we do not do that we will come to a time when we will not have fish. I have a letter from a man who knows what fisheries are, because he was born amongst them, brought up with them and spent a part of his life in both fishing and dealing and has taken a wide interest in the subject. What does he tell me ? Within ten years, unless we do something more than we are doing now, it will not be possible to get a decent sized lobster along the Atlantic coast of Canada. We have been warned about that. The lobsters have been a diminishing race until they have almost entirely vanished from the coast of the United States, they have been pushed gradually, further and further north until they have now passed the Maine coast which has a very little remnant of lobster fishing left and the Americans are invading our coast. To-day you boil lobsters from 4 to 9 inches long. The law says you shall not, but the inspector does not say you shall not nor does the administration. This man writes and gives instances where inspectors shut their eyes to the fact that hundreds of thousands of lobsters were boiled last year and canned which were from four to nine inches in length, more nearer four than nine.
Now we must, government and opposition, set our faces like flint with reference to these great fish resources of this country, if we hope to keep them and to hand to our children those inestimable blessings of food fishes which have been ours so luxuriously and abundantly. To-day we have six million people, before long we will have twelve million, then twenty, then thirty, then forty million, and still I say that if we do rightly in this matter our forty million people can have their food fishes many years from now just as we have them now, but they cannot unless we take hold of this matter.
Then we want education. I do not believe that a fisherman, although he is born in the brine and goes to sea every day in 17
the! year, ever passes the time when some good information will not be useful to him. Your farmer is in the same position, so is every man. We do not grow up into special knowledge. What has been done by the Department of Agriculture ? Whatever has not been done or has been done, whatever have been the lapses or excellencies of that department, one thing is certain, that by a persistent method of generally enlightened education they have taught the farmers of this country and have brought them up by large strides ahead of where they were before this education began. I think a similar method of education can be adopted for the fishermen. It is one thing to catch a fish, it is another thing to land that fish on the table of the ultimate consumer, so that the fisherman shall have as large a proportion of the profit as possible, and this cannot be done unless proper methods are used. I am not here to teach the fishermen, I cannot do it, I do not know myself what is necessary, but I say that the Fisheries Department ought to lay itself out to get at methods not so much of catching fish, the fishermen will attend to that, but methods of curing, packing, and all that tends to make the ultimate market value the highest possible and so bring the greatest profit to the person who is engaged in the business. I am heartily in favour of this resolution. I was glad to hear our young men take such sane ground and such intelligent ground with reference to this matter as they have this afternoon. I have seldom heard a debate in this House participated in by so many young men which has been so free from anything that was not germane to the subject and which has been stuffed so full of good common sense, as the speeches we have heard this afternoon from our young members.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, I think we must congratulate ourselves upon the contributions which have been made to this debate by some of the new members of the House. Their knowledge of local circumstances has enabled them to give us the best information upon the important question of the! fisheries. I hope this will not be the last time when this question of fisheries will come before the House and we will hear such! speeches as we have heard to-day. I congratulate the new members very heartily upon the way in which they have discharged their duties in the circumstances, and I am sure that this debate will have a very good effect on the relations between these members and the administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Several important questions have been dealt with during this debate. I shall first discuss the question which is at _ issue, namely the formation of a new committee of this House. Committees of this House



are formed for the purpose of dealing with the ordinary legislation or with the work of the session. The session is called for a special purpose, for the purpose of passing laws and making legislation, the voting of supplies and the controlling and investigating of expenditures. Bills which c^me up before this House are generally referred to the committees in order that a few members may devote more time to the questions involved in these Bills than wou'd be possible in the House. It would be, I think, contrary to the ordinary principles which are followed in the British House of Commons if we were to form committees which will make all sorts of investigations. I understand that in some cases investigations are absolutely necessary, but the particular work which the committees are called on to perform is the work of legislation. That is, I am sure, the object which my hon. friend had in view when he proposed that a committee of this House should be appointed to look into the questions relating to Marine and Fisheries. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said a few minutes ago that no reason had been adduced in the debate whv the Marine should be joined with the Fisheries in this committee. During two or three of our last sessions some very important Bills were brought before this House relating to marine. These were referred to special committees whrh investigated and reported, and these reports were embodied in the laws we passed last session. When last year my hon. friend made a motion for the fo-mat;on of a committee on Fisheries, I asked him whether he would not be willing to add to this resolution the subject of Marine, as the two were very closely connected, and might be investigated by the same committee. That was the object I had in view. Various important Bills come up nearly every vear concerning Marine, and I thought that since it was the opinion of the House and the government that we should have a Committee on Fisheries, it would be just as well to give to that committee the power to deal with the questions of Marine. That is why I asked my hon. friend to add to his motion questions affecting Marine as well as i those affecting Fisheries. In England and in the United States it is the same committee which deals with both questions.
I am glad to see that there is no objection at all to the formation of this committee, and the government accepts with the greatest pleasure the motion made by my hon. friend, and in a few days will be able to submit amendments to our existing rules, which no doubt will receive the unanimous consent of the whole House?
My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), has mentioned some of the things which have been done by the government, and has spoken of the importance of improving our transportation system. Several ' Mr. BRODEUR.
other members have also dealt with this question, and I may be permitted to say a word or two on it. I was sorry indeed to find out, when I came to the department, that a large quantity of our fish, instead of being shipped direct from the maritime provinces or the great lakes to our centres of consumption, were sent to the United States and in some cases reshipped from the United States to Canada. It is a great pity indeed that our fisheries should be exploited by American fishermen in this way, and I thought that by encouraging the transportation of fish from the maritime provinces and the great lakes to Canadian centres we would hereby divert that trade from the United States. I was also sorry to hear that some of our banking institutions were not very willing to lend money on our fisheries. I do not know why they refused to give advances for the development of that valuable industry, with the result that the business, instead of being carried on by our own people, was carried on by Americans. I have no objection to our exporting some of our fish, as we are producing much more than we consume- and have to depend on foreign markets to some extent, but I regret, in common with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that any exporting should be done to our detriment and that our fisheries should become depleted. It therefore becomes necessary to find out whether there be not some means of preventing it. As regards transportation, let me state what we did last year with the $25,000 voted by parliament. During the months of September, October, and November, the department made an arrangement with the Express Companies by which these companies charged the shippers of fish on.'y two-thirds of the regular express rates, and collected the other one-third from the department. This gave the shipper from Halifax to Montreal $1 per 100 lbs. The express rate from Boston to Montreal is 80 cents, and the duty $1, making the total $1.80 per 100 lbs., thus giving an advantage to the shippers from the maritime provinces to Montreal over the shippers to American ports. The result has been extraordinary. It is true that the Minister of Customs received less revenue from fish, evidently as the result of the policv we have pursued. But I have been glad to hear from merchants in Halifax and in Montreal that there is a larger demand for fish brought direct from our Atlantic sea-board. One merchant in Montreal, I am informed, received 50,000 pounds more within one month than he used to receive in former years. This he attributes to the policv we have adopted. The cost to the department is almost nothing. I have not the figures by me at the moment, but they are very small. We intend to continue the policy, and have agreed to renew the arrangement, beginning on the 20th instant.

I do not think it necessary to go at length into a description of what the government has done for the development of the fisheries. I may mention briefly the cold storage for bait and also the cold storage for fish that we have established. Each of these is very important, the latter being the means of putting the fish on the market in the proper condition. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) has referred to the dogfish. The reduction works that we have established are more or less of an experimental nature. I realize that they have not been a commercial success so far. For that reason, we cannot expect private parties to enter upon this industry now. But we are going to carry on these experiments for some time yet, and, should we be able to prove that this work can be carried on on a commercial basis, we expect that private capital will embark in the industry and that there will be no further necessity for the government to carry on these experiments. We have established also hatcheries in different parts of the country, and it is expected that, with the money to be voted for next year, others may be established. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) has spoken of the way in which our statistics are collected, and has given an instance in which figures were collected from the fishermen and afterwards from those in charge of curing establishments and the two were added together in the report. I should be greatly surprised if this could happen. However, if my hon. friend has the exact information at hand, he would oblige me greatly by giving it to me, in order that a recurrence of such instances may be prevented.


Clarence Jameson: I would like to ask the minister if an officer of his own department was not sent to Nova Scotia to inquire into this very matter of discrepancy in these statistics?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend will give me, even privately, the information in regard to the case he speaks of, I will see to it that instructions are given-or repeated, for instructions have already been given -as to the way these statistics should be collected. We have no desire that the results as shown by the figures should be different from what they are in fact. My hon. friend from Digby has spoken of the question of the fishery board. I agree with him; I am not ready to accept the idea of forming a board on the same lines as that which they have in Scotland. I do not think the time has come when such a board can be formed here to advantage. I find that the people in Scotland at the present day do not take advantage of the inspection provided by the board to so great an extent as might be expected. So long as the imperial government gave the money for the brand-171
ing of the herring, the system went on very well, but when the payments ceased and the standard was raised there was a change.
I see that during 1906 out of 1,967,862 barrels of herring sold, only 306,033 barrels were branded under the authority of the Fishery Board. Of course, a tax has to be paid for the branding of that herring, and people there, like people in this country, do not wish to be taxed, and so they are not taking advantage of this system of branding to as great an extent as formerly, owing largely of course to the high general standard of private trade marks.
My hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) says-and the same was said by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)-that party politics should not interfere with the administration of fisheries. So far as the department is concerned, there is no party politics in the administration of the fisheries. We see to it, as well as we can, that the regulations are observed. Of course, it is not an easy matter to enforce regulations restricting the fisheries; such regulations are usually unpopular. The suggestion made by my hon. friend from North Toronto deserves consideration-that we should carry on an educational campaign to cause the fishermen to see that the enforcement of the regulations and the improvement of the methods of curing and packing would be in their own interest. As to this question of curing and packing, some years ago we engaged the services of Mr. Cowie, an experienced man, to come and teach our people to cure herring as they are cured in Scotland. The teaching given by this gentleman has, I believe, been appreciated, and I do not know of any place where his visits have not been received with delight by the fishermen and also by those engaged in curing and packing the herring.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) referred to the very important Question of the modus vivendi. I would not like to discuss that question at length, but, speaking for myself, I think that the modus vivendi is not of so much benefit as some people believe. The result is that when the Americans come into our waters and procure tnis license to enable them to purchase supplies and outfits, to ship crews and to tranship cargoes, they are practically taking the business away from our own fishermen, they are simply controlling the business which should be done by our own fishermen, and any profits or benefit that might accrue in those fisheries go to Americans instead of Canadians. That is the view I take personally of this matter. If this committee were formed, I would like to see it study this question, and I hope that some day it will be put in a position to investigate it. I think it is a most important question. This is a business that we should try to keep in Canadian channels for the bene-

fit of our own people. There is no reason why this business should be controlled by Americans instead of Canadians. We have the resources, we have the money, we have the intelligence among Canadians, and we ought to control the business. That is my personal view of the matter.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has alluded to the question of steam trawlers. In some parts of Europe steam trawlers are considered a very desirable method of fishing, but I do not think that so far they have been considered as such in our own country. Even in Europe there is a great divergence of opinion as to whether they should be used or not. In some parts of France, however, steam trawlers are used to a considerable extent, they are sent into the north sea and also to the grand banks. But in some other parts of France, especially in Normandy and Brittany, the people are strongly opposed to the use of steam trawlers. In this country there is only one opinion, and that is that steam trawlers should not be permitted within the three mile limit and the bays. So general is this feeling that we passed lately an order in council prohibiting the use of steam trawlers within such limits. Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) stated that some American boats had been fishing within the three mile limit, and that although they had been seized by some of our own boats, they were let off without a penalty.


James William Maddin: What I said was that I saw thirty-one vessels fishing within the three mile limit. It was not one of these that was seized, but another vessel was seized, as I was informed by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby), and was taken to Halifax and held there for three weeks, and then released on payment of a fine of $400. But that was not one of the boats I saw.


Adam Brown Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were discussing the question of the appointment of a committee. If I had known that this discussion was going to take so wide a range, I would have been glad to discuss some of these outside questions myself.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has the floor.


Adam Brown Crosby: I rise to a point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has a right to make a point of order.


Adam Brown Crosby: I must say that instead of discussing the question of the appointment of a committee we have been wandering over the whole fishery question in this country as it has existed for the last ten years.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The discussion has certainly been broad, but I think that it all had relation to the advisability of appointing such a committee as is proposed, and brought forth the reasons therefore, and consequently it was in order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that we have been allowed to discuss the question of the fisheries generally in order to adduce reasons for the appointment of this committee. My hon. friend from Cape Breton stated a fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House for a moment. He stated that some American boats had been fishing within the three mile limit. I am greatly surprised to hear it, because generally speaking our fishery cruisers on the Atlantic coast are very diligent; their instructions are to follow closely American vessels coming there to fish, and to see that they do not come within the three mile limit. I would be greatly surprised to hear that our cruisers have been found remiss in this matter. The officers of our boats are men of great intelligence and experience, like Captain Knowlton, for instance. I would be surprised to hear that he had allowed an American vessel within the three mile limit. I know that when an infraction of the law does occur they take immediate steps, with the means at their disposal, to ascertain the fact, and if they find that the vessel is fishing within the three mile limit she is immediately seized.


Adam Brown Crosby: I may say that the vessel I referred to was taken into Halifax and tied up there, and Captain Knowlton let her go. I am not here to discuss that matter now, but I will be glad to do so at any future time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will my hon. friend give me the name of the boat in order that I may make some inquiries?


Adam Brown Crosby: I will do that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course, we must remember that it is sometimes difficult to find out exactly whether these boats are within or without the three mile limit. They are cute, they generally keep on the border line, and when they see one of our cruisers coming they immediately get outside the limit. So it is very difficult to detect them in a violation of the law.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understood the hon. member for Lunenburg to tell the minister that if a boat is seized and held up she has either got to be confiscated or released. I would like to follow him on that subject, but I will not do so now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If it turns out that in some cases our officers have been remiss in their duties, I will see that no such thing occurs again.


Adam Brown Crosby: I did not intimate that anybody had not done his duty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will not continue the discussion any longer. But in view of the reasons which have been given to this House in favour of the appointment of a committee, I may say that I concur heartily with the motion, and see no objection to its being adopted. We will see that rules are drafted later on, and will bring them down for adoption by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For a return showing how many sessional clerks and messengers have been appointed to the House of Commons since 1880; their names and the dates of their appointment; if appointed by the Internal Economy Commission or otherwise; how many sessional clerks and messengers have been removed from the House of Commons since 1880; their names and the dates of their removal; if removed by the Internal Economy Commission or otherwise.-Mr. Pa-quet.
For a return showing what precautionary measures were taken by the government to combat the introduction of the foot and mouth disease into Canada from United States; what officials were appointed especially for the work, the dates of appointment, length of service, remuneration paid to each as salary or expenses ; the present danger, and when the embargo on live stock from the United States was raised.-Mr. Sharpe.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act. [DOT]


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this to stand. I want to get something practical out of this legislation on level crossings if I can, and I am referring this Bill to. the Chairman of the Railway Commission. He is in Winnipeg, I am sending all the Bills to him. I am not trying to block the Bill or anything of that kind, but I want to get his expression of opinion on all these things and see if I cannot get something practical out of them.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The Bill is a public Bill and if the matter is delayed and then sent back here from the Senate, probably, it will never be concluded during this session, and this slaughter of the people at the railway crossings will go on as it has gone on notwithstanding the fact that we have tried to stop it for three years. This Bill has been very carefully considered by this .House for three years. It is the product of the combined intelligence of the whole of this House after
five years of discussion. I do not think that the chairman of any railway commission can tell us how to make this law. I have every respect for the Chairman of the Railway Commission as an administrator -that is his business-but I do not agree that the Chairman of the Railway Commission can give us any pointers with regard to this legislation. We as legislators are here to make law for him to carry out It is his business to carry out the law that we make in this parliament. It is the people's business to make laws, and although I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Railway Commission and for the present Board of Railway Commissioners, it is not within their province to tell us anything about the kind of law that the people want passed; it is their province to carry out to the full the law that we may make. In view of the fact that this House for three years unanimously adopted this as a proper piece of legislation to relieve this terrible evil existing in the country, the slaughter of helpless men, women and children at all these level crossings, we should not further delay. The House of Commons lias dealt with it, the House has done its duty, three years ago the House of Commons put it up to the Senate to do their duty, it has not yet been attended to by the Senate and I warn the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) that I shall have to blame somebody if this Bill is not read a third time and sent on to the Senate as quickly as possible.


George Perry Graham: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. friend has said, but we want to have something practical. As he remarked, this Bill has been passed three times by the House of Commons. I am in hopes that we can deal with this question in a way that will bring about the result that my hon. friend has in mind, and that we all have in mind, and that is to get rid as quickly as possible of the dangerous level crossings. I know it is our business to legislate but there is no person so competent to give us advice as to the most practical way to bring about the desired result as the men who are putting the law into force.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They do not know the evil like we do.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that the men who have to apply the law will be able to give us a lot of useful information as how best to accomplish the object we have in view.


George Eulas Foster: Then we would have to refer all our Bills to the judges.


George Perry Graham: There have been a great many Bills in the parliaments of the country that have been referred to judges before

they have been passed so as to get them into the shape in which they will bring about practical results.


George Eulas Foster: I never saw one taken out of the House in this way.


George Perry Graham: 
George Eulas Foster: It is taken out of its order.


George Perry Graham: It is not taken out of the House nor out of its order. I am asking this House to let the Bill stand as hundreds stand, and I am giving a reason in support of that request that will appeal to the country. It is that I may have an opportunity of conferring with the Chief of the Board of Railway Commissioners, not to defeat the object of this Bill, but to bring about the practical results that we are all looking for; that is to do away with the dangerous level crossing.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals that there has been the opportunity of a year at least to obtain the opinion of the Chairman of the Railway Commission upon this Bill. It has passed the House at least on two occasions, passed the House unanimously, and it has gone to the Senate by a unanimous vote. It seems to me rather late in the day, after the Bill has been before parliament for so long and there has been so abundant an opportunity to obtain the views of the Chairman of the Railway Commission upon it, to suggest a postponement on that account. I have every possible respect for the opinion of the Chairman of the Railway Commission in this connection, but if he desires any modification, if he suggests any modification and if that modification commends itself to the government it can be presented to the Senate and it can come back to this House for consideration later on. It does not seem to me that the suggestion of the minister is based upon any reasonable consideration for the reasons that he mentioned. In the first place, there has been abundant opportunity for more than a year to obtain the views of the Chairman of the Railway Commission. If that has not been done, it has been due to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals having too much on his mind- I suppose too much work. Well, that is not a good reason for asking delay now. Send the Bill up to the Senate and the views of the Chairman of the Railway Commission can be obtained and acted upon by the government if the government think it advisable that there should be any modification of this Bill.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the coun-Mr. GRAHAM.
ty of Frontenac which I have the honour to represent has on different occasions seen fit to petition this House, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council and at the present time the Board of Railway Commissioners, that action should be taken for the better protection of the public at level crossings I feel that I should say a word why I think this Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) should receive its third reading at the present time. I am led to think that there is some reason for this delay other than that which has been advanced by the Minister of Railways. He tells us he wants to consult with the Board of Railway Commissioners, but in view of the fact that at the last election word was sent out by the Grand Trunk Company to its employees in the county of Frontenac to cast their votes against me and in favour of my opponent, I am led to wonder if there is not another reason than that ostensibly given by the Minister of Railways. On three occasions has the House of Commons given expression to its opinion with regard to level crossings, and I was in hopes that to-night that expression of opinion would be repeated by a unanimous assent to the third reading of this Bill. The toll of death at these level crossings throughout the county of Frontenac is ever increasing. In a distance of some seven miles from the village of Collins Bay up to the Grand Trunk crossing at the outer station where two lives were lost on the 26th inst., there have been some fourteen or fifteen lives sacrificed. The rails of the Grand Trunk are red with the blood of victims along that piece of track. How much longer is the sacrifice to continue; how much longer are we going to withhold an emphatic expression of opinion that an end must be put to this state of things. There is no difference of opinion in my county about immediate action being necessary. The people are not only unanimous that action should be taken but they are indignant that action has not been taken sooner. I believe that the railway commissioners are desirous of protecting life and I know they are doing good work, but they are doing that work independently of this parliament. Why should the House delay action now? Will not delay at this time encourage the Senate to repeat its former treatment of the measure? If this were the first time such a measure as this were presented to the House there might be a reason for delay, but this Bill having been passed on several previous occasions there is no necessity for delaying it now, and I voice the opinion of my constituents when I demand that it shall receive its third reading to-day.


Haughton Lennox: We have had this Bill before the House until it has been termed a hardy

annual. We have had it up for five sessions; it has been before special committees ; it has been before general committees; it has been thrice passed upon by the House; we have enunciated as a House of Commons our policy upon the Bill and that policy has been frustrated by the Senate. Although I have great respect for the railway board, I do not think this parliament should surrender its judgment entirely to it. I was anxious the other day that we should have the opinion of the railway board upon the broad question of railway crossings from one end of Canada to the other, as transmitted to the minister. The very first day parliament met I put a series of resolutions on the Order Paper with reference to that matter, but this is a specific question which the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) has advanced persistently from year to year and upon which we have proclaimed the policy of this House of Commons to the country. And because the Senate, for good reasons or otherwise-I am inclined very decidedly to think otherwise-has seen fit to bowl out this Bill there is no reason why we should delay it now unless the Minister of Railways can advance substantial reasons for a change of policy. I trust before this session ends the House shall fully consider the whole question of railway crossings throughout Canada, but that is another question altogether and it affords no^ reason why the special provisions of this Bill should not pass.
I am puzzled at the attitude of the Minister of Railways who thinks it desirable we should have the opinion of the railway board, and yet when the policy of the railway board on the general question of level crossings was transmitted to the Minister of Railways the other day he did not think it well that it should be submitted to the House. No doubt the Minister of Railways had good reasons for withholding that information which was so much desired by this House and so earnestly desired by the people of Canada, but is it logical that he should now recommend delay until he consults the railway board when he has in his possession the opinion of the railway board on a cognate question and refuses to submit it to parliament. The government has had ample time within the last year to consider the attitude of the Senate; they have had ample time to submit this question to the railway board, but in the meantime the sacrifice of life has been increasing and the conditions call for the immediate passage of this Bill. As has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), when it is considered by the Senate any reasons that are proper to be submitted to them, by the railway board or otherwise, can be submitted by the ministers for consideration of the Senate and they can send it back for our consideration. In this way proper time will be given for the proper reconsideration of this Bill which was not passed and could not be passed last session by reason of the delay in forwarding the Bill. I have a great desire that in this session we shall have a consideration of the broad question of railway protection throughout Canada, but that is no reason for delaying the passage of this Bill which we have already
considered.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL. (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer to this House a few remarks in French, i do not intend to make a speech, but I only wish to ask the hon. Minister of Railways a question. It seems evident that the conditions require the immediate passage of this Bill, and still the hon. gentleman recommends delay until he consults the Railway Board. Should the Board of Railway Commissioners express the opinion that it is not desirable to pass such a law, are we to bow to their decision? Not by any means, that is no reason for delaying the third reading of this Bill. I wait the answer of the Minister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: It is not a question at all of putting their jurisdiction against ours but we have been dealing with this for two or three years and I am anxious to have a practical result from it in a broad way. I have had a good deal of discussion with the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners upon this question, and I have asked him to put his views on the matter m a concrete form in the way of a Bill and let me read it in that form. My request is a very reasonable one; I would like to have the chairman consider this and give his ideas in concrete form. The Bill submitted by him might not be what we want, but it will be a great help. This is far bevond a private question, it affects the lives of the people. I have a message from the chairman of the Commission saying that he will do this and give me something tangible in a few days.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the Minister is anxious to stop this continuous killing of people in this country. How will sending this Bill to the Senate in the usual way prevent what he wants to do? The people are demanding protection in this matter. There has been no suggestion in committee or on the second reading of any change in the Bill, and why should it not go to the Senate in the usual way? Every man's constituents from Halifax to Vancouver are demanding the stooping of this toll on human life, and unless something is done the people will take the matter in their own hands. Trains will be derailed, although I do not recommend such a course, if they are going to run at 60 miles an hour through thickly peopled portions

of the community without thought of what occurs to the people on the highways. The people will not stand for all this nonsense. Let us get the opinion of the Chairman of the Railway Commission, and of everybody else that will help us, but let us not delay sending the Bill to the Senate. If the rail-railways want to maintain the speed of their trains, we want speed to counteract the result of that speed. I cannot see why an extraordinary and unusual course should be taken in regard to this'Bill. The minister does not pretend that the Bill would not be good law or wise legislation.


George Perry Graham: My request is very reasonable. My hon. friend will see that the delay I am asking him for does not interfere with the passage of his Bill, as the Senate have adjourned until the 25th.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is within his rights, and if he wants to press his Bill he can do so, and nobody will object. I call his attention simply to this: he has this legislation very much at heart, and in this he has the sympathy of every man in this country I am sure. What we have seen recently is simply appalling, and a stop not only should, but must, be put to it. I would ask him, however, if he is following the better course to reach the end he has in view, in which we are all prepared to second him. The legislation which he has promised is very drastic. It has twice passed this House unanimously, but it has met with a different fate in the other chamber. The only reason why it was not passed by the Senate is evidently its very drastic character. The moment this Bill passes, every railway company is liable to very heavy penalties. My hon. friend will agree that while it is reasonable that the railway company should be compelled to slacken the speed of trains when passing through thickly settled portions of the community or should take extra precautions if they want to maintain their speed, there are quite a number of localities where a level crossing is not likely to produce very severe danger.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is limited to congested portions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, but even so a question arises as to what is a congested part, and further there are many congested parts, and if the companies may be unable, with all the good will they might have-and I do not think they have very much good will in this matter-to at once comply with the requirements of this law, they would be subject to these penalties. The Minister of Railways has already taken up the question with the man who, above all others, is competent to advise in this matter, that is the Chairman of the Railway Board. They have been in conference upon it, and my hon. friend expects that he will Mr. LANCASTER.
have before many days an answer to the inquiries that he has put to the Chairman of the Railway Board, advising him as to what in his judgment would be the best legislation.
The matter has been taken up in other countries. I understand that the state of New York has a Bill similar to the Bill of my hon. friend in intent but not in enactment whereby it is contemplated and enacted that the Bill shall come gradually into force, and perhaps it may be advisable to adopt a similar course here. My hon. friend loses nothing by this delay, but if he wants to go on he is within his right and I shall not interfere. Let me suggest to him that the Bill comes to-morrow as the first order of the day. If it is not dealt with to-morrow it comes up on the following Thursday as the first order.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will that be the result?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly. I have no intention to take away the right of my hon. friend. This Bill will come up to-morrow. If it should not, it becomes the first order of the day on the following Thursday. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) set down the important motion he had for to-morrow, but he and I forgot that on Thursdays public Bills take precedence of notices of motion, and therefore we shall have to select another day. He will have an opportunity to-morrow or the following Thursday to go on with his motion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I hope the Prime Minister does not think that my sincerity will entirely run away with my judgment. I see the wisdom of what he points out and I want to hold the friendship of the House with regard to this Bill. I do not want to antagonize people in this House or outside, but I want to prevent this terrible toll if possible. On the understanding which my right hon. friend gives that this Bill will take the head of public Bills and orders, I am content, and I assume that the Minister of Railways will accept his suggestion and accelerate it as much as he can.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 4, 1909.