about dog-fish, and it was stated that they were being utilized for that purpose. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. As a matter of fact the present Act is being violated every day, because they take dog-fish and utilize it as a fertilizer. I was asked the question if farmers might not use the surplus for manuring their lands, which I believe they are doing down in the maritime provinces. No doubt under the new provisions the minister will permit that to be done. Mr. BLACK. There are places in the maritime provinces where farmers manuring the land with young shad and young salmon. They have weirs for catching fish, to which the farmer goes when the tide is out; he takes home for food what is large enough, and what is small he dumps into a cart and carries off to his farm for manure. are Mr. WM. CHISHOLM. Dog-fish has been a great injury to the fishermen along the coast, both because it destroys the nets and destroys other fish, and it seems almost a hardship that a man must get permission from the minister before he is allowed to take these fish and destroy them. The Act proposes to prohibit the taking of dog-fish to be converted into oil or manure except on license by the government. I think that is not advisable. I think the destruction of dog-fish should be encouraged rather than discouraged. They make good oil and they make a good fertilizer. Along the shores of Northumberland Straits and in parts of the county I have the honour to represent, they catch these fish to a considerable extent and use them as a fertilizer. I am sure that if the minister were to take the views of the of the minister to the taking of small and immature bar fish in the St. Lawrence. For years I have been drawing the attention of the department to this subject, and I have also had occasion to speak to Prof. Prince about the immense destruction of bar fish that is taking place. It is the finest fish we have in the St. Lawrence. They are caught by the thousand, but so small that the fishermen after catching them are ashamed to bring them on the market, the country retailing them from house to and they sell them to pedlars who go about house. They catch fish of from four to seven inches in length that are almost useless for food, nobody would dare to bring them on the market, because he would be laughed at; and so they are destroying that fish by the hundreds of thousands every year. It is really a pity, because it is one of the finest fish we have in the St. Lawrence, and attains a size of two or two and a half feet in length, and a weight of from six to nine pounds. Some stringent measures should be taken to prevent the fishermen selling this fish to the pedlars for distribution. There should be a close inspection made, and nothing of that kind should be allowed on the river. It is now allowed all the way down the river on both shores for a distance of 60 or 75 miles. It is the finest fish we have in the St. Lawrence when allowed to mature, and I consider it a perfect scandal that they should be destroyed in this manner. The fish resemble the bass. Mr. SINCLAIR. I wish to express the same view as my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm). I think it will be a hardship to require the people who catch dog-fish along the coast first to get a permit from the authorities before they can use them for manure. I trust the minister will make an exception in the case of destruction of dog-fish and permit, not only the catching of them, but encourage it, because this fish is an-destroying the other fish that are of use. It is really one of the greatest Scourges we have on the Atlantic coast. The dog-fish arrive in the summer time when the water gets warm; they come up from the south, they tear up the nets. they eat up the other fish that are in the nets, and practically the fishermen have to go out of business when the dog-fish arrive. The government has at present two or three places on the coast of the maritime provinces where these fish purchased and turned into manure. This has been going on for a few years, and while it has lessened the quantity to some extent, still the Atlantic ocean is so large, and these fish are so numerous, that there will not be any material lessening of them by means of these establishments. A fishermen he would find that they are in. favour of encouraging the destruction of this dog-fish as much as possible; and farmers would say that it is a hardship to them to have to get a permit to use dog-fish. I think it would be better to allow freedom in the destruction of these voracious fish that are of no use for food. There is other thing the Act should cover, and that is the wholesale destruction of useful fish by steam trawlers. They operate with large nets, and take great quantities of fish, of which they throw overboard those that are not useful for their purposes. A great waste is going on in that way. Fish that would be useful if allowed to escape are thus being destroyed, and the fisheries along our shores are being depleted by the use of these steam trawlers. Some provision should be made against the taking of these smaller fish, or if they are taken, they should be allowed to escape instead of being killed in nets and allowed to drift along the shore. Mr. TALBOT. While this subject is being discussed I wish to draw the attention are great number of them, however, are being caught and turned to some useful purpose. It is also not an uncommon thing for fish to decay before they are taken out of the water. Occasionally a fisherman's net sinks, and when he is able to find it, with a quantity of fish in it, they are of no use except for manure. The 'difficulty of going for a permit in isolated cases of this kind would be great, and I trust that in the regulations which may be made the minister will keep that in mind. The idea of the minister is a good one. He wishes to preserve the fisheries, and of course we all agree in that object. But I trust the regulations will permit exceptions to be made in the case of destructive fish, and also in cases where it would be to the advantage of everybody that these fish that are not fit for food may be used as manure. I also agree with my hon. friend from Antigonish in what he says of steam trawlers. The steam trawlers operating on the banks chiefly owned outside of Canada; they are increasing in number. A few years ago they were almost unknown on our coast, although there are many of them in in use in Britain and in the North Sea. But they are coming across the Atlantic now to operate on the banks of Newfoundland, and along the coast of Nova Scotia. They are very destructive engines. They catch not only the mature fish that are fit for food, but they also catch the small ones. The trawler is a steamboat that drags a large net along the bottom of the sea, with a wide mouth, and it takes in are everything, both small and large. The small ones are crushed to pieces at the end of the net, and I suppose twenty-five per cent of the fish caught in these trawlers are of no use whatever for food, because they are too small and immature. I think you will find, on investigation, that they have destroyed the fisheries to a large extent in the North sea, and it would be a good thing if we could keep them away from the Atlantic coast altogether. It would require, of course, international arrangements to do that. I have no doubt that the government of the United States would be quite willing to enter into arrangements by which these trawlers would be prohibited on the banks and along the coast of eastern Canada. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the minister on several occasions. As the hon. member for Antigonish has mentioned it, I merely wish to say that I am in full accord with him, and I would like to see something done in that connection. Mr. J. HAGGART. Why is it necessary that there should be a permit issued by the government to enable persons to catch these deleterious fish, that are such an injury to other fish, and sell them for manure? Mr. SINCLAIR. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there should be no permit necessary in the case of fish that are not fit for food and are better destroyed. Of course, it is different in the case of mackerel, herring, codfish or any of the food fishes. If these food fishes are caught and used as fertilizer it should be stopped, but I trust that the minister will not ask for any permit for catching and destroying fish' that are better destroyed. Mr. SPROULE. Should not that have been included in the reference to this In. ternational Fishery Commission, and have been dealt with as well? I notice in the last part of the resolution the words: proclamation the regulations prepared by the Providing for the bringing into force by International Fisheries Commission between Great Britain and the United States, now before the House. I did not understand that these words were before the House. I understood the minister to say, when the orders of the day were called, and in answer to my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), that they would be ready in a short time, and that he would be prepared to go over them with my hon. friend. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. The proposed regulations prepared by the commission were brought down in the shape of a return, and have been printed and circulated. Mr. SPROULE. What was it that the minister referred to in answering my hon. friend from Selkirk? He spoke of fishery regulations. Mr. J. HAGGART. Those were in reference to Manitoba. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. Yes, they were brought down in the shape of a return, and they have been printed. The treaty under which these regulations have been framed provides that they shall be brought into force by joint proclamation of the two gov. ernments at a date to be fixed in the future. I assume that they will be brought into force in time for the fishing operations of this year, but this resolution provides that the Fishery Act may be amended in such a way as to empower the government to proclaim these fishery regulations. It has been deemed advisable by the Justice De COMMONS 5912 our fisherThose engaged practically had to last year, and the men along the shores. in partment that the power of proclaiming ment in the matter does not to any these regulations as law should be in the substantial Act. I may say, in regard to what my hon. friends from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) have said in connection with the catching of these voracious fish, that it is thought necessary to have some amendment to the present law, The present law reads that No one shall catch fish for the purpose of using it as manure'; consequently, every person who takes dog-fish and converts it into fertilizer is violating the Act as it stands. Our desire is to amend that clause and give the minister power to define what fish or marine animals may be used as fertilizer. If it is done by means of permit, there will be no difficulty in granting permits to any persons who want them. It is merely to define what fish and marine animals may be used for this purpose. I know that at the present moment on the Pacific ocean there is a company aiming at the capturing of sea-lion, hair-seal and dog-fish for the purpose of converting them into fertilizer. There is no question that a permit should be given to any person who will capture and convert them into fertilizer. I am advised with regard to trawlers, that as soon as a trawler was brought to this coast from Europe-I believe there is only one on the Atlantic coast at the present time an order in council was passed prohibiting the operation of that trawler within the three-mile limit and within bays. I would assume that outside of the three-mile limit, this government has no control, and it would be a matter of international regulation. the three-mile limit the use of trawlers, At all events, within which my hon. friends say is very destructive to fish, has been prohibited. the three mile limit. I Mr. WM. CHISHOLM. It is quite true that an order in council has been passed prohibiting the operation of these trawlers within the three mile limit. true that as far as the Canadian parliament It is also is concerned it has not jurisdiction beyond ter of international regulation. That is a matsubmit that the time has come when the But, department or the government might seriously consider the making of some international arrangement whereby the operation of these trawlers could be prevented or controlled. It is a fact that along the shores of Nova Scotia the fishermen have to set their trawls outside the three mile limit; they have to go five or six miles out. I know that along the shores of Antigonish county when the steam trawler Wren,' was operating last year, and the year before the fishermen had to take up their gear because they were afraid it would be destroyed by the steam trawler. lation which has been passed, and which The reguexhausts the jurisdiction of the governMr. TEMPLEMAN. ed with destruction by this trawler. The year before. Their gear trawler, while manoeuvring during its was threatenoperations, will destroy the nets of the fishermen without those in control of it being conscious of the fact, and I would urge upon the acting minister, as I have urged upon the minister, that the matter be taken up as soon as possible, and some regulaall events, within six miles of the coast. tions brought about to prevent the operation of the trawler within ten miles, or, at in the bays, and harbours of Canada, but The order in council prohibits fishing withwhat is the meaning of bays and harbours? The Americans have put a certain construcmiles from the shore, following the sinuostion on it. They claim it means three ities of the coast. The Canadians have always contended that the three mile limit measuring from headland to headland. If means three miles outside of the land the Canadian interpretation were followed it would not make so bad a situation for our fishermen, but as it is, the practice being to follow the sinuosities of the shore in determining the extra territorial limit our fishermen are subjected to great annoyance and injury by these trawlers. I would request that an endeavour should it is contended could control its own subbe made to prevent this. This government dians to engage in this kind of fishing jetcs, and make it illegal for any Canawhich is very destructive. But if such an attempt were made the same thing would The moment Canadians were forbidden to happen here as happened in the old country. fish in trawlers, they would fly some other flag, possibly the French flag. A number outside the three mile limit, and the deof French trawlers are fishing on the banks partment could not stultify itself by prohibiting Canadians from what other French that kind was passed in Scotland some and other fishermen do. A regulation of Scotch and English trawlers registered in time ago, and the instant it was done and then they could fish outside the three mile limit of Scotland with impunity. The a Norwegian port flew the Norwegian flag, only way to relieve the situation, and save the fishermen is to have some international regulation made prohibiting the operation of trawlers at least within six miles or ten miles of our coast. regulations would be that a time is already Mr. HENDERSON. My reading of the fixed in some instances for the coming into fishermen are relying on the wording of force of the regulations. In my section the the regulations as given out by Dr. Starr Jordan and Professor Prince, and are governing themselves accordingly. For example with reference to the size of a mesh for taking small fish in Lake Ontario we are told: No gill net or other movable net of less than four and three-fourths inches mesh, extension measure, as actually used in fishing, shall be drawn, set, placed, or maintained for whitefish or lake trout in these treaty waters. No gill net or other movable net of less than three and one-eighth inches mesh, extension measure, as actually used in fishing, shall be drawn, set, placed or maintained in Lake Erie And this is the part to which I more particularly refer: -or of less than two and one-half inches mesh in Lake Huron, Lake Superior, and Lake Ontario, for fish other than whitefish or lake trout. The above restrictions shall take effect on and after January 1, 1911. The fishermen in my section quite understand that whatever may be done by the government in the way of a proclamation these regulations shall not be brought into force, at least those in regard to the size of the net, until January 1, 1911. I understand that the minister proposes to authorize under an Act of parliament a proclamation declaring when these regulations shall come into force. It is important that these regulations shall not be brought into force at once. The fishermen have large quantities of nets on hand, and if they are compelled to use a mesh even one-eighth of an inch larger than what they are using now, it would be a serious matter for them, as they would have to throw away their nets and purchase new ones. I hope the minister will not bring the regulations into force at an earlier date than January 1, 1911; 1 would rather impress on him the necessity for extending the time for bringing these regulations into force for another year. The nets the fishermen now have will last for two years from the first of January last, and it would be only fair to the fishermen to allow them to use their present nets until they are worn out, especially as the difference in size is so very slight, Mr. TEMPLEMAN. The authority that is taken under the resolution is to empower the Governor General by proclamation to bring into force the international regulations prepared by the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the treaty signed at Washington, April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the United States concerning the fisheries in waters contiguous to Canada and the United States. With regard to the date on which these regulations shall be brought into force, if I remember rightly, under the treaty both governments have to proclaim them as taking effect on a certain date. We might, with the concurrence of the United States government, fix the first of January 1911 as that date. It is quite true, as my hon. friend says, that the first of January, 1911, is mentioned in one of the regulations as the date on which it shall take effect, which is rather peculiar, in view of the fact that the regulations might not be proclaimed until after that date. However, I think it is the desire of both the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and of the United States government that these regulations should be proclaimed so as to have effect during the fishing season of 1911. It is not deemed possible to have the regulations effective before that date, and therefore it is not at all probable that they will be proclaimed as taking effect before that. Mr. HENDERSON. What time of the year would the hon. minister consider to be the fishing season? The class of fishing to which I refer is carried on all the year round, except perhaps during the warmer weather in summer. Some of the regulations may be brought into force sooner than others; but there would be nothing lost to the department by extending the time even for another year in the case of the regulation to which I refer, as there is only of an inch difference in the size of the nets. I hope that the minister, in preparing any legislation in gard to this matter, will deal as leniently with the fishermen as he possibly can. re Mr. SINCLAIR. When the minister said that there was only one trawler operating o our coast, I presume he meant one Canadian trawler. There has been a large increase in this method of fishing in the last few years. In 1907, according to statistics there were seven French which I have, trawlers which came across the Atlantic and operated on the banks of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland; in 1908 there were fourteen; and last year there were about thirty. They have been a great annoyance to the regular fishermen on the coast, both Canadian and American, and I am informed that there are no other trawlers at all operating on the Atlantic coast. These trawlers are nearly all owned in France, banks on the coast of Nova Scotia are the and they are invading our waters. These breeding ground of the codfish and the haddock, which are the fish we have; and if they continue to operate there, I have no doubt that these valuable fisheries will be destroyed. Therefore, I wish to impress upon the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries and on the Prime Minister the importance of dealing with this question if there is any possibility of obtaining international arrangements by which these trawlers will be prohibited from operating on the banks. few years ago arrangements were made most valuable A COMMONS 5916 change made by Professor Prince, and the Mr. J. A. CURRIE. Has there been any representative of the United States? Mr. TEMPLEMAN. No. stand just as they are? Mr. TEMPLEMAN. I understand so. government made representations asking ledge of the department. Not to the know by which the seal fisheries of the Pacific coast were protected by international law, and I consider that the protection of the breeding grounds of the codfish and the haddock on the Atlantic coast is of equal importance. I have the best reason for believing that the government of the United States would join with the government of Canada in anything that could be done to prohibit that mode of fishing. The banks on which these fish are found are not very large or numerous. They are confined to a few hundred miles, and there is a large fleet of Canadian and American vessels engaged on these banks. The method of fishing is to put their gear into fishermen's the water, leave it for a time, and then of the department to stand by these regutake it up. In the meantime, these traw-lations or does it intend permitting changes lers come along and destroy it, so. when the fishermen take un their that to be made? they find only a few remnants left, and often their whole outfit is swept away. trust that the matter will be dealt with I seriously, and that if possible international arrangements will be made to control or prohibit parties engaged in this destructive method of fishing. gear, no Mr. TEMPLEMAN. The question which my hon. friend has raised is a very large one, of an international character, and we cannot at the moment make any declaration. If we are going to have regulations dealing with trawl fishing, there is doubt that it will be necessary for the United States, Great Britain, France and all other countries engaged in that industry to participate. I do not know whether in the past any negotiations have taken place looking for the regulation of trawl fishing. I am aware that trawlers coming to both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. We have power to regulate them only within the three-mile limit, and that has been done on both coasts. I will direct the attention of the Marine and Fisheries to the observations Minister of of my hon. friend in 'Hansard', and will impress upon him the importance of giving full consideration to this question. are Mr. J. A. CURRIE. I wish to ask the minister if the regulations set out in this return have been adopted by the American government without any change beyond what is shown here. I understand that some objection was taken to them and that efforts were made to have some changes made in them. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. The regulations Mr. J. A. CURRIE. Is it the intention proclaim these regulations just as soon as Mr. TEMPLEMAN. The intention is to must act concurrently. the United States government do. become the law of both countries on the We The regulations that changes may be made from year to same day, but I think the treaty provides missioners. year on the unanimous decision of the com Mr. J. A. CURRIE. This return shows the two commissioners, but I understand what regulations are agreed upon between that representations have been made to the United States to have changes made, and Professor Prince has been in WashingWashington by some parties interested in ton again. I would like to know, because some of my constituents are interested, ment to permit any changes? whether it is the intention of the govern the department has no knowledge of any Mr. TEMPLEMAN. I am informed that proposal to make any change, and does not know that the American fishing interests as the regulations have been agreed to, no are asking for any. I would assume that, changes will be made, but I think the treaty itself provides for the making of changes from year to year on the unanimous consent of the commission. government virtually say in the treaty that Mr. J. A. CURRIE. The United States they are going to secure the assent of the various states interested to a proclamation carrying into effect these international regulations. The minister is no doubt aware that, so far as the great lakes are have not been adopted by either govern-eries belong to the states, and are held by concerned, any property rights in the fishment and will not be adopted until they the states, and that the various states have are proclaimed concurrently by both gov- different regulations. ernments. The regulations as printed were regulations of New York state, on Lake OnFor instance the agreed to by the two commissioners, and it tario, and those on Lakes Erie and Huron, simply remains for the sanction of both are different. It was suggested, at the time governments to make them law. That, I understand, is the present position the treaty was made, that it would be advisable to have the control, and the regu Mr. SINCLAIR |