The inspector is looking after the hatchery. An expert was sent up there to see about it.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
Is it the intention of the government to appoint a separate officer as manager of the hatchery ?
Not at present
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Before the item passes, I would like to ascertain the views of the Minister of Justice with regard to the necessity of having questions as to the respective rights of the Dominion and the provinces in the fisheries again submitted to the courts. I understood the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries to tell us last year that it was, in his opinion, necessary, or, at least, desirable, that some other question should be submitted. I think, also, he expressed his intention of having that course adopted at an early day. From the views that have been put forward by my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), apparently the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not correct in the views he then expressed. I would like to know the views of the Minister of Justice with regard to that, and whether he considers it necessary to adopt such a course.
The judgment of the Privy Council, is in my opinion, extremely confused and indistinct. In fact, were I not speaking of a decision of the highest court of the empire, I would be tempted to say that it is self-contradictory in its terms. However, I think we can safely say that there are two points which are firmly and clearly established. One is that the provinces have all the territorial powers as regards fisheries, and the other- but I had better read from the text so as to have it absolutely correct:-
That the enactment of fishery regulations and restrictions is within the exclusive competence of the Dominion legislature and is not within the powers of the provincial legislatures.
Therefore, we have this condition of things, it seems to me, that the territorial rights as regards the fisheries are vested in I the provinces and that the regulating of
the fisheries is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. Now, in my view, speaking without very much preparation on the subject, I would be inclined to consider that the federal government can, irrespective of locality, declare that no one shall fish generally without paying a fishing fee or tax to the department; that they can also determine the close season, regulate the size of boats, license the boats-they can do all those things that have reference to the general regulation of the fisheries. Coming to the special question which the leader of the opposition has put, I would be disposed to say that the Dominion and the provinces might get together and, through their representatives, come to an agreement as to how this judgment is to be construed. If they are not prepared to do that, then, because of the vague and indistinct terms in which the judgment is couched it will be necessary to submit further questions to the court for the purpose of construing the judgment of the Privy Council.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Does my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) understand that the duty of protection would follow the territorial rights or the power of regulation ?
I think that would follow the power of regulation. In fact, I think there are very much larger powers vested in the Dominion than is at the present time generally admitted.. I think the provinces are under an entirely erroneous impression with regard to this judgment. They are told virtually, if I may interpret the judgment: You are the proprietors of this property, but you have no control over it. I think the sooner we define and settle these questions the better for all concerned. The present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. James Sutherland) has begun discussing the matter with the department ; and, if I -may say so, I am ready to take the matter up and have it disposed of almost immediately. It may be anomalous to ask a court to construe its own judgment, but if we are forced to that *conclusion, the fault is not entirely ours.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
There is one *other matter I would like to say a word about, and to this I would ask the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is a matter I brought to the attention of the late minister. In a great many cases we find very small salaries paid to fishery inspectors accompanied by very large travelling expenses. At page P-109, of the Auditor General's Report, we find a salary of $218.75 accompanied with a charge of $746 for travelling expenses ; another salary of $187.50 with travelling expenses of $507.05. On the following page we find ' salary, $175 ; travel, $562.73.' And on the same page a salary of $187.50 is accom-184
panied by travelling expenses of $603.01. The explanation made by the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries last year was that the travelling expenses were really a part of the salary ; that the inspector went out with his own horse and buggy, and sent in vouchers as if he had spent so much money in travelling, though, in fact, he had spent no money, but had used his own conveyance.
I think it would be better to put these things on a proper basis. If this is part of the salary let it be paid as part of the salary and not entered as fictitious travelling expenses.
It is quite true, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says that comparatively small salaries are accompanied by comparatively large charges for travelling expenses. I am assured by the officers of the department that these matters are very closely scrutinized, and that in no case that may be investigated will it be found that these are paid as part of a salary. The districts, in some cases, are very large, and the inspectors have to travel by hiring horses and rigs. They are allowed a fixed rate of ten cents per mile of travel, twenty-five cents for each meal, twenty-five cents for horse-feed, and twenty-five cents for a bed. These accounts are sent in and sworn to by the parties, and are carefully investigated by the department. Whether any other system can be adopted that will be better while securing equal efficiency, I could not say. I will look into the matter.
Will the hon. minister say who is the inspector of fisheries at the town of Wallaceburgb, Ont., and what is his salary ?
I do not find in the list any officer at Wallaceburgh.
I think if the hon. minister will make inquiries he will find that there is a gentleman acting in that capacity there.
I am assured by the officers of the department that we have no officer there.
Building and maintenance of fish breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries, $60,000.
There is an increase of $10,000 owing to four new hatcheries having been established during the year, one at Margaree, in Nova Scotia, a combined salmon and lobster hatchery, one at Gaspe, and two salmon hatcheries in British Columbia, one at Bedford Creek and the other at Skeena River.
How many hatcheries have we now altogether, and what are they for ?
There are fourteen now. One at Newcastle, Out., for salmon; one at Sandwich, Ont., whitefish; Ottawa, salmon and trout; Quebec, salmon; Magog, salmon and trout; Gaspe Basin, salmon and lobsters; Campbelltown, N.B., salmon; South River, N.B., salmon; Grand Falls, N.B., salmon; Bedford, N.B., salmon and trout; Bay View, N.S., lobsters; Margaree, N.S., salmon; Selkirk, Man., whitefish; New Westminster, B.C., salmon; Battle Creek, B.C., salmon.
Last year I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that there were splendid opportunities for establishing fish hatcheries on the Georgian Bay. The place where they collect fish fry for their hatcheries is about 300 miles distant from here. It seems to me it would be a better plan to establish a hatchery in close proximity to where the fish fry is collected, because it would sustain less injury in transportation. There are several streams entering into the Georgian Bay that I believe would be very suitable places for fish hatcheries. One especially at the Beaver River, which enters into Georgian Bay at Thornbury-I do not think there could be a better place found in Canada for a fish hatchery for salmon, trout and whitefish. Salmon, trout and whitefish fry are collected there and also at Meaford. There is only one other hatchery on these waters, that at Sarnia, none on the Georgian Bay whatever. The minister last year promised to give it some attention, and I inferred he would consider the matter favourably during the summer. But although three new hatcheries have been established since then, or are in process of being established, I see he has overlooked my request entirely. As the present minister is an Ontario man and knows the locality well, I merely direct his attention to it. There is very little distribution of public money in these constituencies up there. I think the business could be carried on more economically there than down here, where fish fry have to be brought some hundreds of miles before they are deposited in the hatchery.
In accordance with the promise made by the minister last year, the officers of the department inform me that an investigation has been made regarding this matter, and probably a vote will be put into the supplementaries this year to carry out the project the hon. gentleman refers to.
I am glad to see the additional amount here, because I think there is nothing we can do that adds more to our national wealth than the development of fishing industries. I had hoped that a portion of this money would be spent in the Bay of Fundy or in the county of Charlotte. I would like to have seen one Liberal promise carried out. The late Minister of Mar-Mr. SPROULE.
ine and Fisheries and the Minister of Railways and Canals, when they were down there certainly promised that a fish hatchery should be one of their first considerations. In a business point of view there is no location in the country in which a hatchery would add so much to the national wealth as it would in the county of Charlotte. The fish hatcheries, some of them at least, such as the lobster hatcheries on the Nova Scotia coast, I think at Bay View, are providing lobsters chiefly for canning. The hatchery on the Bay of Fundy, as the hon. member for St. John will admit, would furnish a class of lobsters that bring 18 or 20 cents alive. The fact that we are so close to the American market certainly makes that location one of the best in the lower provinces for such a hatchery. I hope the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries will, at his earliest convenience, take this matter into consideration. Those waters in years past have been teeming with lobsters, and so far as a feeding ground is concerned, no doubt the biological report will show there are no waters in the country better fitted for propagating lobsters than the waters of Charlotte county.
I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he makes provision for any lobster hatcheries in New Brunswick ?