August 8, 1904

LIB

Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).

I have no hesitation in giving an answer to the member for St. John (Mr. Daniel). The matter is a very simple one, and without going through the whole question I may say that proceedings were taken last year against certain fishermen in Gloucester county, who chiefly resided in Bathurst. The. proceedings were taken under the following circumstances : Licenses had been granted by the Dominion government to a number of these fishermen at a distance of from four to 'four and a half miles from the estuary of the river which is being exploited and is rented to a club called the Anglers' Association. On the representation of that body that licenses had been granted in previous years near to the estuary of the river, the Department of Marine and Fisheries refused to issue these licenses, and, as I have stated, issued licenses at a distance of about four and a half miles. It appears that this coast of New Brunswick is subject to very frequent storms, and that the fishermen pursue their avocation there under very great difficulty. They were instructed by the fishery overseer to lift up their nets as high as possible under the circumstances, and they followed his instructions. It appears from the documents that it is not according to the letter of the law to lift up these nets in the way they were lifted, and a gentleman of the name of Gilbert, representing the Anglers' Association, instituted proceedings in his own name against ten of these fishermen. One of the cases was brought before a magistrate of the name of O'Brien, and tried. After the evidence had been put in and the case argued, the defendant was found guilty and condemned to pay a flue of $30 and costs, which, according to the information, amounted to about $30 more. It was shown during the trial that the fishermen had followed exactly the instruc-

8784'

tions of the fishery overseer. That was proven by the overseer himself, who went before the court and swore to the facts. The convicted party, named Ronalds appealed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries against the decision. After con-sultng the Department of Justice, and after looking into the case myself, I came to the conclusion that it would be unjust to maintain such a decision, because the department or its officers were responsible for any illegal act, if there was any, w7hich I deny, for which this party was condemned.

I considered it a case of persecution pure and simple, and decided under the circumstances the fine should be remitted. This did not satisfy Mr. Gilbert, who appealed to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. That court maintained the decision of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. To show the spirit in which these actions have been taken against these poor fishermen, I may say that the other cases, which were suspended last year, have been taken up again this year by Mr. Gilbert, and I have in my hand a protest against these proceedings, on the part of the fishermen who were in the same position as Mr. Ronalds. The following is a telegram addressed to Mr. Turgeon, M.P.:

Geo. Gilbert has brought on postponed cases of last summer similar to one decided in our favour by Supreme Court and to-day hearing was adjourned to Monday next. Lay matter before Department of Fisheries and explain if possible that department protect us before magistrates court, as we are being prosecuted for carrying out the instructions of department officials and regulations governing salmon licenses. Please wire result of negotiations to P. J. Benoit. Decision of Supreme Court seems to have no effect on sitting magistrate.

James Armstrong, Ephraim Scott, Abel Ellis, Jane White, Louisa Jennings, Robert Miller, , Herbert Buttimer, Jos. Scott, Richard Miller, Fred. Ronalds, John Eddy.

As I have no Jtirisdiction over the magistrate, I have not interfered with this action.

It will be time for the department to intervene if the case proceeds in the same way as the Ronalds case. With regard to the point that the department was being criticised for having issued these licenses, the report says : -

It is worthy of note that on the urgent representations of the anglers, a salmon net fish- . ing license which had been issued to James , Gammon, in Bathurst Harbour during 1902, was this year refused, thus in this case meeting 1 the most extreme demands. 1

A crusade has this year been instituted ] against the net fishermen by the anglers, on i the plea that their nets are not sufficiently i raised during the weekly close time to afford a . strict compliance with the law, and the case * of the present appellant is only one of many 1 in contemplation, if not already begun.

I read these extracts from the report made 1 to me by one of the officers of the depart- i Mr. PREFONTAINE.

ment, Mr. Yenning, in order to show that everything had been done to protect the anglers of that river, and that there is no reason whatever to complain of the non-execution of the law. The fact that the judgment of the department was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and the other facts which I lay before the House, show that there was no ground whatever for complaint against the department, for intervening to protect these poor men who are earning their living in the fisheries. The department gave instructions, those instructions were not contrary to law, and I felt that it was the duty of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to protect those men against a persecution of this character.

Topic:   FISHING REGULATIONS.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. G. W. FOWLER.

The hon. minister has scarcely given us a correct statement of, the facts of this case. In the first place, he says that his decision was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. I am instructed that that is not the case. Only three judges out of the total bench of six expressed themselves on the decision of the hon. minister, and those three were adverse to it.

Topic:   FISHING REGULATIONS.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Will my hon. friend allow me ? I did not know that a discussion would arise on this matter. On Saturday evening it came up on the motion to go into Committee of Supply ; and, unless the hon. gentleman moves the adjournment, the discussion at this time is irregular.

Topic:   FISHING REGULATIONS.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

I will conclude with that motion. I am instructed that the three judges who gave judgment on the point decided that the minister was wrong in what he had done, and that the other three judges did not give any opinion upon that particular point, but decided against tbe mandamus on the ground that it was not necessary because the prosecutor could idemuify the magistrate and have the executions issued. So that when the hon. minister says that his judgment was maintained by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick be makes a statement which is not in accordance with the facts. One of my reasons why this is not a simple matter is the fact that it constitutes an interference with provincial rights, and I am rather surprised that a member coming from the province of Quebec, which has always stood for provincial rights, should have committed this unwarranted interference with the rights of a province as the Minister of Marine has done in this case. These nets and other devices used for the purpose of catching salmon along the shores of bays prevent the entrance of fish into the river. Now tile riparian rights to these rivers are owned by the people who live along their banks and by the provincial government, and the Dominion has nothing to do

[DOT]with them. The riparian rights on these rivers derive their value from the salmon, and if the salmon are prevented going up them, then these rights would be worth nothing, and the large yearly sums which the provincial treasury derives from the leasing of these rights will be lost to the province. The law is very explicit. Subsection 7 of section 14 of the Fishery Act provides :

No one shall use a bag-net, trap-net or fish-pound, except under a special license, granted for capturing deep sea fish other than salmon.

This man had no license, and the evidence clearly shows that he was using a trap-net in violation of the law. I submit that the minister had no right to give the decision he did, and to add to the injustice, he not only remitted the flue but the costs as well. My contention is that the Act, which gives him a certain discretion as regards the penalty, does not give him any right to remit the costs. Just look at the injustice and hardship of the thing. Here is an Anglers' Association which paid a large sum of money for a certain privilege. Surely they ought to get the benefit of that privilege, whatever it may be worth. Finding that some one was illegally preventing the association enjoying tire fruits of that privilege, they appealed to the courts, and the magistrate decided against the offender and imposed a penalty besides the costs. But the minister, who knows nothing of the circumstances, acting upon the advice of a political supporter who represents the county, remits not only the penalty but also the costs. It may be all right for the minister to remit the penalty because that does not go into the pocket of the prosecutor, but he has no right to remit the costs which are supposed to recoup the prosecutor for the expenses of the suit. That certainly was a clear violation of law and reason. In addition to this prohibition against the use of trap-nets, the Act also provides that any net used for the purpose of catching salmon along the coast must be taken up at six o'clock Saturday night aijd remain up until six o'clock: Sunday night, or twenty-four hours at least. One day out of seven shall be allowed the fish to go into their spawning ground. Surely the fisherman, when he has six days out of seven to cast his nets, ought to be satisfied and leave the seventh for the fish to go to their spawning ground. But these avaricious gentlemen, these persons desiring to break the Sabbath, will give the poor fish no chance at all to reproduce themselves. Apart from that, the hon. minister has done very serious injustice to the members of the Anglers' Association and the prosecutor who represented them, and has set a very bad precedent. He has shown that all these violators of the law need is a little pull with their local member, and they may disregard utterly the provisions of the Act and the regulations passed for the purpose of protecting the fishery interests. Sir,

that interest is a very important one in the province of New Brunswick. The fact that these fish go, up these rivers is a means of bringing a very large amount of money to the treasury of the province. It attracts a very large amount of tourists and causes a large expenditure among the people and the giving employment to a considerable number. It is therefore of the greatest importance that nothing should be done to interfere' with the fish going up these rivers.

I trust that after this matter has been ventilated, the hon. minister will see that whatever he may do with respect to the penalty, he has no right to interfere with the costs and that he will undo the wrong as soon as possible.

Motion to adjourn, negatived.

Topic:   FISHING REGULATIONS.
Permalink

RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

?

Hon. H. R.@

EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolutions :-

1. In these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway ?

2. The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated), which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of 50 per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000.per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile:

1. To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Railway Company, for a railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 7 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 15 miles.

2. To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :

(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

'

teuil, and a point in the parish of St. Lawrence, in the county of Jacques Cartier, passing through the parishes of St. Placide, St. Eus-tache and St. Martin, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 10 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 38 miles.

10. From a line of railway from Lardo towards Upper Arrow Lake, British Columbia, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 28 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1901, not exceeding 30 miles.

11. To Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company, either for a line of railway from a point at or near Spence's Bridge on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nicola Lake, or for a line of railway from a point at Or near the village of Coutlee, southerly towards Princeton and Headley, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 26 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 45 miles.

12. To the Western Alberta Railway Company, from a point on the United States boundary, west of range 27, north-westerly towards Anthracite, in the district of Alberta, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 40 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1899, not exceeding 50 miles.

3. The Governor in Council may grant the " subsidy hereinafter mentioned towards the construction of the bridge also hereinafter meiitioned, that is to say :-[DOT]

1. To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, the balance remaining unpaid of the subsidy granted by item 33 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, for a single track standard railway bridge, with two roadways 10 feet wide, for vehicular traffic, the same as upon a public highway, from Bout de L'lle to Charlemagne at the junction of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, a sum not exceeding $51,000.

4. The subsidies hereby authorized towards the construction of any railway or bridge shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows :-

(a.) Upon completion of the work subsidized ; or

(b.) By instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the. cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or

(c.) Upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of ' Railways and Canals, that in his opinion, having regard for the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $30,000 : or

(d.) With respect to (b) and (c) part one way, part the other.

5. The subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways and bridge respectively ; all the lines for the bridge for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1904, and completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of

August, to be fixed by the Governor in Council and shall also be constructed according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said minister, which contract the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines and bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.

6. The granting of such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to the other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with the railways and bridge so subsidized, reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with the connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between ail such connecting railways ; and the Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and the bridge hereby subsidized.

7. Every company receiving a subsidy hereunder, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized hereunder, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the line in respect of which it has received each subsidy, and whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service ; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being performed, and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in or towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to three per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company hereunder.

8. As respects all railways and the bridge for which subsidies are hereby granted, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways, shall, when required, produce and exhibit to tlfe Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers, showing the cost of constructing the railway or bridge, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.

9. The Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided, or any heretofore authorized by any Act of parliament, as to which a contract has not yet been entered into with the company for the construction of the railway, that the company shall lay its road with new steel rails, made in Canada, if they are procurable in Canada of suitable quality, upon terms as favourable as other rails can be obtained, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the judge.

10. Whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of hallway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, and his certificate that

he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profiles of the whole line so contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means of transport available for construction, naming the probable and reasonable cost of such construction, may, with the authorization of the Governor in'Council, enter into a supplementary agreement, fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to be paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer, and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinary subsidy of $3,200 per mile, together with the 60 per cent of the difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any ; and the balance, 40 per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole work subsidized, and1 in so far as the actual cost, as finally determined by the chief engineer, entitles the company thereto ; provided always :

(a.) That the estimated cost, so certified, is not less on the average than $18,000 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;

(b.) That no payment shall be made except upon a certificate of the chief engineer that the work is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;

(c.) That in no case shall the subsidy exceed $6,400 per mile.

He saidThese subsidies are only revotes. There are none additional since last session of parliament.

Mr. 'SPROULE. That is a very brief ex planation. Am I correct in understanding that there are no subsidies for new railways ?

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

None. All are revotes.

Mr. iSPROTJILE. There seem to be cases where the subsidy is changed from one company to another.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

A change in words ; that is all. They are merely renewals of votes about to expire.

Mr. SPROULE, It would be important to know in what cases the change of the subsidy is made from one company to another, and why. But I suppose that can be taken up on the several items.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolutions. 1. In these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon ithe recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and



careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway ?


CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. IIAGGART.

I take it that there is no change in this resolution from the former one.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

Perhaps the government will tell us now whether it is their intention, in connection with these subsidies, to make it a condition that the employment of alien labour shall be prevented.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

I think that the Bill we discussed on Saturday, to which the hon. member (Mr. Alex. Johnston) refers, will not secure the end we have in view. We set out to hav.e a national transcontinental railway, and we understood that it was to be built by Canadian engineers and Canadian workmen. But that has hot been quite secured. We are trying to secure that end by an Alien Labour law. But I say it should have been attained by making it a condition of the payment of immense sums of money to that railway, and the sain.* thing should apply to these subsidies. If we intend to keep out alien labour, that is only one way to do it I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to take that step ?

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

We have provided for that by a Bill that was passed. I think it is quite enough to cover the case.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACILEAN.

I suppose the Prime Minister speaks by the book, and that the measure he refers to will go through the Senate. But if it does not, these subsidies will be voted without making any provisions against the employment of alien labour.

1. To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Rail-M'ay Company, for a railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 7 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 15 miles.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. EMMEBSON.

This is simply providing that the subsidy shall go to a certain company. Originally it was a general vote.

2. To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :-

(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the town of Bruce Mines, on Lake Huron, a distance not exceeding three miles ;

(b.) For the 6 miles of railway constructed from Gordon Lake station, being the end of its line as subsidized by chapter 7 of 1901, northward to Rock lake, a distance of 6 miles ;

(c.) For 12 miles from Rock lake northward, a distance not exceding 12 miles.

The subsidies to the said lines being granted in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 38 of Mr. SPROULE.

section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 21 miles.

Topic:   RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Permalink
CON

August 8, 1904