Mr. McKENZIE:

I would suggest to the minister that this measure is capable of causing a great deal of hardship to fishermen. Take my own county. There is a large fishing establishment in the northern part of Victoria county which puts up five hundred barrels of what they call No. 1 Herring, and which they sell as such to Smith Brothers, or some other big fishing firm, in Halifax, at say $8 a barrel. The firm believe that they are selling No. 1 Herring, and they have so put it up. However we have not yet reached the millennium in commercial matters, nor the acme of perfection in square dealing. It is quite possible, therefore, that some person who desires to get cheap herring may have those herring examined in Halifax by an inspector who will say that they are not No. 1 Herring, and then the whole fat is in the fire. The people who sold those herring as No. 1 herring cannot get the price for that grade, although they acted quite honestly in the matter. I would say that the inspection must fake place before the fish is shipped, if it is to take place at all, and before delivery is taken, otherwise there will be no end of trouble, lawsuits and dissatisfaction, and much heartburning among the poor fishermen.

As the 'hon. minister is aware, deep-sea fishing is a very arduous occupation, entailing long hours and, sometimes in our part of the country, facing the full sweep of the Atlantic in all its terrors, and the fisherman has enough to contend with at present without inflicting , this inspection upon him, for it will make things worse than they are now. Therefore, in the interest of everybody concerned, I would enjoin upon the hon. minister the greatest possible caution in dealing with this matter to avoid creating unnecessary difficulties.

To-day a very excellent quality of fish is being sold in Nova Scotia, and it is in our own interest to sell good fish, for we have to compete with Newfoundland, Sweden, Norway and other countries. I hear very little complaint about the quality of fish sold in Canada brought either from the Pacific coast or from the Atlantic coast.

I would suggest to the hon. minister to do what he proposes to do about that small can and big Act of Parliament. He proposes to cut down the big Act of Parliament to suit the can. In this case, if there are too many officials and they have nothing to do I think it would be well to find something else for them to do or send them about their business. Do not try to legislate difficulties

in order to give them work; have greater care for the fishermen than furnishing unnecessary labour for too big an army of officials.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

I quite agree with the point my hon. friend makes, and I apprehend there will be a great deal of criticism in reference to this Bill just upon the point to which he refers. However, if the Bill is eventually adopted, I hope it will not work an injury to the fishermen. If it results in placing upon the market a better fish it will also result, I think, in higher prices being secured by the fishermen.

Resolution reported, read and concurred in.

Mr. A. K. Maolean thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41 to amend the Fish Inspection Act:

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

The changes proposed in the Bill are not very numerous. The Weights and Measures Act heretofore was administered in the Department of Inland Revenue, but last year it was transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. One of the amendments is to substitute the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue in the Act for that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There is a slight amendment in reference to the

French measure or Paris foot. Iln the province of Quebec the French foot is used in land surveying, but only in such cases, I understand. The French foot is defined under the amending Bill as equal to 12.780 inches instead of 12.79, a correction of .001. This amendment is made at the request of the Incorporated (Society of Surveyors in the province of Quebec. Another amendment proposes annual instead of bi-annual inspection, but-

Mr. McKENZIE:

Before the hon. minister leaves the former amendment, does it change the length of the surveying standard of measurement in the province of Quebec? It seems to me that in the description and measurement of lands that are already sold or may be under sale it may create a difficulty and possibly involve very serious losses.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

I do not think you could get much of a lawsuit out of .001.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I know of a very serious lawsuit which arose out of the fact that the drip from the edge of the shingles on the roof of a man's house fell on to the other man's land. It was a case of trespass, so it does not require very much to cause a lawsuit.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

If there was any danger of the amendment provoking a lawsuit, it perhaps should not be in the Bill. If my hon. friend will think over the matter in the meantime, I shall be glad to have his views. The Bill will also provide for an annual instead of biennial inspection, but there will be power in the Bill to make regulations to the effect that scales which are not used frequently need not be inspected so often. One of the reasons for making an annual inspection is that in the case of public scales, mine scales, grain elevator scales, etc., which are in constant use, it is felt that the inspection should be more frequent. The law as it now stands requires the payment of the inspection fee immediately after the inspection is made, the Bill purposes giving power to the officers of the department to make arrangements by which these inspection fees may be paid annually. For instance, in the case of elevator companies which may own twenty to fifty elevators, it may not always be convenient to have the inspection fee paid at the place where the elevator is located.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Why?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

In many cases there may be no responsible representative

of the company there present to whom the money can be entrusted. It might not be convenient to make immediate payment, and such companies would like the privilege of paying the fees annually from their head office.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

From the head office?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

Yes.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):

This

resolution provides for the appointment of a superintendent. Has the minister any person in view, and what will the salary

be?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

This provision 'was made necessary because the Act was administered by the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue. That position has been abandoned, and as there is now no such officer as Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, it is necessary to put somebody in his place to administer the Act.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Is the French foot going to disappear, or is the Bill to be founded on this resolution simply defining it so as to make it tally with the Government standard measure in the Act?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

Paragraph 2 of the Bill will repeal the old section and substitute the following:

The foot, French measure or Paris foot, shall he held to oontain twelve inches and seven hundred and eighty-nine thousandths of an inch standard measure.

That is the standard for land surveying purposes in Quebec only.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Is it intended to make the standard in the rest of the Dominion conform to the present standard in Quebec?

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

No, Quebec is the only province in which the French foot is the standard measure in land surveying. t

Mr. MURPHY:

You would not apply it in Ontario?