Then, I was misunderstood. I am not posted enough on the question to tell the committee what the regulations will be, but the regulations will be decided by the officers having regard to the practice in other countries where purse seines are authorized, and I suppose the regulations would provide for the use of so many purse seines within, say, a distance of fifty miles, because, it is impossible to have more than that number and, of course, those who apply first and who can fulfil the conditions will get the preference. I do not see how we could do otherwise. I suppose that one of the regulations which has been enforced by the department for a couple of years will be continued and that is the regulation providing that there shall be no speculation in licenses. Licenses cannot be transferred without the authority of the department. Otherwise, there might be cases where ten or twenty persons might club together, get the licenses for a certain space and sell them. It is not the intention to permit such speculation.

Mr. CLARKE.

1 do not know enough about the methods of fishing on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to be able to form an opinion of much value, but it strikes me that if the hon. minister is authorized to issue these purse seine licenses to certain persons and to say who shall be permitted to use these purse seines that this proposition may be liable to grave abuse. If there are twenty persons engaged in fishing in a certain district and the hon. minister

69fi.fi

says that the territory is not wide enough to permit more than ten to prosecute the fishery, how will lie discriminate as between those who are to be allowed to fish with purse seines and those who are not allowed to fish with purse seines ?

The same way as we determine how many lobster licenses shall be granted in a certain district.

Mr. CLARKE.

Who does determine who gets them ?

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND I 1 HERIES. The officer in charge. It has been the custom to give the preference to the one who used to own the license. Sometimes it has been decided to increase the number and sometimes to decrease it, but the people are notified and nobody is taken by surprise.

Mr. CLARKE.

Some body is taken by surprise if twenty apply and only ten are granted licenses.

That, of course, is unavoidable.

Mr. KAFLBACH.

I am Inclined to think that the minister has taken quite a burden upon his shoulders, and lie will have difficulty in discriminating as to who are to receive licensfs and who are not.

It is the same in all other wa ters.

Mr. KAULBACH.

With regard to cur own waters I want to be understood as saying that if the Americans are allowed to operate with purse seines in the catch of mackerel or other fish, then our fishermen should be allowed to do likewise. Of course, if we could restrict the Americans from purse seining, I would wish to have some such arrangement made as was formerly in effect. My hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) says that they do catch fish with purse seines inside the three-mile limit, which means that they poach. If that is the case, it is all the greater reason for the government to have more patrol vessels on the coast to prevent such poaching. It is a serious matter when the shore fishermen find Americans coining down with fifty and sixty in a fleet and depleting the waters of fish, while our Canadians inshore are unable in their small boats to capture any. Therefore, I would say that some arrangement should be made by which we could place ourselves in an equal position with the Americans as regards the capture of fisli.

Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).

Is there anything in this Bill which prevents Canadian fishermen from fishing with purse seines outside the three-mile limit.

Mr. CLARKE.

Nothing whatever.

Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).

Then, if that be the case, American fishermen have no privileges that Canadian fishermen do not enjoy. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbacli) appears to be under the impression that American fishermen have some privileges which our own fishermen have not.

Mr. KAULBACH.

Not at all. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. We have no jurisdiction outside of the three mile limit.

Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).

We have the same rights that other fishermen have.

Mr. KAULBACH.

We cannot control the Americans outside of that three mile limit, but what I complain of is that the Americans take the right to themselves inside the three mile limit.

Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).

That is poaching, and I would be glad to see the fishery protection service made as efficient as possible so as to stop that. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) referred to reports made by certain professors to the effect that no device yet known to man could diminish the number and quantity of fisli In the waters. Well, I hardly think that is correct even though celebrated professors are responsible for the statement. Fact is more important than theory, and the fact is that since purse seining was introduced the mackerel on our Atlantic coast in Canadian waters have been very greatly reduced and our fishermen do not now make the profits they formerly made. While fishing was done by hand-line, and before the days of purse seining, the industry was a very certain one. The fishermen fitted out their ships and boats and they were almost certain to return with a profitable fare, but since purse seining lias been introduced it has become a most precarious business, and the shore fishermen at least are most frequently doomed to failure. If any international arrangement could be made by which purse seining would be abolished, it would, in my opinion, be the very best thing that could be done. Of course, we cannot prevent the Americans from fishing outside of the three mile limit, and failing an International agreement, the only thing we Canadians can do is to protect the inshore fisheries in the best possible way. Purse seining is most destruc-11 \ e to fish life. The seine incloses a large quantity of small mackerel and other small fish which are thrown overboard to foul the bottom and frighten the fisli off the coast. The mackerel in some way are supposed to know when they are chased by seiners, and it is the opinion of men of long experience in the business that they abandon the coast when they are so pursued. As I have said, the best thing would be an international

arrangement to abolish purse seining, but failing that the next best thing is for us to protect our own fishermen as best we can within the three mile limit.

Mr. CLANCY.

Is this Bill intended to apply principally to British Columbia ?

The MINISTER OF MARINE AN1>

FISHERIES. Yes.

Mr. CLANCY.

Has the minister taken into consideration that the Americans are both using purse seining and trap nets along the great lakes and on the international rivers. It appears to me that the object of this Bill is rather to imitate the bad example of the Americans than to provide a solution for the difficulty. The trouble with regard to the great lakes and rivers that divide Canada from the United States is just as great as that which the minister endeavours to provide for in this Bill f r British Columbia. Do I understand that the minister will issue licenses under certain regulations for purse and trap net fishing on the great lakes, or whether the intention is to confine the provisions of this Bill entirely to British Columbia ?

This Bill applies only to the British Columbia waters. It is the result of several years of special study that has been made of the question out there, and the people have come to a unanimous co.u-clusion upon it. I do not think that the conditions are the same on the great lakes.