Mr. TURGEON:

When this Government came into power they closed the dogfish works at Shippigan, in the ebunty of Gloucester. I do not blame the minister so very much, because I know there had been complaints before 1911, although I do not think they were sufficiently serious to justify the closing of the works. Two years ago the minister told me that the works would be re-opened in the spring, and either run by the department or leased. I presume it was too late in the season for the minister to lease the works. I did not complain last year, because I thought

4 p.m. things should go on fairly quietly while the war was ou. However, there is now a great cry for production, production, and still more production, and I think these works should be reopened. The minister knows how important they are to the Caraquet fleet. The fishermen lose a great deal of time owing to the damage done to their gear by the dogfish. I do not care whether the department runs the works or leases them to private parties, but I do think they should be re-opened. In the county of Gloucester, there are about 240 schooners engaged on the banks of the gulf of the St. Lawrence. They leave on Monday morning and come back on Saturday night, and bring a large amount of money into Gloucester county from the sale of the fish. I think every encouragement should he given to this trade, for it helps to keep the young men at home, most of them working on the same schooner as their father. The minister will see by the records of his department that practically all the fertilizer made at that factory was sold to farmers in the neighbourhood or across the Baie des Ohaleurs. I hope the minister will seriously consider the re-opening of these works, either by the department itself, or by leasing them to outside parties.

Mr. HAZEN:

The results of the operation of the factory at Shippigan were most unsatisfactory, and it was impossible to justify

its continuance from the public standpoint. Not only were complaints made with regard to the location of the factory, which was right in the village, but the residents nearby complained that the odour from the factory was most Unpleasant, and at one time the matter was taken up with the Board of Health authorities. But, apart from these complaints, the fishermen did not avail themselves of the factory to any extent. We got a very small supply of dogfish. I do not think that was the fault of the fishermen so much, as on account of the manner in which they conduct their fishing operations. As my hon. friend has said, the fishermen go out on Monday morning and return on Saturday night, with the result tnat they are only able to bring in the few uogfish they can catch just a short time before coming ashore. The result was that very few dogfisn were brought to the factory, and the fertilizer made there was largely made out of fish offal. Now, the primary object of tne factories was to get rid of the dogfish; consequently, we did not think we were justified in continuing the .factory at Shippigan, apart from the fact that serious complaints were made that it was a nuisance to the people living in the immediate vicinity. We tried to lease the factory, but nothing came of the negotiations, although we were willing to lease on very fair and reasonable terms. We would have sold this factory at a very great reduction over the original cost, to anyone who would have carried on a manufacturing industry that would have been for the benefit of the community, but up to the present time no offer has been made that it was possible for us to accept.

Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:

Did the minister ever consider the possibility of erecting these plants at a lesser price? The building at Canso could have been put up at a much less cost.

Mr. HAZEN:

No, I have not considered that. These buildings were not constructed under my regime as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When the policy of erecting these factories was introduced by the previous minister, I think the hope was expressed that after the Government had demonstrated the business possibilities of making dogfish into fertilizer, the industry would be taken up by private individuals, and the Government would cease spending money on it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I never visited one of these dogfish factories myself, and I do not know

whether cheaper buildings would answer the purpose or not.

Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:

I think that if the minister saw the beautiful structure at Canso, he would be strongly of the opinion that the same purpose could be accomplished by a much less expensive building. That was at a time when they were experimenting, as the minister has said. My reason for bringing this matter up is that, if the officers of his department make it clear to him it is necessary to erect some of these buildings, I would like him to see the necessity of erecting one in the county of Inverness. My request is not made from selfish motives. The coast line of Inverness county is about 110 miles long, and * the fishermen along that coast are suffering every year from the destruction caused by the dogfish, which I think are more plentiful along the coast of Inverness than along any other part of the coast of Eastern Can- ( ada. The minister will understand how advantageous it would be to the fishermen if they could sell those dogfish, because they are prevented from fishing during the season when the dogfish, which are very destructive of nets and fish, are along the coast. It is impossible for us to send our fish to Canso because of the distance.

Mr. HAZEN:

How far are you from Canso?

Mr. CHISHOLM:

About 150 miles, which makes it absolutely prohibitive. If my hon. friend would undertake the erection of a reasonably cheap building near the centre of the county of Inverness-I will not say where, but if he will take me into his confidence and ask me to advise him as to the best site for the building, I shall be very glad to do so-it would be of great benefit to the fishermen in developing an industry in connection with the dogfish.

As the fishermen are deprived of any other sort of fish while the dogfish are along the coast, if they could get a market for the dogfish, it would be of great assistance to them. I had occasion to make this suggestion to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the late Government, and he gave me his assurance that this building would be erected in 1912; but unfortunately the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the late Government was prevented from carrying out his promise. I have, however, absolute confidence in the present minister that he will see the justice of my claim.

Mt. HAZEN:

I have no intention at the present time of extending this business or of building any more dogfish factories. I was not aware before that it was ever intended to erect one in the county of Inverness or that the matter had gone as far as my hon. friend states. If in the future we should decide' as I think is very doubtful, to erect any more of these factories, I will give consideration to the claims of Inverness county, and if it is decided to erect a factory in Inverness county, I shall be glad to consult my hon. friend about the site.

Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:

The documents in the department will show the minister that the assurance was given.

Mr. HAZEN:

I am not questioning that.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

The matter that interests me most is the distribution of the scrap to the farmers. I have not heard any complaints this year although last year there were a good many complaints, I think that the scrap at Canso was sold en bloc to a merchant, and that the farmers were prevented from participating in the use of the scrap because it was shipped away. I would like to get from the minister a little more information as to how the scrap was disposed of this year, what method he took to give an opportunity to the farmers to tender for it, how many parties did tender, and if it was fairly distributed amongst them. In certain districts in eastern Nova Scotia it is prized very much by the farmers, it is found to be very excellent fertilizer, and the price, I understand, is attractive to them.

Mr. HAZEN:

The price is rather on the low side this year.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

It will be impossible for the farmers to obtain such valuable fertilizer at the same price anywhere else, and that is no doubt one of the reasons why they are anxious to participate in its distribution. At the. same time, it has been very useful as a fertilizer; and while we are spending this money and incurring a loss each year, I think it would be the proper policy to see that the farmers always get the benefit of it, because I understand that is one of the objects of making the price low. I would like to have a few particulars about the matter so as to be able to satisfy the people that everything has been done this year that ought to be done in order to ensure a fair distribution.

fMr. A. W. Chisholm.]

Mr. HAZEN:

We have had no complaints this year, and I understand my hon. friend to say that he has heard no complaints. The fertilizer was sold direct to the farmers at $20 a ton, and no farmer was allowed to buy more than five tons. There was not enough even then to go round, because, as my hon. friend has said, the price was very attractive. I think the price was too low, but the farmers got the advantage of it, and the scrap did good in the way of keeping their farms in proper condition. As I have said, not a single complaint has reached us this year, although there was a year when a good deal of complaint was made. In one year a trader got in and managed to buy a large quantity of this fertilizer. We safeguard ourselves against that very carefully, but in another year we intend to confine the trade to the farmers of the lower provinces, in which the fertilizer factories are situated, not allowing middlemen or traders to get in at all. We are going to call for tenders on the condition that no one will be allowed to buy more than five tons, and we will sell it at the highest tender, not allowing any one to get a monopoly. We have tried, and with success this year, to get it directly into the hands of the farmers at prices that cannot be complained of, and we intend to pursue a similar course in the future.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

I am afraid, if you ask for tenders, the scrap will inevitably fall into the hands of the traders. It will be easy for a trader who wants to secure the fertilizer to tender in the name of a farmer. I think it would be more satisfactory if the minister fixed a price and allowed the farmers to buy in small quantities, as he is doing now. If the fertilizer falls into the hands of an expert, he mixes one barrel of fertilizer with three or four barrels of useless stuff and sells it to the farmers at a large profit. There is a great deal of deception, I am told, in regard to fertilizers, and it is very difficult to trace any adulteration. I know it is difficult in any case to sell satisfactorily anything belonging to the Government, but the present method is working out very well for the farmers. In my opinion the present method of distribution .is better than putting the fertilizer up for tender so that it may fall into the hands of one party.

Mr. HAZEN:

If the fenders were on the condition that nobody should be given more than five tons, does the hon. gentleman think there would be much danger of that?

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Yes, because when you have only 100 tons it is quite easy for some person to get half a dozen or a dozen men to tender for it and get it all.

Mr. HAZEN:

If people choose to combine, it is pTetty hard to corner human ingenuity. Under our present system of selling it to the farmers in small quantities, it would be possible for a number of them to combine and do the very thing that my hon. friend says might be done under the system of asking for tenders. There is difficulty in fixing the price at which you will sell it unless you call for tenders ; and while there should be no disposition on the part of the department to charge excessive prices for it, yet it is only fair in the public interest that the supply should be sold, not at a price that is unduly low, but1 at a reasonable figure. The question arises, how are you going to fix that price? Will you find out.at *sthat price other commercial fertilizers are sold? Will you get some scientific man to make an analysis so as to ascertain the relative value of the fertilizer having regard to its composition? Or will you fix the price arbitrarily? If you ask for tenders limiting the quantity that any man may receive, there is no unfairness-in fact, that may be the fairest way to do it. However, we will do the best we can to get it into the hands of the farmers. That is where we want it. We don't intend to have it a question of speculation, if there is any way to avoid it.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

It is such a small matter that it is hardly worth while to do that. If you have only 100 tons, even adding $5 a ton, you would have only $500.

Mir. Hazen: My hon. friend will agree, I am sure, that $20 a ton is a very low price as fertilizer has ranged this year and last year.

Mr. McKENZIE. I wonder if the minister really understands what a serious pest this dogfish has become? If he realized the awful destruction wrought by the dogfish, I think he would be a little more earnest in assisting the fishermen to get clear of it, or, if not to get clear of it, to gain some compensation for destroying this creature. I was told by a fisherman last year that one evening he and his partner baited 2,000 hooks and put them out. In the morning three of the hooks had little codfish on them and there was a dogfish on each of the other hooks. So, there was the labour of baiting the hooks and then the labour of removing the dogfish. I

think the department-though the minister is not responsible for that-started by paying too much for the dogfish, and so made the experiment of carrying on the reduction work a little too expensive. It would take but a very small compensation to make this a paying venture to the fishermen compared with what it is to-day. When they started at Canso what, I believe, is the only reducing plant on the coast, I think they paid too much. But, as the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. A. W. Chisholm) pointed out, if there were cheap structures put up here and there so that the fishermen could bring the dogfish and get something for them, it would be better than the present plan.

I would like to point out to the minister that there is not much he can d,o for the fishermen. This great paraphernalia of officials, when' it is all brought down to brass tacks, does very little for the fishermen; enormous sums are spent, but with very little result. But here is an evil, this1 dogfish pest, and if the minister will protect the fishermen against it he will be doing a good thing. In other lines, if a pest breaks out, it is looked after. K the hog cholera appears the Department of Agriculture, with its machinery, takes hold of the matter and stamps out the disease. If any pest attacks the apple crop of Nova Scotia or elsewhere, large sums are spent to end its ravages. The dogfish is just such a pest. And, as money is spent, and well spent, in stamping out these troubles to which I have referred, I' think it would be equally well to spend money in stamping out the dogfish pest, or, if it can not be stamped out, to utilize. it in some way so that the fishermen can benefit. The fishermen can not put up an establishment for the reduction of dogfish, and so the only thing is for the department to take hold of it and carry it on as cheaply as possible. There has been a great demand for the product of the dogfish reduction works for fertilizer. It is a good fertilizer, and I think large quantities of it could be sold. The only question is the production of it, and if the Government does not establish these reducing plants they will not be established at all. I am very sorry the minister is not a little more enthusiastic on this subject. I am sure that the Canadian people, certainly the people in eastern Nova Scotia, would stand behind him in any reasonable expenditure he might make to cure this evil. I do not know how far the pest extends geographically.

Mr. HAZEN:

From the Carribean sea up to the St. Lawrence.