Mr. WHITE:

For a copy of all correspondence passed during the year 1921, between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Ontario, relating to the activities of Honourable Manning Doherty in England on the subject of the cattle embargo.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents passed between the Minister of Labour and Mr. J. B. McLachlan.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):

For a copy of the petition presented by Mr. A. Wick and others, asking for improved methods in the Quebec fisheries, together with all correspondence and other documents relating thereto.

Mr. CALDWELL:

For a copy of the contract entered into by the Government with the Dominion Iron and Steel Corporation for a supply of steel plates, along with a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government and the said company relating to the above mentioned contract.

Mr. STEVENS:

For a copy of all documents, correspondence, letters and telegrams passed between the Minister of Immigration or any of his officials, and persons, companies, organizations, since January 1, 1922, regarding the placing of immigrants upon land in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved:

For a copy of the correspondence and all other documents, regarding the transfer of fisheries to the Province of Quebec.

He said: The question of jurisdiction in the matter of fisheries is not a new one, at least in this particular case. For many years past there has been a divided jurisdiction between the Dominion Government and the governments of several provinces. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, that twenty-five years ago this very month, in 1897, on your invitation and the invitation of the Liberals of the county of Gaspe I became a candidate to represent that county in the legislature. I contested the election against the then premier of the province, the Hon. E. J. Flynn, who in the course of his campaign announced that the province of Quebec had secured a victory before the Privy Council in England by obtaining a decision which meant that from then on the provincial government would issue licenses to the fishermen in the tidal waters of Quebec. And so it happened that from 3 397 until last year, without interruption, the government of Quebec controlled the issuing of licenses to the fishermen in the counties of Bonaventure, Gaspe, along the river St. Lawrence, and in the tidal waters generally of the province. In the month of November, 1920, following a reference to the Privy Council of the question of disputed jurisdiction between the Dominion and some of the provincial governments, and in the light of the decision rendered in the case of British Columbia, a new policy was adopted by the federal government then in office. Last session, wishing to know exactly what the policy of the Dominion government was, I placed on the Order Paper a question which was answered by Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I give the question and the answer:

1. Has any understanding been arrived at between the Government of Canada and that of the Province of Quebec regarding the granting of licenses for salmon nets in the tidal waters of said province consequent upon the recent judgment of the Privy Council?

2. Is the Government aware that the Province of Quebec has granted licenses for the present year?

3. What action If any does the Government intend to take in this matter in the public interest and that of the fishermen concerned?

4. Is it a fact that the Province of Quebec contends that it is the sole authority having power to grant licenses in such tidal waters because of its jurisdiction over the bed of rivers and bays and the shores generally of that Province?

5. If so, will the Government of Canada recognise the licenses granted this year by the Government of Quebec?

Quebec Fisheries

Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The decision of the Judical Committee of the Privy Council of November 30 last in the Quebec Fisheries Reference decided that the administration of the fisheries in the navigable waters if the province that 'are accessible by way of navigation from the sea comes within the purview of the Federal Government. The Government of the Province of Quebec has been informed that the Department of Marine and Fisheries will undertake the administration of the fisheries In such waters from May 1 proximo. Any licenses issued by the provincial authorities will not be accepted as conferring authority to fish. No one will be permitted to fish in the said waters except under license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

The House will realize the position in which the fishermen found themselves. They had paid for and been granted licenses in the usual course, as they had done for the last twenty-five years, and they were suddenly informed by the Dominion authorities that thereafter those licenses were worthless and that they would have to secure permits from the Dominion fishery officer. Of course, the fishermen had to accept the situation, and the electors in my constituency, in yours, Mr. Speaker, and throughout the province, were called upon to pay additional sums of $20, $25, $30 and $40 before they were in a position to fish. This anomalous condition of affairs then presented itself: Men who had fished for twenty-five years on a provincial license were told that they could not fish unless they secured a license from the Dominion authorities, while other men who had the Dominion license found it worthless unless they could show a provincial permit as well. The man who had the provincial license could fish along the shore belonging to the province, but he had to have a Dominion license if he fished in the waters that came within the purview of the federal government. Naturally, the fishermen asked that some remedy should be found for this state of affairs; and about a month ago we learned that negotiations had been entered into between the Department of Marine, under the control of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe), and the government of Quebec, as a result of which a satisfactory solution had been arrived at. The fisheries have been transferred to the province of Quebec, so far as such a transference lies within the power of the Dominion government, who retain the control that is required by the British North America Act. I have been receiving letters from my constituents, who fish the magnificent Gaspe 4 p.m. salmon, which is known the world over and is the glory and joy of men from all parts of America

who love fishing, and they ask that the license fees paid to the Dominion government last year be refunded. I have submitted the matter to the minister, who informs me that he has it under consideration, although his first answer was not favourable. As an instance of what actually happened, I should like to read to the House a brief statement given to me by a gentleman who was at Port Daniel, one of the fishing villages in my constituency, last year, at the time of the conference between the Dominion and the provincial governments. This statement is as follows: Statement of Louis Simpson re Complaints of Certain Salmon Fishermen of Port Daniel and District.

Last summer these salmon fishermen were called upon to pay for two several licenses to permit them to follow their occupation of fishing salmon. One license fee was paid to the Dominion Government, whilst another license fee had to be paid to the Government of the province of Quebec.

The official responsible to the Dominion Government collected the several fees and in return granted licenses, but after so doing did not notify the fishermen that it was the intention of the Dominion Government to alter the arrangement, which for years past had been permitted by the representatives of the Government of the province of Quebec (which Government until last year had administered the fisheries). One of these arrangements, was that, notwithstanding, the printed regulations, the fishermen fishing in the harbours open to the winds blowing from the gulf (such as Port Daniel and the other ports to the northeast) should not be required to tie up their nets on Sunday. It was recognized by the government official that nets, so tied, were liable, should a storm arise, blowing from the east to be destroyed. Moreover, at Port Daniel where the rivers emptying into the Baracbois are allowed to be poached, there was nothing to be gained by a strict adherence to these regulations.

The officials of the Dominion Government, without giving the fishermen any- notice of their intention of withdrawing such permission or of their intention to make a custom, legalized by many years permission, which certainly can be claimed to have established, until withdrawn by notice, a legal right, raided the fishermen's nets, seized and sold the salmon found therein, and summoned the licensees to the county town of New Carlisle to appear before a judge.

The fishermen, against my advice, were induced to plead guilty of a technical infraction of the regulations and were each fined by the judge, two dollars and costs.

The loss to the fishermen was as follows:-

The value of the nets taken.

One day's work at the most important time of the year.

Expenses to New Carlisle and back.

Fine and expenses.

The fines, loss of time and expense will have exceeded ten dollars per man, while some of the salmon taken was allowed to go back and the balance was eventually sold at less than the market price for fresh caught fish.

The actual sum realized by the department from the sale of the fish is not known to me,

Quebec Fisheries

Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :

In British Columbia dual licenses

are exacted; that is to say, the fishermen have to take licenses from the Dominion as well as from the province. Would the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) be good enough to explain why this arrangement should be made with respect to the province of Quebec if a similar arrangement is not made with respect to British Columbia ?

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):

I have

exhausted my right to speak, but the reason is this: for the last twenty-five years Quebec has administered its fisheries, and it is advisable in the interests of those fisheries that that system should continue.

Mr. McQUARRIE:

As I understand it,

British Columbia exercises control over the fisheries of that province, and has done so for years. I would suggest that the hon. minister give some consideration also to conditions respecting the fisheries in British Columbia.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :

Mr. Speaker, the

House will be indebted to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil)-at least, I am-for having brought this subject to its attention, especially in view of the misapprehensions that seem to exist in some quarters as to what has taken place in regard to these fisheries. There has been no transfer, much less an abandonment, of any right belonging to the federal government. An irritating question has been settled, in the interests, I believe, of all concerned.

Under the British North America Act, "sea coast and inland fisheries" are, by inclusion in article 12, placed under the legislative power of the federal government. The interpretation of this article has been the subject of many litigations, and I think a short history of the case will help to bring about an understanding of the situation.

There was no difficulty in connection with the fisheries until about 1882, when the federal government undertook to lease salmon angling privileges in non-tidal rivers in New Brunswick. In this connection the case of Robertson vs the Queen was submitted to the Exchequer Court of Canada and subsequently, on appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government had leased salmon angling privileges on the Miramichi river. The adjacent property was owned by a private company which permitted private citizens to fish in that river. Mr. Robertson took proceedings against these fishermen, and the latter were successful. Robertson then instituted an action for damages against the Dominion government in the Exchequer Court and later before the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision was that under the British North America Act the fisheries did not pass to the federal government, but remained the property of the riparian owners. As in all the provinces the Crown, in the right of the province was owner of the properties adjacent to the rivers. From the time of that decision until to-day the provinces have themselves administered those fisheries and leased the salmon and other angling privileges.

Following this decision the provinces claimed that they had jurisdiction in tidal waters as well, and it was finally decided to submit the case for a decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Privy Council. This submission to the Supreme Court was in 1894, and the decision of the Privy Council was given in 1898. It was, in substance, that the exclusive power of regulating the fisheries, no matter where they were situated, was vested in the federal government under the British North America Act, but that any rights which the provinces had prior to Confederation were still kept by them. But the decision did not define what were those property rights of the provinces.

In Ontario all the fisheries are non-tidal, so the administration of all the fisheries in Ontario passed to the Ontario government, and has always been in its hands. Of course, this does not take away the power of regulation by the federal government, which applies to all the fisheries, inland as well as sea coast. Immediately

Quebec Fisheries

after that decision, the sea-washed provinces claimed the administration of all their fisheries. They took the ground that prior to Confederation they owned the fisheries not only in the non-tidal rivers but in the territorial waters as well. They did not go to the courts immediately, but after many conferences between the Dominion government and the provincial governments they came to an agreement under which the federal government continued to administer the fisheries pending a decision on the question of rights. This applied to all the provinces except Quebec. Quebec insisted on its interpretation of the clause of the decision, but finally there was also a modus vivendi between this government and the province of Quebec, under which Quebec kept the control and the administration of all the fisheries on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence and the gulf of St. Lawrence, on the north shore as far as a place called Pointe des Monts, and also of the rivers and their estuaries from Pointe des Monts as far as the boundary Blanc Sablon. It was found impossible to reach an amicable settlement as to the question of rights, and then it was decided to submit the difficulty to the courts again. This was done in 1912 or 1913. The province of British Columbia was the party to the litigation against the Dominion government, but all the other interested provinces joined in the case and were represented before the courts. The decision was given in 1913, and was, in brief, that since Magna Charta there has been under British law a public right of fishing in all tidal waters, and that the administration of this right passed to the federal government under the British North America Act. This decision settled the matter everywhere except in Quebec. Immediately after the decision was rendered, the government of Canada published in the official Canada Gazette a notice stating that on 1st January, 1915, it would assume control of the fisheries in the tidal waters of the province of Quebec hitherto administered by the federal government, and at the same time on the 25th of January the government of the province of Quebec published in the Quebec Official Gazette a notice that the decision of the British Columbia reference did not apply to the province of Quebec, and that therefore any person wishing to fish in the river and gulf of St. Lawrence and any tidal waters should make application to the Department of Colonization, Mines and Fisheries for the necessary permit.

The province of Quebec contended that as the decision of the Privy Council was based on Magna Charta, and as Magna Charta did not apply to Quebec the decision did not affect that province;-it is well to remember that in civil matters the French law has always been kept in Quebec, though the country passed to the British Crown. It was consequently necessary to have a further reference to the court as far as that province was concerned. In the meantime the same modus vivendi applied and Quebec continued to administer her fisheries within the geographical limits I have described. The reference was arranged for in 1914, and the decision of the Privy Council was given in 1920. This decision was, in substance, that while Magna Charta did not apply to Quebec, there is a public right of fishing in all the waters that are navigable from the sea, but that there is no public right in the soil under the water, and that where the province or any private person owned the soil it could not be used for fishing without the consent of the owner. I think it would be well for me to read a sentence of the decision of the Privy Council:

To the first question, neither the Government of Quebec, nor any member of the executive council, has the power to grant the exclusive right of fishing in the tidal waters so far as navigable of the rivers, streams, gulfs, bays, straits or arms Of the sea of the province and of the high seas washing its coasts. In so far as the soil is vested in the Crown in right of the province, the Government of the province has exclusive power to grant the right to affix engines to the solum, so far as such engines and the affixing of them do not interfere with the right of the public to fish, or prevent the regulation of the right of fishing by private persons without the aid of such engines.

Now, it happens not only in the SL Lawrence river but on the coast of the gulf of St. Lawrence, on both the north and the south shores, that owing to conditions along the coast all the fisheries there are carried on by fishing engines attached to the soil. The water is very shallow along the whole coast, and in very many cases these fishing nets are out of the water at low tide; so that there really is a conflict of jurisdiction in the administration of these fisheries along the whole coast. The decision, of course- and this has never been denied-gives the exclusive power of regulating the fisheries to the federal government. In the province of Quebec the ownership of the soil is still vested in those who own that soil, either private citizens or the Crown-mostly the Crown in right of the province. So whatever rights of fishing the

Quebec Fisheries

public may have in those waters cannot be exercised there, on account of the conditions along the coast, without attaching engines to the soil, and this cannot be done without the consent of the owner, in other words, the province of Quebec. Last year, which was the first year after the decision of the Privy Council no settlement could be made; and the federal government undertook to enforce its rights in all the waters of the province that are navigable from the sea. To administer those fisheries and to issue licenses, which they had never done before, the federal government had to employ overseers. We appointed nine overseers, with an inspector over them, and we had to use a suitable boat for the purpose of supervising those fisheries. The cost of this service was about $85,000, and the total revenue from this portion of the district this year has been $12,573.39, and as the fees for salmon fishing licenses have been reduced the revenue from that source will be even lower in future.

Mr. MACLEAN (York) :

Has the federal government applied to the British Parliament to have this dispute straightened out by legislative action? Would that cure the difficulty?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I do not think it is at all necessary.

Mr. MACLEAN (York) :

It is a very expensive business.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It has been very expensive so far, but that will not be the case in future now that an agreement has been reached. I may point out that under the agreement the provincial government will continue what they were doing last year and furthermore will issue licenses. Great friction and conflict resulted from the divided authority last year as my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has stated. The fishermen in his district, and in other districts of the province, had to pay a double license at high cost. For instance, on one side of the Baie des Cha-leurs, in my hon. friend's constituency, the fishermen had to pay twice the amount which was exacted from the fishermen of New Brunswick, on the other side, for the same right and the same privilege. There has also been litigation, as between the fishermen and the provincial government and the federal government, and it was a very unfortunate state of affairs. After all. under the present arrangement we have

practically only repealed the Order in Council which had been passed last year after the decision of the Privy Council, which Order in Council provided that licenses should be required from all the fishermen along the coasts of the gulf of St. Lawrence and the river St. Lawrence. We have repealed that Order in Council, but we are maintaining our right of regulating the fisheries there, and we will always ha*ve the right to intervene if these regulations are not observed.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Who will report to the Government as to whether the regulations are observed or not?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I would say the fishermen themselves, and those who are interested in the fisheries there; there are many interested parties.