« ForrigeFortsett »
siderable concession in that, it does not amount to much, from the fact that we have no light dues. In Newfoundland, where they have rather heavy light dues, it is a much more serious concession than it is in Canada, but Mr. Winter, the able Attorney-General of Newfoundland, whose advice and assistance we had throughout these negotiations, felt that that was a concession which the island of Newfoundland would not object to, although they would lose something in the way of light dues. Now, Sir, Article II provides :
" United States fishing vessels entering the ports, bays, and harbours of the eastern and north-eastern coasts of Canada or of the coasts of Newfoundland under stress of weather or other casualty may unload, reload, tranship, or sell, subject to customs laws and regulations, all fish on board, when such unloading, transhipment, or sale is made necessary as incidental to repairs, and may replenish outfits, provisions, or supplies damaged or lost by disaster; and in case of death or sickness shall be allowed all needful facilities, including the shipping of crews."
I do not think, Sir, that I shall have to take much time in satisfying this House that, although this is a very considerable and important concession, and although we were not compelled, in my judgment, under a strict literal interpretation of the treaty of 1818 to make it, yet it was a wise and judicious concession to make. What would be thought of Canada if an American, or a United States fishing vessel -I do not like to use the word American, because I think it is a term we have as much right to as our neighbours ; I prefer to speak of them as the people of the United States and ourselves as Canadians; and when I speak of the whole continent of America, I do not hesitate to apply the term American to the people of both Canada and the United States—but what would be thought of Canada if a vessel of the United States, loaded with fresh mackerel or fish of any other description, were driven by stress of weather, and perhaps in a sinking condition and com
pelled to resort to a Canadian port, and if, instead of allowing her to tranship her cargo or sell it on paying the duty and go upon a marine slip for repairs, we said : No, you must throw overboard the whole of your cargo, because we find you are not allowed to bring your fish into Canada ?
Article 11 further provides :
“Licences to purchase in established ports of entry of the aforesaid coasts of Canada or of Newfoundland, for the homeward voyage, such provisions and supplies as are ordinarily sold to trading vessels, shall be granted to United States fishing vessels in such ports promptly upon application and without charge, and such vessels, having obtained licences in the manner aforesaid, shall also be accorded upon all occasions such facilities for the purchase of casual or needful provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to trading vessels; but provisions or supplies shall not be obtained by barter, nor purchased for resale or traffic.”
That was another concession. There is no doubt at all, Sir, that these were rights which, under the strict terms of the treaty of 1818, they could not demand, nor could they insist upon them being granted; but at the same time I think I am within the judgment of the House on both sides when I say that in the case of a vessel which is homeward bound and requires provisions or needful supplies to take her home, if, for instance, she has some of her rigging carried away, or some of her salt washed overboard, and is obliged to lose her voyage in going back to a distant port to refit, a provision that she may obtain casual and needful supplies of that kind was demanded in the interests of good neighbourhood, and it was not going too far to say that we would allow them to enjoy those advantages. Therefore, Sir, I am glad to believe that Article II will meet with the hearty approval of the House and the country, and that they will feel that we have only acted with a wise judgment, and with due regard to the best interests of Canada for the sake of removing an inter
national unpleasantness, in putting these provisions into this treaty. Article 12 provides :
“Fishing vessels of Canada and Newfoundland shall have on the Atlantic coasts of the United States all the privileges reserved and secured by this treaty to the United States fishing vessels in the aforesaid waters of Canada and Newfoundland."
I do not pretend that this is accomplishing a great deal, because, as is well known, Canadian fishing vessels do not require to resort to any great extent to the waters of the United States; but at the same time it is a reciprocal arrangement, and it shows that we are not granting anything to the fishermen of the United States that they are not prepared to grant in express terms to the fishermen of Canada. Article 13 provides :
“The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall make regulations providing for the conspicuous exhibition by every United States fishing vessel, of its official number on each bow; and any such vessel, required by law to have an official number, and failing to comply with such regulations, shall not be entitled to the licences provided for in this treaty. Such regulations shall be communicated to Her Majesty's Government previously to their taking effect."
The object of that is obvious. Under the arrangements of the Government of the United States every vessel has an official number, and it will save a great deal of trouble if that official number is required to be exhibited in such a conspicuous form that the moment you see the vessel you will know that it is an American fishing vessel. That will enable you to investigate her character and position and everything about her. Although I have seen the Government of the United States very severely criticised for subjecting these vessels to such an indignity, I do not regard it in that light at all. It is purely a matter of business between the two countries for the purpose of facilitating the recognition of vessels, and thus making it much easier to deal with any question that may arise in
relation to her ; and as you will know every vessel to which you have given a licence, the moment you see a vessel, you will know whether she has a licence or not. This measure gives you an opportunity of identifying a vessel and protecting your fishing grounds much more effectually than you could do without it. Article 14 provides :
“The penalties of unlawfully fishing in the waters, bays, creeks, and harbours, referred to in Article I of this treaty, may extend to forfeiture of the boat or vessel and appurtenances, and also of the supplies and cargo aboard when the offence was committed ; and for preparing in such waters to unlawfully fish therein, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not to exceed those for unlawfully fishing.”
That is to say, if you are able to establish a charge against the vessel of unlawfully preparing to fish, the court may in its judgment forfeit the vessel, but a discretion is left with the court, which it had not before, of imposing a comparatively much lighter penalty than the forfeiture of the vessel. I do not think anybody will question the wisdom of dealing with this question as we have done. We have left the penalty for unlawful fishing to extend to the forfeiture of the vessel and everything appertaining to her. I think the House will agree with me that the penalty for the lighter offence may be lighter, and that the efficiency of the law is likely to be much greater with the lighter penalty than with the extreme ones that existed before.
"And for any other violation of the laws of Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland relating to the right of fishery in such waters, bays, creeks, or harbours, penalties shall be fixed by the court, not exceeding in all three dollars for every ton of the boat or vessel concerned. The boat or vessel may be holden for such penalties and forfeitures."
That penalty does not apply to unlawful fishing or preparing to fish, but it applies to the lighter offences, such as attempting to purchase bait or anything of that
kind. The penalty is reduced to a reasonable one of three dollars a ton, but yet sufficient, in my judgment, to secure probably a more prompt and effective administration of the law than would be secured if you made the penalty a great deal higher.
“The proceedings shall be summary and as inexpensive as practicable.”
I do not know that anybody but the judges in the courts of Vice-Admiralty could complain of that. The object of every civilised country should be to have the laws administered in as inexpensive and summary a mode as practicable.
“The trial (except on appeal) shall be at the place of detention, unless the judge shall, on request of the defence, order it to be held at some other place adjudged by him more convenient.”
That is to say, it is proposed instead of bringing these cases to the court of Vice-Admiralty at Halifax, or St. John, N.B., or Quebec, as the case may be, it is proposed that a judge should be sent to deal with the case in a summary manner where the witnesses are all present and the facts can be ascertained, and thus save the cost and inconvenience occasioned by laying up a vessel for a year or two while awaiting judgment. ·
“Security for costs shall not be required of the defence, except when bail is offered. Reasonable bail shall be accepted. There shall be proper appeals available to the defence only and the evidence at the trial may be used on appeal."
That is, we do not propose to appeal against the judgments of our own judges, but we allow an appeal to foreigners who are affected by the judgments of our own judges and who have not the same confidence in their judgments that we have. All this is done for the purpose of saving time and costs, thus avoiding endless irritation through delay.
"Judgments of forfeiture shall be reviewed by the Governor