LIBRARY FlSllERlES MID ocv.ANS \\\UL\O'fllf.Q\JE SH pf.ctw:.s E'f octi\NS 327.C3 P3 D - THE LIBRARY BEDFORD INSTITUTE OF ... OCEANOGRAPHY 12'?913 Box 1006 DARTMOUTH, N.s. 82Y 4A' ..,; TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
- 1867-1898: Who Has Jurisdiction? •••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• 1 - The Fisheries Case, 1898 ...... 3 Delegation of Administrative Control of the Non-Tidal ... Fisheries to Ontario and Quebec ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 British Columbia - at the Turn of the Century ••••••••••••••••• 8 - The Federal-Provincial Conference of 1902 11 B.C. and the Modus Vivendi: A Parting of the Ways ••••••.•.••• 13 - A-G for the Province of B.C. v A-G for the Dominion of Canada . 14 .... The Non-Tidal Waters of Quebec - A Difference? •.••••••••••••.• 17 The Quebec Fisheries Reference 18
~ Delegation of Administrative Control of the Tidal Waters to Quebec ...... 20 - The Magdalen Islands ...... 22 The Fish Hatcheries in Ontario . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • 22 - Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta: The Natural Resources Transfer Act, 1930 • • • • • • • • . . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • 24
B.C.: An Act Respecting the Transfer of the Railway - Belt and the Peace River Block, 1930 .••••••.•••••••••••••••• 27 - 1930-1949 ...... 28 Newfoundland ...... 30 - Recent Developments ...... 31 - Conclusion ...... 3 3 - .... - INTRODUCTION
This report charts a chronological sequence of formal and informal agreements which have been entered into between the provincial governments and the Federal Parliament since the BNA Act of 1867. The study brings to light and attempts at times to analyze the events by which the authority to administer the fisheries in Canada has been delegated by the Dominion to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
As evidenced by the appendices to the brief, the materials upon which the report is based consist mainly of letters and memoranda which have been obtained from the Public Archives of Canada and from the current files of the Department of the Environment. Accordingly, much of the report is founded, not on formal documentation, but on materials which are at times unclear, vague and even contradictory.
The author's reliance on such materials no doubt constitutes the most significant weakness of the report. In most cases, the records cannot be used as unquestionable sources of reference, and indeed, they often present a confusing picture. In certain instances, different sources reporting the same event have been found to have recorded completely contradictory facts. In such circumstances, a determination of the probable facts has rested merely upon the weighing of a balance of probabilities.
I would like to thank Mr. Greg Morley of the Department of the
Environment who has encouraged and supervised me in the development of this paper. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Mr. Joe
Carton, the departmental solicitor who has provided me with a wealth of i
knowledge in the area and to Mr. Henry Mitchell, head of the Records section of Fisheries whose assistance has been invaluable in locating and isolating those files and papers which have provided the factual basis upon which the report is submitted. I extend my thanks also to
Mr. A.R. Lucas of the Department who has helped both with the drafting of the substantive and technical portions of the report.
It should be noted at this time that the facts and opinions presented in this paper are those solely of the author. They are in no way to be taken as those of the Department of the Environment. :::· ~- .~.-- -·-
1867-1898: WHO HAS JURISDICTION?
At the time of Confederation, it appears to have been under- stood that by the provisions of the BNA Act (Sec. 91 head 12) the jurisdiction over fisheries in the different provinces was transferred to the Federal government. This is evidenced by the fact that immediately following Confederation the latter assumed complete responsibility for and control over the fisheries of Canada. 1 A few years afterwards, however, when the government of Canada began to lease salmon angling privileges in the non-tidal waters of the provinces where the bordering land was privately owned, question arose as to whether exclusive juris- diction over fisheries had, in fact, been vested in the Dominion in 1867.
The dispute resulted in a test case to the Exchequer Court from the decision of which an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada in
1882. This case2 was concerned with salmon angling privileges in a portion of the inland waters of the south-west Miramichi River, N.B., where the bed was owned by the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Land
Company. The company had given permission to certain persons to fish in waters covered by a federal lease to one Robertson. When Mr.
Robertson prevented these persons from so acting, they brought an action against him for damages and won. He then brought suit against the
Department of Marine and Fisheries for loss and damages. The decision in this case was, in brief, that the ownership of the soil or beds of freshwater rivers did not pass to the Federal Government under the BNA
1. Various memoranda and much of the correspondence recorded at the turn of the century conclusively indicate this to have been the situation in the years following Confederation.
2. Queen v Robertson, (1879-1882) 6 S.C.R. 52. - 2 -
Act, but remained the property of the riparian proprietors. 3 As the provincial governments of that time owned practically all of the lands through which the inland portions of the rivers flowed, the leasing of the angling privileges in such waters was handed over to the New
Brunswick Provincial Government immediately following the decision.
The other provinces, however, do not appear to have been as eager in securing the leasing rights in their non-tidal waters from the Federal
Government. The only other province to undertake this function was
Quebec. 4 Certain pieces of correspondence indicate the existence of thriving salmon fisheries within the inland waters of New Brunswick at that time. 5 Quite possibly, the New Brunswick government saw in the leasing of angling privileges a highly profitable source of revenue.
Whether or not this is the case, the provincial authorities in New
Brunswick have been carrying out this function since then. 6
After the decision in Queen v Robertson, disputes continued between the Dominion and the provincial governments. Some of the provinces claimed proprietary rights in certain of the fisheries by virtue of Section 92 Head 13 of the BNA Act, which has given the legis- latures of the provinces authority to make laws in relation to "Property and Civil Rights." These conflicting claims as to the extent and character of respective fishing rights under the BNA Act developed so steadily that it at last became highly expedient to obtain some definitive finding on the subject.
3. IBID at pp. 68-69.
4. Appendix "A" No. 1 p. 2; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Nova Scotia File No. 721-8-8 Department of Fisheries Records
5. IBID p. l;
6. See Summary 'New Brunswick' - 3 -
THE FISHERIES CASE, 1898
To this end, arrangements were made for the submission of a reference, in order that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council should be secured. This resulted in the decision of
1898, of which the answers to the categorical questions put, and the judgment delivered by Lord Hershell are hereto appended. 7
Substantially, this decision secured to the Dominion
Parliament the sole power to make regulations controlling the manner of fishing and held that the enactment of all fishery regulations and restrictions "is within the exclusive competence of the Dominion
Legislature. 11
More importantly, however, the Court decided that all of the proprietary rights possessed by the provinces at the time of Confederation remained untouched by the ENA Act and that whatever grants which might have been lawfully made by them, could be lawfully made after the passing of that Act. Therefore, the provinces could legislate in respect to
fisheries, as a consequence of their jurisdiction to legislate in relation to property and civil rights, e.g., prescribing the mode in which a private fishery is to be conveyed, or the rights of succession
in respect of it; the terms and conditions upon which any fisheries
owned by the provinces may be leased, etc. But, these proprietary rights
could necessarily be affected to some extent by the Dominion 1 s power
of regulation.
At the same time the decision expressly recognized the right
of the Parliament of Canada, not only to make regulations for the
7. A-G for the Dominion of Canada v A-G for the Provinces, (1898) A.C. 700, (P.C.) Appendix B, No. l; - 4- - protection and preservation of the fisheries, but also to impose a tax as a condition of the right to fish. In the judgment the following words are used:
"In addition, however, to the legislative power conferred by the twelfth item of S.91, the fourth item of that section confers upon the Parliament of Canada the power of raising money by any mode or system of taxation. Their Lordships think it is impossible to exclude, as not within this power, the provision of imposing a tax by way of License as a condition of the right to fish. 118
The only part of the Canadian Fisheries Act which the above judgment declared to be beyond the powers of the Parliament of Canada was those sections by which Parliament empowered the Minister of the
Department of Marine and Fisheries to grant licenses or leases con- ferring exclusive rights of fishing. The relevant words of the judgment read:
"It follows, from what has been said, that insofar as S.4- of the Revised Statutes of Canada C.95 empowers the grant of fishery leases conferring an 0xclusive right to fish in property not belonging to the Dominion but, to the provinces, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament to pass it. This was the only section of the Act which was impeached in the course of the argument; but the subsidiary provisions insofar as they are intended to enforce a right which it was not competent for the Dominion to confer~ would of course fall within the principal enactment. 11 9
In rendering their judgment, the Lord Justices, unfortunately, did not define the property rights that they had accorded the provinces under S.92 of the BNA Act. Much confusion resulted from this imprecision
8. IBID at p. 7;
9. - op cit. '-' - 5 - ...... , and left many of the provinces at odds with the Dominion as to the
scope or extent of the provincial right gained under this decision.
For some 22 years following this case, the Federal Government refused
'-' to recognize a provincial property right in the tidal or seacoast
waters of the respective provinces. Accordingly, the agreements entered ~ into between federal and provincial authorities at the turn of the
'- century by which administration of the fisheries was transferred to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, did not include a transfer of L administrative jurisdiction within the tidal waters of those provinces.
Although the author has been unable to uncover any documentation \,_, prior to 1900 concerning fisheries jurisdiction, it appears most certain
from innumerable pieces of correspondence dating as early as 1901, that
in the year following the decision in A-G for the Dominion v A-G for the \;...· Provinces, Federal-Provincial conferences were held for the purpose of
devising some agreement in the discharging of the different functions ...... devolving upon each government under the changed conditions.
\-I The distinction made by the Privy Council between legislative
! jurisdiction and proprietary r i ghts under the BNA Act gave the provinces L a legal basis for justifying a request that their respective rights in
the fisheries be handed over to them. Accordingly, the Federal Govern- ...... ment transferred the administration of fisheries legislation for those
l- fisheries which, in their opinion, were subject to provincial law as
a subject of property rights. '-'
L-
...... - 6 -
DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE
NON-TIDAL FISHERIES TO ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Arrangements were concluded in 1899 with Ontario and Quebec.
As none of the waters within or bordering Ontario at the
time were tidal, the Dominion was willing to delegate administrative
control of the fisheries to this province and accordingly, all of the
inland fisheries, both game ano commercial, were transferred to it. " No one document appears to have secured this administrative authority
for the province; rather, a series of correspondence and conferences
seem to be indicated.10 Yet, the explicit statement that administration
of the fisheries was in 1899 handed over to the provincial authorities
./ is found in the Order-in-Council, P.C. 714 of May 8th, 1926, in which the federal hatcheries therein referred to were transferred to the
Ontario government.11
With the Province of Quebec an arrangement was made by which
the Department of Marine and Fisheries handed over the administration
of the fisheries, so far as the inland rivers and waters were concerned;
but the Federal Government claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the
gulf fisheries below a line drawn from Cap Chat to Pointe des Monts. 12
10. Appendix B, No. 2; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the fisheries, Province of Ontario, File No. 721-8-3, Department of Fisheries Records.
11. Appendix D, No. 7;
12. Appendix B, No. 3; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Quebec, Fiie No. 721-8-2 Vol. 2, Department of Fisheries Records. - 7 -
The Province demurred to this and it was agreed that a reference should be made to the Supreme Court, having for its object the finding of the ownership or jurisdiction over such maritime fisheries as are comprised in areas removed from the mouths of rivers seaward, in the coast, or within the 3-mile limit, and below the above-mentioned line of demarcation.
As in the case of Ontario, no formal agreement was drafted to encompass these arrangements between the Dominion and the Quebec Government.
Correspondence and personal interviews between the federal and pro- vincial authorities in the year subsequent to the Privy Council decision seem to have resulted in the delegation of administrative authority to
Quebec at the time.13
It is difficult to isolate the precise reasons for the eagerness of Ontario and Quebec to obtain administrative authority of its fisheries.
Since no documentation is available for the period immediately prior to
1900, the author is able only to put forward possible suggestions. It appears from the many files that have been examined that a strong trend existed among the provinces at that time towards extending and securing rights under the various jurisdictions afforded them by the BNA Act of
1867. An increased provincial jurisdiction over fisheries for the provincial governments most obviously subtracted from the central govern- ment's power and control; it placed these local governments in a more viable position at the bargaining table; and, it was hoped, would add to
13. Appendix B, No. 4; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Quebec, File No. 721-8-2, Vol. 3, Department of Fisheries Records. \_ - 8 -
\.-- the economic welfare of the Province. This last-mentioned item may
have been uppermost in the minds of the provincial leaders as admini- \.... strative authority under the Fisheries Act involved, among other things,
.__, the issue of fishery licenses and the collection of revenue therefrom .
In addition, it should be noted that there may have existed on the part L, of the provinces a desire to bring the fisheries within the sphere of
provincial control in order to secure improved management of this \_. resource.
\,....; This factor is clearly suggested in the case of British
Columbia. I <.....,, BRITISH COLUMBIA - AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY
In 1900, Sir James Dunsmuir, Premier of British Columbia, L- wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then Prime Minister of Canada:
...._, 11 It must be conceded that very little has been done by your government towards the encouragement of the fishing industry, ... Since the fishing industry is still in its L infancy in B.C., and since the jurisdiction of the Province has been greatly extended by the recent judgment of the Privy Council referred to, this government feels a very large share of responsibility in relation to future L development. 11 14
Yet, it is suggested that a more important factor instigated I,,._ the provincial government to request a transfer of administrative
~ jurisdiction to it. This is most clearly put in a Memorandum of Delegation dated 1900, which reads in part:
\..-I
14. Appendix B, No. 5; \....,/ Letter to Sir Wilfrid Laurier from Premier of B.C., at p. 7 Public Archives of Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164 Box 24 '-
L..
...... , - 9 -
"In the past the condition of affairs has given to the Federal authorities the entire revenue derivable from the industry with no comparable returns so far as B.C. is concerned in respect to expenditure of public money and the development of fisheries on the Pacific Coast.
The disparity is so great as to render it extraordinary that it should not have suggested itself to the Dominion authorities. 11 15
Following the decision in 1898, the Dominion had taken the ground, as previously mentioned, that whatever proprietary rights the
provinces held in the fisheries of the rivers and inland waters, when
it came to the seacoast and especially on the 3-mile limit, no property interest as such existed, and the jurisdiction was exclusively
in the Federal Government. The Maritime Provinces, including British
Columbia, claimed property rights to the 3-mile limit and, in 1901,
a settlement in respect of administrative jurisdiction was reached
between the Dominion and British Columbia.
In that year a modus vivendi was reached to the effect that
pending a settlement of the question of jurisdiction over seacoast
fisheries, and the outcome of a national conference on the "fisheries
question," which was to be held the year following, the Dominion
Government should retain control of the fisheries, practically as
before, while at the same time agreeing to account for any portion of
license fees which might thereafter be agreed to belong to the Province.
The terms of the agreement are contained in a telegram from
the Honourable D.M. Eberts, Attorney-General for British Columbia,
15. Appendix B, No. 6, Memorandum of Delegation. - 10 - dated the 1st of June, 1901, to which Sir Louis Davies replied by telegram dated the 3rd of that month.16
Essentially, the arrangement did little to alter the con- ditions which had existed in British Columbia prior to the 1898 decision. At first glance, the Province seems to have been given the administration of its inland fisheries, but the restrictions
imposed upon the Province by its terms of the Union with Canada in
1871 and by the modus vivendi itself, left British Columbia with only the management of a portion of its freshwater sports fisheries and a meagre portion of its inland commercial fisheries.
As the soil within the railway belt had been conveyed to the
Dominion by the terms of British Columbia's union with Canada, the
fisheries, both inland and seacoast, within that belt were owned by
the Federal Government, leaving British Columbia with no jurisdiction
therein. By the terms of the modus vivendi, the Dominion retained
administrative control over all other tidal fisheries along with the
control of all freshwater bodies, up which the anadromous salmon and
shad travelled to spawn. As the salmon industry comprised the great
bulk of fishing within British Columbia, the Province was placed in
the position of administering only the remainder of the inland com-
merical and sporting fisheries.
160 Appendix B, No. 7, Public Archives of Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164, Box 24. - 11 -
THE FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF 1902
In 1902, provincial delegates assembled at a conference in
Ottawa for the purpose of resolving the questions left unanswered by the Privy Council in 1898.17
It should be noted that in 1899, the Maritime Provinces of
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island had entered into an arrangement with the Dominion whereby it had been agreed to leave com- plete administrative jurisdiction of the fisheries with the Federal
Government pending the outcome of a test case to settle the differences of opinion regarding the ownership of the tidal or seacoast waters within or adjacent to these provinces.18 By 1902 this reference to the
Courts had not yet materialized.
The conference seems to have accomplished little in respect of settling the "fisheries dispute," but it clarifies, from an historical point of view, the stand adopted at this time by the leaders of these three provinces.19 The meeting reveals a separate trend of thinking on the part of these provinces from the others attending (Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia), inasmuch as they expressed no desire to burden themselves with the heavy costs of managing their fishing industry.
17. Appendix B, No. 8. ' Public Archives of Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164, Box 24.
18, Appendix B, No. 9. Public Archives of' Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164, Box 25.
19. IBID. - 12 -
The enforcement of the regulations under the Fisheries Act along with the protection of the industry required an expenditure which was found to be prohibitive for these economically less fit provinces, and they appear to have been eager to allow the administrative functions to remain with the Dominion. However, these provinces argued, as did
Quebec and British Columbia, that the 1898 decision gave the provinces the property in the fisheries, not only in the inland rivers but in the tidal waters and to the three-mile limit. Armed with this interpre- tation of the Privy Council's judgment in A-G the Dominion v A-G for the Provinces, they offered at the Conference to divest themselves of any such right by a perpetual lease to the Dominion - for adequate con- sideration.20 Once again, the provinces had placed the accent on securing revenue, but in this case with a different twist. As the
Dominion Government was attempting to bring the complete jurisdiction of the fisheries within their authority at this time, the Maritime
Provinces were able to apply their claim to ownership of the tidal waters in the anticipation of more successful returns at the bargaining table. 21 By leasing this alledged property right in the tidal waters to the Federal Crown, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island had hoped to gain financially from their interest in the resource without having to aid in management or strengthening of the industry by means of an outlay of provincial funds.
20. op. cit .
. 21. The Maritimes failed to gain this additional revenue - by reason of the Privy Council decision of 19i3. - 13 -
The report of the 1902 Conference suggests the beginning of the present relationship of these Maritime Provinces with the Dominion in respect of fisheries jurisdiction. Although their claim to ownership of the tidal waters, and, accordingly, their plan for securing additional income from the Federal Government eventually failed, the position taken by these three provinces in 1902 - to leave the administration of the fisheries with the Dominion - has stood to the present.22
It should be pointed out that it was unnecessary at the time of the conference to deal with any claims by Manitoba or the North-West
Territories in this respect as the Dominion owned the soil and, conse- quently, the fisheries in those regions by virtue of the terms of the union.
BRITISH COLUMBIA AND THE MODUS VIVENDI: A PARTING OF THE WAYS
In the years immediately following the Federal-Provincial
Conference of 1902, there was great delay in reaching an adjustment of the matter of administrative jurisdiction over the fisheries. The anticipated reference to the Courts had not occurred, and by 1907 the matter was no further advanced than at the time of the decision of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The arrangement that had been reached in 1901 between the
Dominion and British Columbia continued until the end of 1907, when the
Province informed the Federal Department of Marine and Fisheries that it
22. See Summary, "Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, NewfoundlanG. and Northwest Territories" and "New Brunswick". \...I - 14 -
\.._, was not prepared to renew the modus vivendi and that it would bring
into f orce its Fisheries Act of 1901. Furthermore, it would require
\....> licenses from all those engaged in fishing. 23 The Federal Government
protested the provincial regulations alleging that they conflicted '- with those of the Dominion Government and that by attempting to regulate 4 "--' the fisheries in such a manner, they infringed upon federal jurisdiction.2 The Dominion strongly protested, as well, the abrogation by the local
\..... government of the Federal right to lease areas for oyster culture in
public harbours. \,._· A-G for the Province of British Columbia v A-G for the Dominion of Canada
"-' British Columbia's unilateral action in challenging the Federal contention that no provincial property interest existed in the seacoast
'--' waters, precipitated a conflict that terminated f inally in a reference [ to the Supreme Court of Canada from which an appeal to the Privy Council resulted in the 1913 decision of that Court. 25
'--' The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that it was not competent for the Legislature of British Columbia to authorize the
"'-- Government of the Province to grant exclusive rights of fishing in tidal
rivers, including arms of the sea and estuaries of rivers. ~
~ 23. Appendix B, No. 10 - No. 11 - No. 12, pp. 7-8 Public Archives of Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164, Box 25 . ._. 24. Appendix B, No. 13, pp. 4-5 IBID. "'-' 25. A-G for the Province of British Columbia v A-G for the Dominion of Canada, (1914) A.C. 153, (P.C.) Appendix C, No. 1. <....·
\.._. \,.... - 15 -
\._· The Lord Justices laid down that in the sea, wherever the
Common Law of England applies, the right of fishing is a public right, ...... not dependent on a proprietary title, and that, consequently, the t, u regulation of the right must rest exclusively with the Dominion Parliament; whereas, in the case of an inland river or lake, or other ._ non-tidal water, where the solum is vested in a private owner or the
Crown, the public in British Columbia have no such right.
Their Lordships were chiefly concerned in the decision under
\..J discussion with the right of fishing in tidal waters and in the sea.
So far as these waters were concerned, it was held that the right of ._.. fishing in them was by English Law a public and not a proprietary right, ._, and was accordingly held to be subject to regulation by the Dominion Parliament only.
"-' Whatever the origin and character of the title of the public to fish in tidal waters, that title had, their Lordships observed, been L made unalterable, except by a legislature possessing competent authority,
since Magna Carta. As Magna Carta had come to form part of the Common \..,..· Law of England, it was also part of the Common Law of British Columbia.
L The central issue of the case was left to be decided. Did the
provincial legislature have the power to alter t~ese public rights as .__ a "Legislature possessing competent authority?" To answer this question,
the Court examined the relevant powers of the Provincial Legislature \...J which arose partly from Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, 1867, and
\.,..' partly from the terms of union of British Columbia with the Confederation.
· It was decided that neither in 1867 nor at the date when British Columbia
~ became a member of the Federation, was fishing in tidal waters a matter
'--' - 16 - of property. At page 11 of the report, the Lord Chancellor explained:
"It was a right open equally to all the public and therefore when by section 91 seacoast and inland fisheries were placed under the exclusive legislative authority of the Dominion Parliament, there was in the case of the fishing in tidal waters nothing left within the Domain of the Provincial Legislature. The right being a public one, all that could be done was to regulate its exercise and the exclusive power of regulation was placed in the Dominion Parliament ••.. Their Lordships have no doubt that the object and the effect of these legislative provisions were to place the management and protection of the cognate public rights of navigation and fishing in the sea and tidal waters exclusively in the Dominion Parliament, and to leave to the Province no right of property or control in them.1126
As the Privy Council placed the exclusive jurisdiction of fisheries in the tidal waters of British Columbia as well as in the railway belt, with the Federal government, the latter formally under- took the administration of these fisheries immediately following the decision. 27
However, the administration of the oyster farming had been transferred by agreement in 1912 to the Provincial Government and accordingly, remained with them following the 1913 decision. 28 As evidenced by recent correspondence, the management of this industry has remained with the British Columbia authorities since that time. 29 The
26. IBID, at pp. 11 and 12.
27. Appendix C, No. 2; Public Archives of Canada, Fisheries Records, Rq 23, File 164, Box 25.
28. Appendix C, No. 3; Agreement between the Dominion and the Province of British Columbia.
29. Appendix I, No. 1, p. 3; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Ontario, File 721-8-1. l..- - 17 -
situation is unique as no other province within the country has such
control over its oyster beds.30 '-' THE NON-TIDAL WATERS OF QUEBEC - A DIFFERENCE?
'-' The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1913 settled the question in all of the sea-washed provinces with
'- the exception of Quebec.
This Province, by agreement in 1898 had been administering '- the fisheries in the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence River and its
'- tributaries as far east as Pointe des Monts on the north side, and all along the south shore, as well as those in the counties of Gaspe .._. and Bonaventure. As a result of the 1913 decision, the Federal
Government was of the opinion that Quebec should relinquish its admini L.· strative control over the fisheries in those tidal waters. The
...... Province argued, however, that as the decision was largely based on Magna Carta and that, as Magna Carta did not apply to Quebec, the
~ decision did not affect the situation in that Province. It was con
sequently necessary to submit a further reference to the courts. This \_, reference was arranged in 1914, but owing to conditions brought about
\,..., by the war, the decision of the Privy Council was not given until
November, 1920 ..._, It should be noted that during the interval between the
Privy Council decisions of 1913 and 1920 the Dominion transferred all '- of the inland fish hatcheries which it had previously controlled within
30. IBID.
~
L.- i .....' - 18 -
L Quebec to the Province.31 As explained in the appended Order in Council,
PC 1786, the Dominion saw no reason to continue its fish breeding work .._, in waters of which there was no prospect of the fisheries being again
placed under their administration. As Quebec was receiving all of the \.-• revenue from those fisheries, Federal expenditure in that field was
\,,,J unnecessary and, accordingly, in 1915, the four inland hatcheries
were placed under the control of the Province.32 \.... It is difficult to see why the Province wanted to hold on to
the administration of the commercial fisheries, even in the upper St. ~·· Lawrence, as it appears from much of the material covering this period ~ L that the cost of administration was several times more than the revenue.
The Province had been deriving its revenue from the angling privileges \.....• which were nearly all in the non-tidal waters and consequently already
owned by it . .l....J Thus, by the time of the Privy Council decision in the Quebec
L Fisheries Reference, the Province had secured the administration of its
inland fisheries and the Fish Culture Service within those waters. '-"' THE QUEBEC FISHERIES REFERENCE, 1920
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1920 decided I._. against the Province and at first instance it appeared that Quebec had
L' failed in its attempt to obtain the management of the fisheries within
its tidal waters. \_., r.._. 31. Appendix C, No. 4; Order in Council P.C. 1786, Assented to July 30th, 1915.
32. IBID. l-'
\..-' - 19 -
Succinctly, the main points of the decision are as follows:33
1 - Magna Carta does not apply to Quebec. It will be recalled that in 1913 the Privy Council held that under the Magna -· Carta, there is a public right of fishery in tidal waters controllable only by the Federal Government but that this does not apply where the fishing operations are carried .. on by implements attached to the soil .
2 - While Magna Carta does not apply in Quebec, the rights of .,,. the public in connection with the fisheries have been established by competent statutes, passed between 1763 and 1867, when Confederation was effected. These Statutes in substance provide that there is a public right of fishery in all tidal waters that are navigable and in non-tidal waters that are navigable as well, and, as the decision states, "As the public right was not proprietary, the Dominion Parliament has in effect exclusive jurisdiction to deal with it.1134
3 - The public right of fishing does not, however, extend to fixing fishing engines to the soil, and therefore, in tidal waters, the bed of which may be owned by the Province, and in which the fishing would be carried on by engines fixed to the soil, there is an element of conflict.
The Federal contention had been more than upheld; they had won .I more than in the other provinces. The Court held that in Quebec, the
public right of fishing, which is controllable only by the Dominion,
extends to non-tidal waters that are navigable. Keeping in view the
tenor of the decision this meant that fisheries in all waters that could
be reached by a fishing vessel from the sea, by herself or by her boats,
were subject to federal jurisdiction. This would not only place the St.
Lawrence River throughout its whole length in Quebec under the jurisdiction
33. A-G for Canada v A-G for the Province of Quebec, (1921) T.A.C. 412 (P.C.) Appendix D, No. 1.
34. IBID at p. 10. - 20 -
of the Dominion, but all its tributaries, as far as they could be
ascended in a dory. Correspondence indicates that officials within the
Federal Department at this time were also quite confident that the
decision would likely place a number of salmon angling pools within the \.... Province under their jurisdiction.
\.-' DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE TIDAL WATERS TO QUEBEC
Immediately following this, the Federal Government sought to
bring the administration of the fisheries in Quebec in line with the
decision. 35 Yet, less than a year later, the administration of the '-' .. fisheries in all tidal waters within the Province - excluding those L. about the Magdalen Islands - was in the hands of the Quebec Government. 36
The sudden change was brought about for purely practical reasons. Under Lt the Privy Council decision, the Province had been given the exclusive
power to grant the right to fix engines to the soil where the soil was l....t vested in the Crown in right of the Province. In Quebec, practically
.._ all of the regulated fisheries were carried on by nets of one kind or
another that were attached to the soil and the Province was unwilling
"- to surrender any of its rights, insisting instead that no one be
allowed to use the soil under the water anywhere where the Province \..... had jurisdiction, except under license from them. 37 On the other hand, ._,
35. Appendix D, No. 2; \...; Order in Council P.C. 1246, Assented to April 13th, 1921.
36. Appendix D, No. 3 and 4; Orders in Council P.C. 360 and 307, Assented to Feb. 13, 1922 and "-.. Feb. 18, 1922 respectively.
37. Information extracted from Order in ·council P.C. 360. '-' l..- - 21 -
the decision granted to the Federal authorities the control of all
fishing in the water itself. Hence, the fishermen were being placed in
an impossible position. Not only had they to obtain a license from both
Federal and Provincial governments, but if either refused, fishing could
not go on. To overcome this condition an agreement was reached at a
conference held in February of 1922 whereby the Province undertook the -· complete administration of the fisheries excepting the Magdalen Islands,
and the operation of all remaining fish culture work within the Province.38
From a Federal standpoint the advantages of placing the control
of the tidal fisheries with the Province far outweighed the cost of
retaining their rightful jurisdiction. It was felt that a friendly
arrangement would enable them to co-operate closely with the Provincial
department in protecting the salmon fisheries. These ~ish had to return
to the non-tidal non-navigable waters to spawn and unless they were
J adequately protected in those regions the fisheries would decline.
Conversely, if they were not sufficiently protected below so as to enable
enough to get back to the spawning ground to .seed there, the fisheries
would fail.
Another factor which influenced the Dominion in reaching this
decision was the realization that if they were to insist on continuing
to administer the tidal fisheries, the question of how far navigable
water extends up each river would need to be determined. This would
38. Appendix D, No. 3; Order in Council P.C. 360. (
-· - 22 -
have been a complex and rather expensive matter to determine as it
would have included, among other things, further references to the
Courts.
\-' And, finally, from a dollar and cents point of view it was
; estimated that such an arrangement would involve a saving of some
1-1 $80,000 to the Federal Government.39 .._ THE MAGDALEN ISLANDS As mentioned previously, the administration of the fisheries
~ I about the Magdalen Islands was not transferred to the Province at this
time. In this area, the fisheries were not operated by means of ._ apparatus attached to the soil but were of a character similar to those
of the Maritime Provinces. Accordingly, it was believed that a trans- L fer made under such conditions would prove to be unconstitutional and 40 "-' might in fact cause a great deal of trouble with the other provinces. For these reasons, the control of these tidal fisheries remained, in L 1922, with the Federal Department of Marine and Fisheries.
THE FISH HATCHERIES IN ONTARIO \.. Something should be said at this point about the situation
~ with respect to the control and management of the fish hatcheries with the Province of Ontario. As indicated above, the administration of the L
39. Appendix D, No. 5; \_. Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Quebec, File No. 721-8-2, Department of Fisheries Records.
~· 40. Appendix D, No. 6; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Quebec, File No. 721-8-2, Vol. 6, Department of Fisheries Records . .._,
\.... - 23 -
\._, fish breeding work within t he inland waters of Quebec was handed
w over to that province in 1915; the remaining hatcheries passed in
1922. These dates correspond quite closely with similar action L taken by the Dominion in the Province of Ontario. Those hatcheries
which provided the supply of game fish appear to have been placed '..J in the control of Ontario authorities between the years 1912 and
1915. It is not certain whether the arrangement was completed by
any one instrument or embodied in a formal agreement as nothing has ~ · been located to indicate such action. However, evidence of an agree
ment is found in the Order in Council, P.C. 714 of May 8th, 1926.41
The intention of this document was to report the transfer of those
'- hatcheries previously operated by the Dominion for the conservation and stocking of the commercial fisheries within Ontario. As indicated '- therein, discussions had been carried on in 1912 for the purpose of
L placing the hatcheries, which stocked the waters with sport fish, within the control of the Province. Further into the report it is stated,
\... "after the Department ceased the propagation of game fish in Ontario,
it took up the same question with the Province of Quebec. 11 42 Since \.... Quebec obtained the management of the fish breeding services for its
inland fisheries in 1915, it must be assumed that similar duties were '- delegated to Ontario in respect of those hatcheries for the stocking l. of game fish between the years 1912 and 1915.
\...· 41. Appendix D, No. 7; Order in Council P.C. 714, Assented to May 8th, 1926. L: 42 . IBID p. 1. ~· - 24 -
\.... The Order in Council, P.C. 714, itself is sufficient docu
mentation t o assert that Ontario did undertake the administration of \ - the remaining hatcheries within the Province - for the conservation L of the commercial fisheries - in 1926.43 Thus, by 1926, Ontario had secured complete administrative .._.. jurisdiction over its inland fisheries and controlled all of the fish
culture work for both sport and commercial fishing industries. '- MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA: THE NATURAL RESOURCES
L TRANSFER ACT OF 1930
By the provisions of the Confederation Pact, 1867, it clearly L.. appears to have been decided to make natural resources the cornerstone
of provincial finance. The provinces transferred to the Federal ~ Government most of their other sources of revenue but they retained for
'-' themselves the use and control of the Crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties for the purpose of raising sufficient funds to carry on self L government.
In 1870, however, when the Province of Manitoba was formed, \,_, the control of the lands was retained by the Dominion for reasons of
\.... national policy. At the time several great projects were being contem
plated; one being the construction of a railway across the continent
by means of grants of land through which it passed, and another, the
promotion of immigration by free grants of land. In 1905, the provinces L of Saskatchewan and Alberta were organized and it was still considered ..._.
43. Op~ cit • .__,
~ - 25 -
desirable that the natural resources should be administered by the
Dominion Government for the above stated reasons. 44
Thus, in the prairie provinces the natural resources belonged to the Dominion~ whereas in the other provinces they belonged to the provinces. Accordingly, the Dominion not only had the exclusive authority to regulate the fisheries in Manitoba~ Saskatchewan and
Alberta, but it owned them as well. This policy was continued even when the boundaries of the provinces were extended. Thus, when the boundaries of Quebec and Ontario were extended to Hudson Bay, these provinces automatically obtained proprietary rights to the resources in the area. But it was made clear that Manitoba did not assume control of the resources within its area when its boundaries were extended in 1912. It is not surprising that the prairie provinces should have found this difference in treatment irksome, and they pro- tested against it constantly, becoming more unanimous and insistent in the manner of obtaining control of their natural resources. Finally in 1929 and 1930, Canada entered into agreements with Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta on the express understanding that these pro- vinces would be placed on a footing of equality with the other provinces.
The agreements were later confirmed pursuant to their terms by federal and provincial statutes and the BNA Act, 1930.45
44. Memoranda Relating to the Natural Resources of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, ?nd Alberta, December, 1923. National Library, H.C. 117, P4C2, 1923.
45. Appendix E, No. l; Items 1 and 2. 1930 20 & 21 Geo. v. (1st session) c.c. 3,29.41 (Can.) (Item 1) 1930 20 Geo. V. C. 30 (Man.) 1930 20 Geo. v. C. 87 (Sask.) 1930 20 Geo. v. C. 21 (Alb.) 1930 21 Geo. v. C. 26 (Imp.) 20 & 21 geo. v. BNA 1930 (Item 2) ~· - 26 -
i-.. Each of the resources agreements with these three provinces
has a paragraph regarding fisheries that reads as follows:
"Except as herein otherwise provided, all rights of fishery shall, after the coming into force of this agreement, belong to and be administered by the - Province, and the Province shall have the right to dispose of all such rights of fishery by sale, license '-' or otherwise, subject to the exercise by the Parliament of Canada of its legislative jurisdiction over sea coast and inland fisheries. 11 46
\...... The exception "except as herein otherwise provided," placed
in the above clause was .intended to cover the fisheries within the '- National Parks as it had been decided that they would not pass to
·the Provinces. '+'l Accordingly, the administration of all fisheries
within the National Parks remained with the Dominion and this situ-
L ation has remained unaltered to the present.
While the correspondence leading up to the agreements of ~ 1930 shows that it was also the intention to transfer the control of
'- the fish hatcheries to the three provinces, and while apparently it was the understanding of all concerned during the negotiations, the agree- ' \..,. ments themselves do not specify the transfer of administrative control
over the hatcheries to the provinces. However, by Order in Council L P.C. 1'714, of the 26th of July, 1930 and by Order in Council P.C. 1858
\.....
'-+6. Appendix E. No. 1; Item 2. ..__ 1930 20 & 21 G~o. v. (1st session) Can • C. 3 Alberta S. 9 C. 41 Saskatchewan S. 9 C. 29 Manitoba S. 10
47. Appendix E, No. 2; Jurisdiction of Fisheries, Province of Alberta, File No. 721-8-7, ...... Vol. 1 and 2, Department of Fisheries Records .
'- ._. - 27 -
.._, of August 6th, 1930, the hatcheries in the different provinces were - transferred to them, with the exception again of those in the National Parks which were retained by the Federal Parks Department.48
..... BRITISH COLUMBIA: AN ACT RESPECTING THE TRANSFER OF THE
RAILWAY BELT AND PEACE RIVER BLOCK, 1930 \,,_. In line with the transfer of the natural resources to the
'- prairies in 1930, a further Act was passed in that year which returned to B.C. all of its natural resources previously held by the Dominion.
'- This Act is known as "An Act Respecting the Transfer of the Railway
Belt and Peace River Block. 1149 Since previous Privy Council decisions ~ had determined that a property right existed in non-tidal waters, this
L... transfer to the province accordingly included the fisheries associated
with the inland waters within the belt. 50 Although none of the material ._. relating to the transfer indicates that British Columbia undertook the
administration of the fisheries in the non-tidal waters of the railway ...... belt following the passage of the Bill, such action should be presumed
L as the Provincial Government presently administers these fisheries
and no one event subsequent to 1930 could have produced this change in
(._. jurisdictional policy •
.._, 48. Appendix E, No. 3 and 4; Orders in Council, P.C. 1714, assented to July 26th, 1930 and :_. P.C. 1858 assented to August 6th, 1930.
49. Appendix E, No. 1, Item 2; Appendix E, No. 5; I_. 1930 20 - 21 Geo. V. (C. 37) 20 - 21 Geo. V. BNA 1930 (4) British Columbia
50. Appendix E, No. 6; '- Legislation, Fisheries Jurisdiction, Province of British Columbia, File No. 721-8-4, Vol. 2. -
..._ - 28 ·-
1930-1949
From the events of this period to the present, there have been only a few changes made in the field of fisheries administration.
These have been only isolated events and with the exception of
Newfoundland's entry into Canada in 1949, they have produced but minor variations to the situation existing in 1930.
As early as 1901, it had been agreed between the Federal
Government and the British Columbia authorities that the administration and development of the non-tidal fisheries should be the Province's responsibility. Yet, as late as 1937, the Dominion was found to be operating the inland sport fish hatcheries in the province. An explanation of the situation is, however, not difficult to provide.
As previously mentioned, the anadromous fish, such as salmon and steelhead, while in the inland waters of the province to reproduce, have always been considered valuable sport fish and, accordingly, their development and protection was entrusted to the Dominion. The latter, to achieve these ends, established hatcheries within the non-tidal waters for the propagation of sockeye salmon, It was as an extension of these commercial salmon fish breeding operations that the Federal
Department of Marine and Fisheries in the first instance became engaged in the propagation of sport fish. From time ·to time it had been urged that these Federal hatchery operations be extended to include sport fish and consequently the Dominion established sport fish hatcheries at seven locations within the province. - 29 -
By 1937, however, the provincial authorities had extended
the administration of their inland sport fisheries into the field of
sport fish culture. Such dual services were considered undesirable
by both governments and in that year full responsibility for sport
fish development in the inland waters of the province was handed over
to British Columbia.51
It will be recalled·that in 1922 the Province of Quebec, by
reciprocal Orders in Council, became responsible for the administration
of the regulations made under the Fisheries Act pertaining to the
coastal fisheries of the province, with the exception of those about
the Magdalen Islands. In 1943, the provisions of the said Orders in
Council were amended to include the administration, by the province,
of the fisheries of the Magdalen Islands. The arrangement also pro-
vided that the Province of Quebec would assume control, on behalf of
the Government of Canada, of the regulations made under the Meat and
Canned Foods Act, and under the Fish Inspection Act.52
There is no information available by which to set out the
reasons for the province's desire to undertake this enlarged field
of administration, nor is it clear why the Dominion was prepared at
this time to agree to an arrangement it so steadfastly refused to
accept in 1922.
51. Appendix F, No. l; Order in Council, P.C. 2532, assented to October 12, 1937. 52. Appendix F, No. 2; Order in Council, P.C. 1890, assented to March 15, 1943. ·~ - 30 -
NEWFOUNDLAND
Some reference should be made to the arrangements with
Newfoundland at the time of its entry into Canada. Under the terms of Union~ the p1•ovisions of the ENA Act, 1867, were made applicable to this former Maritime state.53 Thus, at first glance, it would appear• that the Federal Government was given the exclusive power of legislating in respect of seacoast and inland fisheries, as was the case in the older confederated provinces. However, one limitation was placed on the use of Federal legislative power with respect to fishe1"ies" This limitation which was to remain for a period of five years from the date of the Union, relates to the continuation of the laws of Newfoundland in existence at the time of the Union. 54
Accordingly, Federal legislative jurisdiction did not come into effect in this province until some time later.55
With respect to the administration of these fisheries, the author relies on information provided by officials within the Department.
It bas been explained that at the time of the Union, arrangements provided for the retention, by provincial authorities, of the inland sport fisheries, The Dominion assumed control of all other fisheries
53" Appendix F, No. 3, p" 4; Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, term 3.
51+. IBID, pp. 12-14, term 22.
55. This transfer of legislative jurisdiction has not yet been pinpointed thr,ough any of the materials which have been covered, yet recent correspondence does indicate that this has occurred. See Appendix I, No, 1, p. 3. - 31 -
within the province. It is understood that in 1954, the province then
transferred its control of the inland sport fisheries to the Federal
Government, giving the latter full administration of the resource.
One file has been left unexplored on the question of fisheries
jurisdiction in Newfoundland. 56 It is suggested that documentation may
be uncovered therein to more precisely identify the various interests
that may have evolved through the past fifteen years in this field of
Federal-Provincial relations.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Province of Quebec, in 1958, requested that the admini-
stration of the Fish Inspection Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act,
which had been under its control since 1943, be returned to the
Federal Government. The events leading up to th~s decision by the
province are most effectively summarized in a memorandum dated May ,_ 16th, 1958, to the Chairman of the Treasury Board from the Minister
of Fisheries:
"In recent years the rapid growth of the fish processing industry of Canada has placed increased emphasis on the need for systematic Government inspection of the product and of the plants. To meet the demands of industry and of the consumer of fish products of higher quality, the Inspection Service of the Department of Fisheries has considerably expanded its technical and field services.
56. Employment NFLD. Protection Service, General Correspondence File, 1949-1964, formerly File No. 710-251-1 at Department of Fisheries Records. The File has recently been transferred to the Public Archives of Canada. - 32 -
11 A large proportion of Canadian fish products are exported to foreign markets or enter into inter provincial trade. Quality standards and inspection procedures must thus be national in character if effective and uniform application is to result. 11 57
It was in light of this, that Quebec felt obliged to relinquish its control over these two acts. By the authority of Order in Council
P.C. 1959 - 353 of March 28th, 1959~ as accepted by Quebec through provincial Order in Council No. 310, the arrangements authorized by
Order in Council P.C. 1890 of March 15th, 1943, insofar as they related to the administration of the regulations made under the Fish Inspection
Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, were repealed, and the management of the two aforementioned acts was resumed by the Government of
Canada.SB
57. Appendix F, No. 4; Legislation, Jurisdiction of the Fisheries, Province of Quebec, File No. 721-8-2.
58. Appendix F, No. 5 and 6; Orders in Council P.C. 1959 - 353, assented to March 25th, 1959 and No. 310 of April Bth, 1959. - 33 -
CONCLUSION
By the authority of the BNA Act, 1867, as interpreted by
several decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the
Federal Government has been vested with responsibility for the regu lation of the fisheries in all parts of Canada as well as responsi bility for the administration of the fisheries in tidal waters in all of the Provinces other than Quebec, in which Province such control extends to all waters that are navigable from the sea. These powers are exercised by the Minister of the Environment, the head of the
Federal Department entrusted by Parliament to administer all laws relating to fisheries. In certain provinces, the administration of this natural resource has, by agreement, been delegated to them but the laws they administer are federal and any change in these laws is made by the Federal Government on the recommendation of the Province.
Some of these arrangements are the result of informal meetings or a simple exchange of letters while others are the result of such formal transactions as the BNA Act, 1930. The situation at present is as follows:
1. British Columbia
The Dominion, by virtue of the 1913 decision of A-G for
British Columbia v A-G for the Dominion, administers the fisheries in the tidal waters. They are also responsible for the anadromous species.
The Province, by virtue of an agreement in 1901 and supplemented by the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 administers the purely freshwater species . The Federal Government enacts and enforces the regulations for the protection of the fisheries in all parts of the
Province. - 34 -
2. Ontario
Following the Fisheries Reference of 1898, an agreement between Federal and Provincial authorities placed the administration of all fisheries with the Province. Although none of the waters there were t idal at the time of the agreement a later extension of the provi nce placed the sea coast waters of Hudson and James Bay within
its boundaries . Though no commercial fishing is carried on and the fisher·ies here are negligible in any case, the Federal Government administers the legislation .
3. New Brunswick
The Federal Government administers the fisheries in all water•s of the province in accord with arrangements made at the turn of the century. However, the province, from the time of the decision in Queen v Rober tson, 1882 , has controlled the leasing of the angling privileges in the non-tidal waters. This involves the protection of such i nland waters as may be leased. There is a co-operative pro tective arrangement with the Department of Marine and Fisheries of
New Brunswick whereby the Federal Fishing Inspectors and the
Provi nc ial Game Wardens , Fire Rangers and Fishery Guardians act in close co-operation .
4 . Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
The Prairie Provinces have been administering their own fisheries since the passage of the Natural Resources Transfer Act of
1930 . This includes the control of the inland waters in which both sporting and commercial fish are located. The Dominion, however, adm ini sters the l egislation with respect to the tidal waters of Hudson
Bay whi ch border s on t he Province of Manitoba.
I - 35 -
It has been learned that the latter province is at present interested in relinquishing its control of the commercial fisheries.
The Department of Mines and Natural Resources, the provincial agency responsible for t he enforcement of the regulations under the Fisheries
Act has expressed the opi nion that it does not have the capacity to adequately carry out its functions. Accordingly, the Department of the Environment i s studying the feasibility of returning the adminis tration of the fisheries i n Manitoba to the Federal Government.
5. Quebec
This province, by arrangements made with the Dominion in
1899 and again i n 1922 and 1943, administers the fisheries in both the tidal and non-tidal waters. Recent correspondence, however, has indicated the possible return in the near future, of responsibility for administration of the salt water fisheries of the province to the Federal Government.
6. Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Yukon and the
Northwest Territories
The Dominion maintains complete jurisdiction, both legis lative and adm i nistrative. During the past six years, however, the
Yukon has sought i n repeated efforts to obtain the administration of its inland s port fisheries. The most recent correspondence available indic ates however, that they would not be p~epared administratively to enforce the anti-pollution provisions of the
Fisheries Act in the event that they should secure the control of thes e fisheries .
Somethi ng should also be said of the administration of the oyster f arming within the country. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia - 36 - and Prince Edward Island, the Federal Government administers the cult ure and leasing of the oyster beds. In British Columbia this is done by t he Province under an Agreement dated October 7, 1912.