1901-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Bill	(No.	12)	respecting	the	London
Mutual Fire Insurance Go. of Canada.-Mr. Hyman.
Bill	(No.	13)	respecting	the	Canada
National Railway and Transport Co-Mr. Cowan-by Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Co.-Mr. Monk.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved:: That the name of Mr. R. L. Richardson, member for the electoral divison of Lisgar, be added

to the list of members forming the Committee of Debates of this House.
He said : The hon. member for Lisgar was on the committee during the last parliament, and it is desirable that he should be there once more.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no objection to the motion ; but I will ask that the name of Mr. McCreary be also added to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Inland Revenue Department, Part III.-Adulteration of Food.-Hon. M. E. Bernier.
The Civil Service List of Canada for the year 1900.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Mr. SPROULE.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) if he can give me any information when the Trade and Commerce Returns will be laid on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am afraid a little delay must occur. The hon. gentleman will understand that the Trade and Commerce Returns are necessarily somewhat posterior to the Trade and Navigation Returns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the Trade and Navigation Returns I refer to.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I inquired for them today, and did not get them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe the explanation is that the Minister of Customs laid them on the Table and a few copies were brought down, but there was not a sufficient number to distribute to all the members. He said he would attend to that matter.



SUPPLY-THE BUDGET-INQUIRY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes, $150 above the usual statutory increase.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.', 'Monday, February 25, 1901.']
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire when we may expect the budget.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not in a position to give the hon. gentleman any information on the subject to-day. At a later date the information will be given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee.
['I am not in a position to give the hon. gentleman any information on the subject to-day. At a later date the information will be given.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I propose that we take up the Estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I thought the government were going to proceed, as suggested, in the order in which the departments appear in the Estimates. It was mentioned that that course would be very convenient, as members would know what to expect, unless the government said the night before tnat they would take up something special.
The MINISTER OFt FINANCE. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that it would be convenient to proceed in that way, and I had anticipated that the Solicitor General would be here to proceed with the Estimates of the Department of Justice, which are next in order ; but, as he is not here, I have asked my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to fill up the gap. Perhaps the Solicitor General will be here later, when we may proceed with the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
Maintenance and repairs to Government
steamers	 $160,000


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies).: That is the ordinary amount voted every year. There will be an additional amount in the supplementary estimates as usual.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Can the hon. gentleman give any information concerning the repairs to the Minto. I understand that when she arrived at Charlottetown she was immediately put into dock and had to be repaired before attempting her season's work.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman was incorrectly informed. The Minto, on her voyage out from England, encountered one of the most severe storms her captain said he had ever experienced in the Atlantic. Some parts of her deck fittings were smashed by the ice, and the iron work twisted, but this had nothing to do with the hull or any material part of the vessel, and there never was any complaint against the builder. But certain changes, not very material, and almost always incidental to a new boat, had to be made. After her first winter's experience in the ice, the Minto had to go into dock to be re-riveted, but the same thing occurred when the Stanley was built, after she had a season's experience in the ice. There was, however, a larger number of loose rivets in the Minto than in the Stanley, and I communicated direct to Gourley Bros., asking them whether, considering the number of rivets that had to be re-riveted, they should not bear their share of the expense. They replied, giving in detail the great pains taken in their shipyard to have everything done in first-class order, and asked me, as they could not


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TTJPPER.: How much was the cost ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: $4,900 for re-riveting and putting it up.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How much was the cost at Charlottetown, before the Minto was regularly in commission ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not recollect, but I stated the amount in debate last year.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The Miuto, I presume, was built after tender, and a regular contract drawn up ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Did the hon. gentleman ask, as a matter of favour or fair-play or as a matter of law, that the contractor should contribute towards the expense of re-riveting.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no claim as a matter of law at all. I simply submitted the facts to them as first-class shipbuilders. I stated that after one year's experience in the ice, 1,300 rivets had to be re-riveted, and asked them could they afford this. I suggested that they should pay one-half. As a matter of law, she was certified in first-class condition, and the captain of the Minto intimates that he never had as good a boat before, and is thoroughly satisfied with her in every respect. We have no fault to find, except that, as the resuit of the year's work, more rivets require re-riveting than should be the ease.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How does the cost of maintenance compare with that of the Stanley ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: A little more. The Minto is 25 feet longer and proportionately broader and has a few more men, but the cost is very little more.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Who is the commander ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Captain Finlayson, promoted from the Stanley, and the first officer of the Stanley is the captain.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What proportion of expenditure is attributable to repairs and what to maintenance ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nothing special. Every year we come down with the supplementary estimates whenever the repairs are more than the ordinary.


Mr. CLANCY.: Why is this increase from year to year in the maintenance and repairs to government steamers ? In 1900 the amount was $145,000, and in 1901, $160,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I can hold out no hope of the expenditure being any less. It will rather be likely to be increased, because there is an additional steamer this winter. We have two steamers on the route trying to keep winter communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


James Clancy: And not succeeding ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Both were frozen in fourteen days, but are running again. The Stanley got out of the ice yesterday, and the Minto three or four days ago. $160,000 is the ordinary sum voted, and when any special repairs are required we ask for a supplementary estimate.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What was the amount expended last year, on which this estimate was based ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was $160,000 spent, and $20,000 supplementary voted, or $180,000, including repairs.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Why not make it $180,000 this year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Because the practice has been to vote the repairs in the supplementary estimates. I think the better plan would be just to bring down the exact sum, hut I simply follow the practice.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I think that is a new practice. The system on which the estimates used to be based a few years ago, took into consideration the total expenditure. Regardless of whether a boat was obtained by original or supplementary estimate. Bringing the estimates down in this way, a steady increase might escape the attention of the Committee. Evidently, $180,000 is the amount the hon. minister will require, for that was the amount last year and the year before; and, as I understand him, he does not hold out any hope that he will require any less this year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly not.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Referring to the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), can the hon. minister tell us how much of that is apportioned to maintenance and how much to repairs ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Last year there was a supplementary vote for the Min to of $12,869, and alterations to the Aberdeen, $7,000. I shall propose this year's supplementary estimates for alterations and repairs to the Druid, the Aberdeen and some other steamers. I shall certainly require the whole $180,000. There will be the expense of running the additional steamer this winter.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: But, what I wished to ascertain is, how much of the expenditure is for maintenance and how much for repairs ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Substantially the whole of this is for maintenance-small ordinary repairs are included. Where there is a special expenditure amounting to five, six or seven thousand dollars, I intend to ask the House for a special vote, naming the amount and the vessel to be repaired.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. minister does not understand me, 1 take it that his officers have given him in detail the estimated expenditure for the maintenance of each ship, and also for the repairs of each ship. I do not ask for these details, but I desire to know how much is to be spent for repairs and how much for maintenance.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was $21,000 spent last year for repairs; the rest of the $180,000, was lor maintenance.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How many ships has the hon. minister under his charge ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. We have all that we have had heretofore, with the Stanley in addition this winter.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: And the Aberdeen ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Aberdeen, the Lands-downe, the Druid, the Minto, the Stanley and the Quadra.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The Newfield has been lost ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes; the Aberdeen takes her place. Otherwise the Aberdeen would be laid up. The expense is the same.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then the hon. gentleman has one ship less ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Nominally, yes. But, formerly, when the Newfield was running in the winter, the Aberdeen was laid up at Quebec. Until we can get a ship built to take the Newfield's place, we have transferred the Sir CHARLES HTBBSRT TUPPER.
Aberdeen to the Nova Scotia shore'. But the expense goes on the same.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: As I understand, this amount is required for the maintenance and repairs for a certain fleet. One of the most expensive and valuable of the ships, the Newfield,. has been lost. Yet, the hon. minister says he wants the same amount for maintenance and repairs. Allowing for the time that the Aberdeen is used, the amount required should not be the same, because the Newfield was running from January to December.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But, when the spring comes, I shall have to make other arrangements to supply the Newfield's place either by chartering another vessel or putting the Minto in the Newfield's place. The Minto was tied up in the summer months.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That leads up to the question, whether the minister proposes to charter a vessel ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I propose to put the Minto on, after she has done her winter navigation work, in lieu of the Aberdeen, which goes to Quebec.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Has the hon. minister any vessel that will do the special work, the cable work, that the Minto used to do ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is it proposed to have a vessel for that work 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. The Public Works Department, as I understand, propose to charter a vessel for that work, because the cable has to be laid to Belle Isle in the spring. The Newfield was about proceeding to that work last fall when she was lost.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is the Marine Department going to abandon the idea of taking charge of these vessels ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: It seems to me a pity to have the Marine Deportment, which has its special officers, nautical men, men who are acquainted with the repairing and the handling of ships, give up the charge of these vessels, and allow other departments to run vessels on their own account. It would add unnecessary expense. Some years ago a gradual concentration of that work was made under the Marine Department. In old times, for instance, the Customs Department had the management of a ship or two, and the

Marine Department took charge of these vessels. Now, it would appear, instead of replacing the Newfield, as ought to be done -for she did good work for the country-it j it proposed that the Public Works Department shall provide their own cable ship.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think I mislead the hon. gentleman in that. I am having prepared plans and specifications of a ship for the construction of which I propose to call tenders at an early date. The new ship will take the place of the Newfield.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: As a cable and marine ship ?
construction of both these ships in Canada ; and as my hon. friend says, even if it does cost a few thousand more, it will be in the general interest of the country that the money should be spent here, when that can he done, so that we may help along this great national industry.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 1 am delighted to hear the observations of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I hope he will be able to inspire his colleagues with the same spirit.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am glad to say that they are of the same opinion.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. I have communicated to the Minister of Public Works the fact that I am prepared to build a ship on these lines and with that accommodation, if it is agreeable to him. I am not in a position to say that he has absolutely assented to that, but I have no reason to believe that he will not.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That will be a costly ship. In that connection, has the hon. gentleman given attention to the efforts being made at Halifax to establish an iron ship building industry, and has he considered how far the government would be able to go on encouraging that enterprise, even if they have to pay a little more, by having the next large ship required for the use of the government on that coast built in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have given that matter a good deal of consideration and, as much as two months ago, I had the whole matter reported upon by the officers of my department. I appreciate fully the importance of this great industry of building iron and steel ships in this Dominion. So far as the government is concerned, it will be my earnest desire to do what I can to further the initiation of that great industry. 1 made a report to my colleagues on the subject and suggested the desirability, when tenders are being called for, of calling for tenders in the Dominion of Canada for the construction of these ships. 1 had obtained beforehand an estimate of the increase in the cost of building in Canada, and submitted that to my colleagues, and although the report has not yet been finally adopted, they viewed the suggestion very favourably, and I think the conclusion will be to call for tenders in the Dominion of Canada for these ships. When I say ' these ships,' I include the Newfield, which is to take her place on the Nova Scotia shore, and also the Druid, which has been reported as worn out and useless, and as too dangerous to undertake another season's navigation, and for which a new ship will have to be substituted. It is my intention to call for tenders for the


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 1 am certain the feeling in Canada would justify the additional expense that would be incurred in patronizing what would certainly be a new industry on the coast, or anything like an attempt to build a seagoing ship, iron or steel, and to assist in that respect. It would be a mere bagatelle so far as the government is concerned. Those enterprising are risking their own capital in an effort to make a test, at any rate, whether the country can sustain such an enterprise ; and I feel sure, without having directly communicated with any one, that the spirit of the country is such to-day the people would be delighted, in every quarter of Canada, not only to see this enterprise successfully started, but to give credit to the government for any share they had in assisting in such a way to develop that industry.


Mr. BENNETT.: I notice on page P-144 of the Auditor General's Report, a reference to a steam barge called the Shamrock, purchased at a price of $21,500. May I ask the minister where that craft is, from whom she was purchased, and what use she was put to ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: She was purchased for the Montreal buoy service, as I explained last year. Previously to that the Montreal buoy service had been let by contract, and had been, carried on by contract. But it did not give satisfaction. The boards of trade and the shipping industries of Montreal insisted that there should be better buoy service, and the government had to take it over and carry it on themselves. A ship was bought from Mr. Kane, I think the name was-the facts are not as fresh in my mind as they were last year when I gave the House all the information about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: When was she paid for'/


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: At the time she was bought, over a year ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: I call the minister's at-tetnion to the fact that in the Auditor General's Report it would seem that on the

17th of November, 1900, that gentleman took exception to the fact that the boat had been purchased without a compliance with the Audit Act, section 33. I will use his own words as they occur on page P-144 of the report:
Auditor General's Office,
Ottawa, November 17, 1900. Sir,-With reference to your letter of February 27 last, informing me that the minister and deputy minister personally examined into the value of the steam barge Shamrock. I beg to say that unless the deputy minister has the necessary technical knowledge in the construction of ships, his certificate would not be such as to fulfil the requirements of section 33* of the Audit Act.
1 have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
The Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Now, I am not aware whether last year there was a special vote of this amount of $21,500 for the purchase of this craft. If there was, I have no recollection of it, and if there was not a special grant, then 1 presume the money which paid for the craft was taken out of the general grant, and if it was taken out of the general grant, what was done in face of this objection on the part of the Auditor Generai to the payment ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman will recollect that the matter was thoroughly discussed last year, the whole information was brought down, and there was a special vote brought into parliament for the purchase of this very steamer, and everything was discussed and settled. But I will give the hon. gentleman any information he requires now. There was a special vote brought down last year for the purchase of this steamer, and carried after full discussion, and after all the information asked for had been given. If the hon. gentleman desires,
I will go over it again.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the money was voted it must have been last summer ; then how was it that it was not until November that the money was paid over ? No doubt the vendor was anxious to secure his money.
I have no recollection personally whether there was a special grant or not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: How does the hon. gentleman make out that it was paid in November, 1900 ? I think he is wrong in that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Because the letter of the Auditor General is dated on the 17th of November, and at that time he protested against the payment.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But that refers to the deputy's letter of the 17th of February previous, nearly a year before.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must say I do not find the explanation of the minister satisfactory. I think when we vote such a large amount as $160,000 we are entitled to know in a precise manner what is going for repairs and what for maintenance. When I asked the hon. gentleman that, he said : Oh, that is the usual annual vote. As a matter of fact the vote reached the figure of $160,000 in 1900 ; before that it was $145,000. Then the hon. gentleman says : I intend to ask for $20,000 for extraordinary repairs. Then he says further on :	It
ought to be $180,000 anyway. For his own part he was of the opinion that it was better to make it $180,000 right away. And during all this time the hon. gentleman is not able to tell us, as surely he ought to know, what amount is going for maintenance and purely annual repairs, and what amount is destined for extraordinary repairs, and what amount is destined for the purchase of new ships. I think this is a most unsatisfactory manner of getting through an item of that magnitude. When we have an amount for maintenance and repairs, why have we not for the purchase and building of new ships? why have we not the amounts separated ? It would be much clearer, and we would lose much less time.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am sorry my hon. friend does not think the explanation satisfactory, but I made it perfectly plain. The vote for $160,000 for maintenance and repairs refers chiefly to the maintenance of ships, but it also embraces some ordinary small repairs, if there are any. I told the hon. gentleman last year, when I asked for a large amount required for repairs in a special vote in the supplementaries. that 1 proposed to ask for it tin's year again. They are not hidden or covered up. This amount is not for the purchase of the ship.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of the extraordinary repairs ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not brought it down yet.
I told the hon. gentleman what it was last year-$12,869 for the Minto and $7,000 for the Aberdeen. I intend to bring down a supplementary estimate of repairs to the boilers of the Druid and the boilers of the Stanley, which were nearly worn out, and a deck was also put forward on the Aberdeen this year. This will be brought down with the supplementary estimates. This item of $160,000 is the ordinary item for the maintenance of the ships.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. gentleman would allow me, why does he then contend that the vote should be $180,000 every year for just these ordinary expenses of maintenance and repairs, and why is it that the hon. gentleman cannot tell us what is the specific amount required ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The $160,000 I now ask for is practically and substantially for the maintenance of the ships. If there are any other sums required for repairs, I propose to bring them down as a supplementary estimate.
I have said that I would have to ask for $30,000 this year in addition to this $160,000 for repairs. This $160,000 is for maintenance. Last year the vote was taken in the same way, and I had to bring down an estimate for repairs, and I gave the hon. gentleman the items. It is proposed to do the same thing again this year, so that the House will know what the repairs will amount to besides.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why does not the hon. gentleman say in his vote for maintenance and not for maintenance and repairs ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are some repairs always included in it.


William Humphrey Bennett: On looking into the matter, I see now that on the 27tli of February it would appear that the deputy wrote to the Auditor General in reference to the matter.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: You are going back to the Shamrock case.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Perhaps it will be better to proceed with the discussion in reference to this question of repairs. I do not understand the position of the hon. gentleman, from listening to the observations he last made. When answering my question, I gathered from him that $180,000, the amount spent the year before last, and the amount that was being expended this year, is about the amount he will require for maintenance and repairs.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That the maintenance itself will come to very nearly the amount of the vote before us- $160,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: And that he proposes to bring down later on amounts for repairs which would likely be $20,000, making $180,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Well now, I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to two or three things here which seem to indicate that he is mistaken in that estimate, because, on page 12 of the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the amount is given, showing the cost
of maintenance, and, although it says the cost of maintaining, it appears to be what we are discussing, maintenance and repairs. His vote in 1899-1900 was $180,000, and the hon. gentleman was apparently of the opinion that that was the normal amount for the last two years, and for this year as estimated, and yet, according to the table it was an extraordinary amount, and an explanation is given in a note. It says that this $180,000, which is $40,000 more than was required the year before, includes outfit and stores to the Minto in Scotland, which properly belongs to construction. There is the explanation, and if this statement of the hon. gentleman be correct, there has a tremendous leap been made in the expenditure. The amount asked for was $111,000 in 1891-92, $146,000 in 1892-93, and then it dropped down to $129,000 in 1894-95, and to $117,000 in 1897-98. Then, in 1898-99, it was $145,000. Then there is this item of $180,000 accompanied by the explanation which I have read. We have the Auditor General's Report, showing that last year it was increased to $180,000. I think the hon. gentleman says that he is going to take $180,000 this year, with one steamer less.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: One steamer more.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: One steamer less.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Leaving that out, with one steamer more, it would not make the additional amount up to $160,000 for maintenance. The hon. gentleman will see that it would be a great assistance to the committee if he could give us a statement, steamer by steamer, making up the $160,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not that here with me, but I shall take the Minto, which cost $35,000 for maintenance alone. That steamer was not owned by the government at all in those years to which the hon. gentleman refers, 1897-98. She was not here then and that reduces the expenditure in that year. The Aberdeen's expenditure that year was charged to the fishery service, because she replaced La Canadienne. I can give the hon. gentleman the cost of each ship, although the hon. gentleman will find it in the Auditor General's Report.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I would not ask the item to stand, but if the hon. gentleman will bring down a table giving us the comparison of these ships, showing the basis of the estimate, it would be of service to the committee.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The estimate is based on the

cost of last year exactly. We know exactly what each skip cost then, and tkis estimate is based upon our experience as to tke cost of maintenance for a number of years back. The kon. gentleman knows that we cannot kelp it. From the amount which appears there, the hon. gentleman must not imagine that it represents an increase in the expenditure of this country. The receipts which come in from the running of these ships are not credited here. They are credited to the consolidated revenue fund. From $12,000 to $20,000 will probably be collected for freight from the Minto and Stanley this year alone. That goes to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, but the expenditure appears here. The freight carried this year has been larger than anything ever known in the history of the maritime provinces before, and it promises to go on increasing, and form a very large factor. I think we understand it now, as this item is thoroughly specific. This $160,000 is for the maintenance of the ships, which embraces casual repairs, but does not embrace special repairs, and I propose to ask for a vote for special repairs.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman said that he thought my information was wrong in regard to the repairs to the Minto at Charlottetown before she really was in commission. The Auditor General's Report seems to indicate that the information I gave was correct. At pages P 19, 20, 21 and 22, it shows that very large sums had been paid at Charlottetown for articles that one would hardly have expected to be required on a new ship, or a ship just out of the builders' hands. I take page and I find that $3,236 was paid to Stewart, Bruce & Co., of Charlottetown, for such articles as pumps, closets, pipes, and such matters of construction as that. There are several other items which are not due to the squeezing in the ice or anything like that. She apparently was not fit for service when she reached Charlottetown, or these articles would not have- been purchased.
December, and it is held by the most experienced sea-faring men on the islands that the Stanley can easily make one trip in the month of December. The islauds are practically closed to civilization from the beginning of December to the month of April, and every year I am asked by petitions, telegrams, and letters that the steamer Stanley should be sent to the islands in order to carry the Christmas mails to my constituents. As I understand it, the Stanley has practically nothing to do at that season of the year, and I would urge that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should grant this favour to the inhabitants of the Magdalen Islands who number 6,000 people.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
Mr. LEMIEUX.: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) if he has received any petitions this year from the people of Magdalen Islands asking that the steamer Stanley should make one trip to the islands during the month of December. As the hon. minister knows well navigation is closed between Magdalen Islands and the main land at the beginning of Sir LOUIS DAVIES.


Mr. HACKETT.: I wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) why it is that when the Stanley was at Summerside on the 22nd of December no facilities were provided by which she could carry the mails, passengers and freight to Cape Tormentine. The Stanley remained there for ten days without doing any service and she was withdrawn at the very moment when she would be of some utility in keeping up communication. The engineers reported that when the board ice formed at Cape Tormentine it would be available for the handling of freight, and when the board ice did form the Stanley was taken away and was of no possible utility in keeping up communication between Summerside and Cape Tormentine in New Brunswick. I wish to ask the minister (Sir Louis Davies), why that occurred and why ar-

rangemehts were not made for the maintenance of that communication as we expected it would be.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is true that the Stanley was detailed to make the experiment of crossing from Summerside to Cape Tormen-tine in the month of December last. She would have gone earlier to her berth at Summerside but for the reason I have explained to the hon. gentleman from 'Gasp6, her boilers had to be repaired after the summer's work on the fishery service. The very day that the work was finished she proceeded to Pictou, coaled there and went straight to Summerside to make the experiment of keeping open the winter passage between that and Cape Tor-mentine. I had informed the board of trade of Summerside some time previously that there were no terminal facilities at Cape Tormentine, and that I thought it was inadvisable to make the experiment until these facilities were provided. They, however, pressed upon me very strongly that the attempt should be made and I submitted the matter to Captain Finiayson, of the Minto, who has had some twenty-two years experience, and to Captain Brown, of the Stanley, and they advised that it was possible that if the board ice formed for half a mile outside of Tormentine pier they might be able to land on the board ice, and they advised that the experiment might be made. On their report I sent the vessel there. The board ice did not form; they had to land near the pier. The pier was in such bad condition that the ballast had fallen out and prevented the bow of the vessel getting near it. There was no way therefore to land freight if they had carried it. and until my friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is able to get that pier repaired it would be impossible for the Stanley to utilize it as a terminus. I am in hopes that this season the minister (Hon.- Mr. Tarte) will be able to repair the pier. The Stanley made the experiment of crossing and recrossing every day and successfully for a time, but the smallpox broke out in the district near to Cape Tormentine. Passengers would not travel through the region where the smallpox was supposed to be, and a very large number of people in Prince Edward Island were averse to the service being maintained through an infected district of that kind. The mails were not, and ought not be sent, that way, and after the Stanley had made a number of trips without carrying freight, passengers, or mails, there was no use continuing her on the route any longer and she was ordered to go to Pictou. At Pictou there was an enormous congestion of freight which one steamer could not move, and the idea of sending the Stanley to Pictou was to give daily communication with Georgetown, one boat running each way. We were very successful in moving the freight, and until the other day when
we got into this terrible storm there never was a time when the winter communication was maintained so admirably as it has been this winter. I am in hopes that next winter the terminal facilities at Tormentine will be -so improved that possibly the Stanley will be able to utilize it, and continue the experiment between Summerside and Tormentine.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am at a loss to find that there was any special grant available up to July 1, 1900, for the purchase of the Shamrock. I find that there is no mention made of it in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I find on inquiry from my advisers that I was correct in the statement that there was a grant.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then it is unfortunate for the hon. gentleman (Sir Louis Davies) that the discussion on it should be entirely eliminated from ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) got the supplementary estimates ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have ' Hansard ' in which the discussion would have appeared.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Has the hon. gentleman got the supplementary estimates ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have not under my hand a copy of the supplementary estimates; but there was no discussion on the question in the House at all. It follows that nothing more has been heard of it until we find this reference in the Auditor General's Report of this year ; and of course a member of the House could not know of anything that transpired between the Auditor General and the minister until it did appear in the Auditor General's Report. The Auditor General took exception, it would seem, to the payment of this amount, whether because the boat had not been purchased in open market or by contract or for some other reason ; and I think it is fair to ask for an explanation why, in the face of that letter of November 7, the amount was paid over, assuming that it has been paid.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The amount was paid over, as I think my hon. friend will see, long before that objection was made.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Why was the objection made ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman knows why the Auditor General takes exception. It is a matter of faith and duty with him.


Mr. COCHRANE.: He was all right when we were in power.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The ex-Minister of Railways said he was not.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: But you said he was.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Auditor General's objection, as I understand it, is that he did not think the Deputy Minister of Marine had sufficient knowledge to give the certificate required by the 33rd section of the Audit Act. We differed with him, that is all.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the boat purchased in an open sale ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. The purchase is a most excellent one,- and I do not think any one would .question it.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Auditor General did.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, he merely asked if we had a certificate from a technical officer, as required by the 33rd section of the Act.


Edward Hackett: I can only express my surprise that the hon. minister would send the Stanley to the route between Cape Tormentine and Summerside without seeing that she had proper facilities for doing the work. The most expert captain on Prince Edward Island in connection with ice breaking, reporting to the minister on November 1, made this statement-the hon. gentleman referred to it, but his explanation was not strictly in accord with the report made by the captain :
The only thing, in our opinion, that can be done to test the route is this: after the steamer Northumberland stops running, place the Stanley at Summerside andhave her all ready and let her remain there until the board ice in the vicinity of Cape Tormentine breakwater is sufficiently strong: then a landing can be made on the ice. This has been done at Souris and Georgetown on several occasions.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is exactly what I said.


Edward Hackett: That condition of things arose. The Stanley was held at Summer-side for ten days to make daily trips between that port and Cape Tormentine. There were no mails, no passengers, and no facilities at the Tormentine side to advance the communication. About the 1st of Janu-ry, when the Stanley was withdrawn, the very conditions laid down in the captain's report existed : the ice had formed, and there was no difficulty in landing mails and passengers. The hon. gentleman refers to the smallpox scare. We know how important it is to the people of Prince Edward Island to have this communication. There is to-day in Ottawa a case of smallpox ; but must this city on that account be cut off Mr. COCHRANE.
from communication with the outside world ? Some smallpox may have existed in the county of Westmoreland in the vicinity of Cape Tormentine ; but the nearest case was six miles away from the Cape, and there was no danger. Mails and passengers could have been landed at Summerside without difficulty. But through some oversight the boat was taken away-it cannot have been on account of the smallpox scare. I noticed in a paper a day or two ago that when the minister was at Charlottetown, the board of trade of that city waited upon him with a memorial, asking him to leave the steamers Stanley and Minto on the route between Georgetown and Plctou in order to relieve the great congestion of freight at those points. What was the fact ? The two boats were stuck in the ice hard and fast for a week or ten days, and could not relieve the congestion of freight. If one of the boats had been left on the route between Georgetown and Pictou, and the other placed between Summerside and Cape Tourmentine and $1,000 had been spent on improvements at Cape Tormentine, there would not have been any congestion. When the Stanley was at Summerside she had on board a full cargo of coal, and still she was able to come to that port and discharge part of the coal, and make daily trips between there and Cape Tormentine. I think there has been some misunderstanding or bungling, or we would have a service between Summerside and Tormentine to-day.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There has been no misunderstanding and no bungling. I promised that an experiment would be made ; but I warned the board of trade when I made the promise that inasmuch that there were no terminal facilities at Tormentine for the landing of the Stanley, the experiment would be made under disadvantageous circumstances, and I doubted that it could be made successfully. But they pressed for it, and the experiment was made. The steamer was released for a variety of reasons which I have stated to the committee. The smallpox may have been one of them ; the absence of terminal facilities at Tormentine was another. While I do not want personally to call in question the opinions of those who believe that a route can be established there, I may state that when I crossed the other day in an open boat from Traverse to Tormentine, I found the pier at Tormentine completely covered with ice to a height of nearly thirty feet ; so that even if the Stanley were running there, it would have been absolutely impossible for her to have gone near that pier. I do not want to throw cold water on the experiment. I promised that it would be made ; and the boat was not taken from Summerside until after the captain had reported to me that he had spent two or three houis in getting out, and

that if the frost had become harder he would never have got out. I telegraphed back to him to use the best judgment he could, and to continue the test until he concluded that it was not possible to make the trip. I did not order him away without using the best judgment I could, and I think the hon. gentleman agrees with me.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. gentleman is asking us to vote .$160,000 of the people's money for the maintenance of five or six government steamers, and I want to inquire if it is his intention to spend that money, or at least as much of it as goes for supplies, by calling for tenders ; or is he going to continue the bad practice, which he says he followed when he came into power, of dealing it out to his political friends. As to the practice, we contradict his statement, because we say that the late government purchased practically all their supplies by tender. Has the hon. gentleman expended this money in the interests of the country as he promised us when given the vote ? Turn to the Auditor General's Report of last year and you will see that the bad practice, to which I drew attention time and time again, and which the hon. minister promised he would remedy, has continued and even become intensified. I find on page 8 that twenty-four bushels of onions were purchased for the steamer Aberdeen at a $1.50 per bushel, and each of the steamers uses the same quantity. I would ask any farmer if $1.50 per bushel for onions is a price this government ought to pay. But that is not all. $1.50 per bushel is paid for turnips and the same price for carrots, and 31 cents per pound for beans. Would anybody else pay these prices?
Then, take this new steamer Minto, my hon. friend had a political heeler in Montreal to whom he wanted to give $1,000 or more. This was B. .1. Coghlin, whom everybody knows as Barney Coghlin. The hon. gentleman sent to Mr. Coghlin's retail hardware store and bought some $1,265 of supplies from him for that steamer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Minto never was in Montreal.


George Taylor: Look at page P-19 of the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Minto never was in the province of Quebec.


George Taylor: I did not say she was there, tout Mr. Coghlin was, and you wanted to benefit Mr. Coghlin so as to help you in the elections, so you gave him $1,265. You sent your agents to Mr. Coghlin, who does not deal in crockery, and without calling for any tenders at all. you purchased from him $361 worth of crockery, * for which there is not one voucher. There 9
is an invoice for four dozen table knives, $26.06. Any gentleman in the House, who is a hardware merchant, may turn up page P-19 of the Auditor General's Report and see the prices there marked for supplies purchased from Mr. Coghlin, amounting altogether to $1,265. There are four teapots of three gills each, $40.87, or $10 apiece for a little teapot. And so the list goes on, every dollar spent without any advertisement for tenders, and every dollar spent on political friends of Ijon. gentlemen opposite. Travel through that book from one end to the other and you cannot find a dollar paid to a Tory storekeeper, is the hon. minister going to continue that way of doing business, in spending the $160,000 he is asking us to vote, or will he spend it in a business fashion ? Why not ask for tenders and give fair open competition, and not give political heelers two or three prices for each article required.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall not quarrel with my hon. friend for calling respectable gentlemen political heelers, but I cannot hold out the hope to him that I will depart from the old system, in practice many years, of seeing that our friends get the patronage and not our opponents. The only question is, are we paying fair and reasonable prices or not V I can tell my hon. friend that the greatest possible care is taken against overcharging. Every account is severely and closely scrutinized before it comes to the department, and the accountants and officers in charge are specially* responsible for the examination of the accounts. If they find any overcharge they must at once send back the account. The hon. gentleman singled out one case.


George Taylor: I could single out a thousand.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But the hon. gentleman did not, and I shall deal with the one he singled out. He referred to Mr. Coghlin, of Montreal, as a political heeler. Well. Mr. Coghlin is a most respectable merchant.


George Taylor: Yes, I know him well.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He is a very large merchant and he happened to be in Glasgow when' the Minto was being built. Mr. McElhinney was in charge of its building. Mr. McElhinney was not an appointee of mine, and I suppose the hon. gentleman would call him a Tory heeler. He was an officer of the department, in the discharge of the duty of supervising the building of the Minto, and Mr. Coghlin obtained from Mr. McElhinney an order for these supplies. Would the hon. gentleman like me to dismiss that Tory officer for having given that order ? The hon. gentleman may rest perfectly assured



that the patronage of the department will go in the future, as it has in the past, to the friends of the government, provided always the latter give good articles at reasonable prices.


George Taylor: I would refer my hon. friend to page P-12 of the Auditor General's Report, and he will find there that Louis Marois, of Quebec, supplied carrots at ifl.50 per bushel. I do not object to the government giving its political supporters the preference, but I do think that it should do business on business principles, and not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on supplies without inviting any competition. Some time when we are going into Supply, I will divide the House on that question. Can my hon. friend justify paying $1.50 per bushel for carrots and three and a half cents per pound for beans, and $1.50 per bushel for onions ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The agent of the government at Quebec is Mr. Gregory, an old and experienced gentleman, who has held that position for many years. He has been cautioned to examine every purchase himself and certify to the charges being reasonable and fair, according to the prices ruling for the goods in the province of Quebec. If the hon. gentleman will move for the accounts, they will be produced before the Public Accounts Committee, certified to by Mr. Gregory. I have no other means of stating that the prices are fair than the certificate of my agent at Quebec.


Mr. OSLER.: It was quite refreshing to hear from the government the absolute repudiation of the main plank in their antielection speeches. There is to be no calling for tenders at all, but they are going to buy fairly from their own men. They are afraid to allow Conservatives to tender, because the Conservatives might tender lower than the friends of the government. It is quite pleasant to hear the frank avowal that contract by tender is a thing of the past.


James Clancy: Is it usual for any of the agents to make objections to prices as excessive ? Has the hon. minister any cases of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Numbers of them.


James Clancy: Will the hon. minister say what takes place then ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the sellers attempt to make an overcharge, payment is refused.
Ocean and River Service-Examination of
masters and mates	 $5,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that the expenditure under this head last year was $3,700. Is it necessary to ask for $5,000 this year ?
Sir LOUIS DAVIES


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In a general way, the work is carried on the same year after year, but the amount expended varies somewhat.
Ocean and River Service-Rewards for
saving life, including life-saving stations $9,000


Mr. INGRAM.: There are a great many complaints about the loss of life in a wreck at Long Point, on Lake Erie, in August last. I would like to ask if the authorities at Washington have complained to this government or to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of that loss of life ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As far as I know, there has been no complaint, direct or Indirect, from the Washington authorities.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is there any particular object in the increase of $1,000 in this vote ? I see by the Auditor General's Report the expenditure last year was a little over $7,000, and the estimate this year is $9,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The increase is to provide a uew boat at Point Pelee. The old boat was reported to be out of date.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is done with the old boat ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Practically it was of no use. A few dollars may be got for it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the intention to improve the life-saving stations on Lake Erie?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. It is.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is it the intention to procure a life boat for Port Credit, on Lake Ontario, in accordance with the petition presented a few days ago ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I do not recollect the presentation of that petition. If it was presented it may be awaiting attention. It will receive my best consideration.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister's answer to me is hardly consistent with this vote. Last year the estimate was $8,000. and this year it is $9,000. The hon. gentleman does not expect to make much improvement for $1,000, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There will be a new boat.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that all ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know if any other special improvements are required except to keep closer inspection of them. Instructions have gone out to keep up inspection of boathouses and boats, and to make the crews perform their drill more regularly

than some of them have in the past. Much will be gained, if we make the crews more efficient than they were.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister will observe that Port Stanley and Port Rowan are the only two life-saving stations on that portion of Lake Erie. The dangerous point is at Long Point, where the storms take place. I am aware that the American representative at that place has complained very strongly to the authorities at Washington concerning the sacrifice of life owing, as he believes, to the imperfect life-saving stations on the Canadian side of Lake Erie.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I can only say that nothing will give me greater satisfaction than to give the closest and most courteous attention to any suggestion that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) may make as 'to improvements of the life-saving stations on Lake Erie. If he will make these suggestions to me as head of the department privately, or make them publicly in the House, I can promise him they will receive full consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This $1,000 increase is to purchase a new boat. How much does a life-boat cost ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The deputy minister tells me that the boat will cost about $600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the balance, I suppose, is for some equipment ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.
Ocean and River Service-Investigation
into wrecks	 $1,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Does the hon. minister proceed to investigate on the mere report of a wreck, or does he require official recommendation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I require application to be made by some reputable person.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then the investigation is held as a matter of course ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. if a shipowner, or other reputable person, asks for it.
Ocean and River Service-Registration of
shipping	   $500


Mr. BRITTON.: I have a suggestion to make. The registration of shipping is taken care of by officers of the Customs Department, and, I supopse, the expense is counted as part of the expenses of that department. Occasionally a man in the customs is sent from his own place to another for the purpose of examining the books, to see that the registration is uniform. As a matter of fact, I may say, the books are not uniformly 9i
kept. Books are provided, as I understand, at the expense of the Department of Marine and Fisheries


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Then, at the expense of the Customs Department. These books are uniform so far as the blanks are concerned, but, in filling in the blanks, there are great differences. Some customs officers are careful and some are careless ; and, in the latter case, beyond the name of the boat, her tonnage and a few essential items, the matter is passed over. My suggestion is that there should be an officer to be called inspector of registrations. No additional expense would be incurred, it seems to me ; for some gentleman now in the Customs Department, who does not have too much to do and who is familiar with the work, would be assigned to this duty. The effect of his work would be to secure uniformity as well as greater care in the registration of vessels. Although the expense would be greater in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, it would be less in the Customs Department, and there would be less money spent than there is to-day. Of course the vote asked here, $500, is not a very large amount; and, looking at the Auditor General's Report, I see that only about $200 spent last year is properly chargeable to this item of the estimates. But I think that better service would be rendered if it was put under the charge of some man in the employ of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and if it were provided that all the registration, both inland and ocean, were systematized and better kept.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall have to consult my colleague in whose department this legislation is carried on. All we do is to provide books for the registration. As to appointing an inspector, my hon. friend's experience does not accord with mine. If you detail a man to do additional work of that kind you have to assign additional pay. However, we will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.
Tidal service, including salary of assistant
clerk beyond $100, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $7,500


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In regard to this, I am sorry that although some progress is being made, the government cannot see their way to expedite this very important work. There seems to me no reason for nibbling at it, as the government are doing, when the coast line of this country is considered. The amount expended is only about $4,000, because the rest of this vote is in salaries, and you have a high class man whose salary is near the appropriation outside the amount spent. This work was long ago completed with the United States, on both the Pacific and At-

lantie coasts, and completed In India, and in the British Isles. With iron and steel ships, and with the growth of these steamers in size and all that sort of thing, it is a most necessary work. Take, for instance, the question of the insurance rates. While it is true that the ordinary seaman and the ordinary mariner of the smaller class of vessels have very little concern about the result of these surveys of the tides, the officers in command of all the large oceangoing steamers are required to understand them, and it takes a technical training to understand them. But it seems to me a disgraceful thing that we should proceed so slowly. It is a smaller vote now than I was able to get at the initiation of the work. I know there is very little general interest taken in it-we have discussed that already. Some rough and ready seamen think that because they have got along so well without these tables, which many of them cannot understand, it is merely a scientific fad. But one need only to refer to the Admiralty in England, to the leading men in connection with shipping there, and also to the official hydrographic staff of the United States, and the work in India, to understand that these surveys are of tremendous importance. Now the government is committed to the principle, they are carrying it on, the $4,000 is a mere bagatelle. I am glad to see that assistance is being given, but I would be far more pleased if, in addition to that, the hon. gentleman were to take a substantial increase, which this official and his assistants could spend to advantage. He has no ships, he has no facilities such as are required. I do not think the hon. gentleman will find that the United States, or India, when they were dealing with this work, made such slow progress, or satisfied themselves with so small an appropriation. I would be glad if the hon. gentleman could expedite that work in accordance with its importance.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would be glad if my hon. friend could defer this discussion until the supplementary estimates. I am considering the matter, and perhaps I may be able to make a statement on the supplemen-taries.


James Clancy: I agree with what has been stated by the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper). It would seem that this service is somewhat at a standstill, and that some new departure is proposed to be made. Now I see there is a considerable increase, apparently, in the work to be done in the hon. gentleman's department. In 1900 I find that $4,000 was voted for that service, in 1901 that was increased to $7,200. The hon. gentleman explains a part of it there, as it appears in the estimates, by saying that an extra clerk had $400 of it. Then again there is still another addition of $300 in 1902. Will the Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.
hon. gentleman say what new circumstances have grown up in the office requiring this increase ? It seems he requires to employ an extra clerk. The hon. gentleman thought that some of those clerks were only employed for a very short portion of the year, yet the vote was taken.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not quite gather that my hon. friend objects to the increase. I went into it in great detail last year when the same question arose, and I pointed out to my hon. friend the data. We have tidal stations at different places on the Bay of Fundy and along the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for gauging the rise and fall of the tides, and the data ascertained at these different tidal stations are taken and tabulated at the head office here by Mr. Dawson and his assistants. We were some years behind in this work, and Mr. Dawson intimated to me two or three years ago that unless he could get these returns properly tabulated and printed in a book, it was no use collecting them at all. So some additional clerks were given him for the purpose of tabulating these statistics gathered at the different stations, and when they are tabulated they are sent home to the Hydrographic Office in Great Britain, and printed in a book. I think last year I brought down a copy of the book, a very large book, showing the rise and fall of the tides at these different stations. From this data so gathered, tide tables are prepared by Mr. Dawson, showing the tide at different harbours in different ports, so as to be of use to the mariners, showing them when the tide rises, when it falls, when it is half tide, when full tide, with the depth of the tide, and so on. It was necessary to employ these additional clerks in order to utilize the information which was being gathered, and which, until it was tabulated, was useless.


James Clancy: I would like to ask another question which has been considerably discussed in the newspapers in reference to a proposition to adopt some system of damming to raise the water in Lake Erie for the purpose of counteracting, to some extent, the withdrawal of water from the upper lakes by the Chicago drainage canal. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if any proposition of that nature has been made to the government of Canada by the United States authorities.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will ascertain whether it was ever made in the department in my absence. No such proposition ever came before me personally, and I am almost certain that had it come to the department, it would have come before me. It never came to the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would ask the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I think he had an interview with some of the papers throughout the country.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not think that I ever received any such proposition. [DOT] There may be some letters; I have a vague remembrance, that some letters were written to us on that question, hut not in the way of any proposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman in reference to this vote for the hydrographic survey if this work has been carried on in the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No; we will come later to that.
Winter mail service	 $8,500


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Could the hon. gentleman tell me in what way this $8,500 is to be applied ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will be applied as far as it can be for the boat service which is now going on.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Was this service organized so that it would be in readiness ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It seems to me very strange that on February 2, the Minto crossed over to the island with the last mails before being locked up in the ice, and that ten or twelve days elapsed before we had a crossing with the mails at the Capes. If this service was organized, why was it not given. During the late election when I was campaigning in that portion of the district, my opponent was using the mail service to his advantage, saying that it would be duly equipped and organized and ready to perform the service. We find that from February 2, to February 12, there were no mails to or from Prince Edward Island, and the Board of Trade of Summer side, had to ask the post office inspector at Charlottetown, to ascertain if anything could be done to forward their mails by ice boats. They finally came to their senses and allowed this to go on. I cannot understand why this was not done at first. We did not have any mails from the province of Prince Edward Island, until the 13th February, and if this service was organized it is very strange that the mails were not brought over. We asked about this the other day in the House, and the hon. Postmaster General got up and in a very light manner said : You will get information about your mails when the hon. Minister of Marine returns. We know from the papers that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had a very thrilling time getting across. That may interest the hon. minister and his friends as an adventure, but it has nothing to do
with the commercial facilities of Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The explanation is a very simple one, but rather a painful one for me. Nobody understands more clearly than I do, why you did not have mails between Prince Edward Island and the mainland for 12 days. It was for the simple reason that a violent storm was raging during which no boat could cross. I was imprisoned myself. No one could desire to leave the island more earnestly than I did, but I could not get away. I went once or twice to the cape to see if I could get across, but the captain would not start, and the judgment of the captain's was right. They could not start. The boats started out at the earliest possible moment they could cross. The opposition boats crossed one day from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. They went during a north-west wind. The next day our boats crossed from the Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I know that right here in Ottawa, express matter came two or three days before we received our mail.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I was on the spot.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was delivered at the hotel to me, and I know it could not have crossed before that time. It came in response to a telegraphic message I sent down. I have reports from people in that section stating that there were several days prior to the time the mails were brought across, when the crossing could have been made. I have information from reliable parties.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am afraid that I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to accept my statement, that it was not possible having been on the spot myself, and having travelled up and down to the cape trying to get over and being unable to get the captain to start.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps it may be proper to introduce a subject which is of considerable interest to the country. It is that of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think we will have a vote before the estimates are through, specially on that subject.


Marine Biological Station ....: 


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What are the results of that vote ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The results are very satisfactory so far. They are carrying on the

work vigorously, and several distinguished scientists are occupying the laboratory tables in conducting experiments of practical importance. The memoradum supplied to me by Prof. Prince, is as follows :
In order to allow of the completion of certain somewhat lengthened researches, the marine station was not moved from its location on Passa-maquoddy Bay, near St. Andrews, N.B., though the proposal to tow the building round the coast, to the Nova Scotia shore, was fully discussed at the meeting of the board of management held in June. The great importance of the fisheries and of complex fishery problems along the eastern shores of Nova Scotia, around the Gut of Canso, and the coast of Cape Breton, weighed with the board in considering the proposal to have this movable station conveyed to a new temporary site. A final decision will be arrived at at the next meeting of the board, early in February.
These scientific gentlemen are prosecuting their investigations into the biology of fish and publishing the results every year. They propose to continue that so long as they are given this assistance. We promised that this vote should be given them for three or four years, and the time is not yet up, during which the assistance is to be given. The work they do may be of the greatest possible importance.


Sir CHARLES HIBBEKT  TTJPPEB@: Where is the station ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is at Passamaquoddy Bay, and it is proposed to move it around to Canso this summer. The scientists decide the place.
Mr. HACIvETT. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that two years ago, in Prince Edward Island, he made a promise that this biological station would be located somewhere about the island. It was just shortly previous to the time that we were to have a by-election, and the hon. gentleman was down there wishing to help his candidate. He said to the fishermen at Charlottetown: I am going to have a biological station established in the Straits of Northumberland, and you will receive great benefit from it. His secretary interjected the remark:	I have received a telegram from
the captain of the boat that it is going to be stationed at Egmont Bay next week. There is no biological station, but it resulted in carrying the election for his candidate, and the people were deceived. Is it intended that we shall have the use of these scientific gentleman's opinion in the Straits of Northumberland ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The location where these scientific researches are to be carried on is a question that we do not interfere with. It is entirely left to the scientists themselves. They are gentlemen connected with different colleges, and they determine each season where they shall conduct their opera-Slr LOUIS DAVIES.
tions. i believe they will move around the Gut of Canso this season.
Salaries and expenses of cattle inspection. $2,800


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this for quarantine ?


The MINISTER OF. MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, this is for the inspectors of cattle in the city of Montreal. Cattle come down to Montreal, and they are inspected when put on board of ships. The inspectors are Mr. Pope and Mr. Morgan.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is surely more than this spent in connection with that work ?	.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Quarantine inspection?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is not quarantine; it is cattle inspection.
Unforeseen expenses generally	 $5,000


Mr. MORIN.: There is an item here,
' Reward for saving life,' page 35 Auditor General's Report, ' Montreal Watch Case Co., Montreal, 2 gold watches and boxes, $176.' Who received these watches ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember the circumstance of the special case to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) calls attention. I may say that whenever lives are saved toy bravery on the part of our citizens, and the facts are reported to the department, steps are taken to ascertain the accuracy of these facts, and the information is submitted to an officer of the department, who makes a recommendation as to the reward which shall be given. The reward is commensurate with the danger incurred and bravery displayed, and it has always been the practice of the department, endorsed by parliament year after year, to recognize that bravery by giving a watch or a binocular glass or something of that kind to indicate the appreciation of the government.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Does the minister know who received these watches ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot tell just now, but if the hon. gentleman wishes I will bring down the names.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I see an amount here in unforeseen expenses, for the lobster investigation, a charge for travelling expenses to Mr. Gallant. What was the result of that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The commission proposed a series of regulations, which, after great consideration (many days' and many hours' consideration I may say), we adopted. There was one time limit for the Bay of Fundy and another along the coast of Nova Scotia


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That would be merely changing the lines, because these districts were in existence long ago.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No. The whole east coast of Nova Scotia was one district before, hut now the regulation divides it by an imaginary line running out from Halifax harbour, and there are different seasons.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How did these regulations work ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would not say more than fairly well. There are always men wishing to have changes made, hut so far I have adhered rigidly to the report of the lobster commission and intend to do so until we have further experience.


James Clancy: I think that last session there was considerable dissatisfaction expressed at the lines laid down by the commissioners and the minister was forced to yield to strong recommendations made to him, and to disregard to some extent the lines laid down. Is that time ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I see that $400 were paid for legal services in connection with the pilotage commission. Who received the money ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was a commission appointed some two years ago to consider the grievances, or the alleged grievances of the pilots, and of the shipping men in the district between Montreal and Quebec. Mr. Justice Lavergne, the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Commander Wake-ham constituted the commission. The shipping interests, the insuring interests, and the pilots were represented by counsel. The commission recommended that the counsel retained toy the pilots might be paid by the government, and they were paid under this item. The others paid their own expenses.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The minister says there were certain grievances of the pilots.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certain alleged grievances of the pilots, and certain alleged grievances of the shipping men of Montreal.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Rumour says that Mr. Langelier the counsel had certain grievances too. May I ask is this the same Mr. Charles Langelier who was sent to Russia at the expense of this country to search the archives for Alaskan documents ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The same gentleman. I have
no information that he was sent to Russia, but this is Mr. Charles Langelier a member of the bar of Quebec and formerly a member of this House.


James Clancy: Were these costs taxed ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, and cut down largely.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What was the original claim ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I do not know.


James Clancy: Is that the whole sum paid Mr. Langelier ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


James Clancy: There appears to be another name here ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
BTSHERIES. It was paid to Messrs. Jules TesSier & Langelier.


James Clancy: What was Capt. R. J. Walls	paid this $600	for ?The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There was a desperate fight between the pilotage commission of the port of Miramichi and the pilots. It lasted for a long time, was taken into court, and is a very complicated matter, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has any special interest in it I will go into the details This amount was paid in connection with that.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How does Mr. F. Gourdeau come to be paid $600 travelling expenses for going to the Paris Exposition ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This was an amount paid in advance for travelling expenses, but it will be adjusted in the exhibition expenses in time.
Lighthouse and Coast Service-Salaries
and allowances to light-keepers . $228,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister explain the increase of $8,000 in this item ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is caused by the increased number of lighthouses brought into existence.
Hon. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) In connection with this item I would like to make a few observations on the salaries paid to lighthouse keepers in general. I do not think that any system has been adopted in Canada to classify the lighthouse keepers as regards the salaries paid them. In the United States-I am now speaking of Maine and Massachusetts-the lighthouses are classified and the salaries regulated accordingly. With ns, the keeper of a revolving light on an island several miles from the shore gets $400 a year. It is impossible for

liim to keep that light going all the time without assistance, and that assistance must be paid. In the United States these assistants get $600. In our wealthy Dominion the keeper gets $400, and perhaps the next keeper to him. who has a fixed light, gets the same salary. I do not think that there has ever been any regular system or rule applied to the salaries of lighthouse keepers by any government since confederation. If, for instance, a lighthouse is erected at a particular place, and the representative of the county has influence enough with the government, the salary may be fixed at $500, while another place where the representative may not be so influential, the salary may be less. Let this House fancy the condition of a man on an island, keeping a light going all winter, with the assistance of one man, and very often obliged to find his own fuel, and receiving only $400. I think this is a subject which the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries should take into his consideration. I was disposed at first to ask for a committee of the House to deal with the whole subject, because as it stands at present it is most unsatisfactory. I have in my hands the resignation of a lighthouse keeper on an island, because it is impossible for him to remain there at the miserable salary he gets. A man in the same position in Maine or Massachusetts gets $1,000. I am bringing this subject to the notice of the minister in the hope that some improvement will be made ; because the present condition of things existed before he took charge of the department, and is likely to continue unless he deals with it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am very glad the hon. member has brought this matter to the attention of the House ; but I think he is labouring under an erroneous impression with regard to one fact. He says he has in his hands the resignation of one gentleman who is receiving $400 a year for keeping a lighthouse. All I can say is that that is the only resignation of a lighthouse keeper that has been presented to the department within five years because of insufficient salary. At the present moment there are two vacancies in the maritime provinces, and there are no less than a dozen applicants for each light. A good deal of what my hon. friend says may be true. There may be a case here and there where the salary of a lighthouse keeper is hardly commensurate with the labour he has to perform ; but it must be remembered that these people are free of all taxes, house rent, and expense for fuel and light, and that they get $400 cash in addition. There are not many parts of the country where that would be considered bad payment. I would be sorry to say that in every case it is adequate payment. My hon. friend seems to think that these salaries are fixed in some Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
hap hazard way. I beg to assure him that that is not the case. The same officer who has advised the Minister of Marine for many years past with regard to the salaries to be attached to these offices, is in the department to-day. You cannot fix the same salary for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, that we have to pay on the Great Lakes or in British Columbia. What would be considered an adequate salary in the maritime provinces would be considered utterly inadequate in British Columbia and in the far-off parts of the province of Ontario. The chief engineer who advises me in these matters is very careful to consider the circumstances when a new light is established, and to fix the salary with reference to the location and the work that has to be done. Political influence is very rarely, if ever attempted, in connection with the salaries paid. 1 have no hesitation in saying that a member for a district occasionally seeks to obtain for a lighthouse keeper an increase of salary or a greater salary than the department thinks should be paid; but we cannot give way to these influences. We must remember that there is a large army of these lighthouse keepers, and once you depart from the well-established rule that a certain salary should be attached to a certain light, you get away from your moorings, and every lighthouse keeper in the [DOT]Dominion would want an increase. The greatest care must be exercised in these matters. I never attempt to shut the door on any member of parliament who wishes to make representations as to the salary paid for any pai'ticular light ; and I will say this for the officers in charge, that whenever it is represented to them that a mistake has been made-which will happen to most men at times-and that a particular salary is too low, they are always ready to take the case into consideration. It is all very well to talk of increasing the salaries of the lighthouse keepers of this Dominion; but if you once began, you would have to go through the whole list, and it would become a very serious matter. If my hon. friend represents to me the case of any one lighthouse keeper who for the work he is doing gets less than he ought, his representations will receive the most favourable consideration at my hands. I shall be glad to sit down with him and consider the case he refers to ; but my experience is that it is not prudent to give way to these constant demands that are being made for increases to the salaries of lighthouse keepers throughout the Dominion.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I heartily agree with what the hon. gentleman has said. Having given a good deal of attention to that subject, I am satisfied that a revision on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Victoria would land us into an expenditure on annual salaries for light-

liouse keepers of about a million dollars instead of $200,000. The number of lighthouses Is, of course, steadily increasing on account of our enormous coast line and lake border, and we could not afford to go into an expenditure on the same scale as the United States. In the United States, besides, the policy is entirely different. They have an unlimited fund to draw on, for the salaries of their lighthouse keepers is a tax on foreign shipping. Our policy, however, is to furnish our lights free and keep our port dues as low as possible and make no invidious distinction against foreign shipping.
We have been very successful in getting the best men for this class of work, and I cannot recollect of any case of a lighthouse keeper having resigned because his salary was not sufficient. No doubt if there was a revision, it would be found that the department could cut down some of the excessive salaries and still get good men, because irregularities, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria, have crept in, through political pressure mainly, during a long period of years.
I would like to ask the hon. minister whether this practice does not obtain, namely, when a vacancy takes place, of giving the new appointee a smaller salary than his predecessor to begin with.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In the case of the smaller sums ranging from $50 to $100, we could not follow that practice, but in the case of [DOT]the larger salaries the rule is that the new appointee begins at a lower rate than the man who was in the position eight or ten years. The new man comes in at a salary considerably below that of his predecessor, and after a year or two, when he has proved his fitness, he gets an increase of $50 or perhaps $100 gradually until he reaches the old rate.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. My reference was altogether to the maritime provinces, and, of course, I know of several cases in which the salary paid to the keeper of a fixed light is the same as that paid to the one who keeps a revolving light. Some changes should be made, and I have several cases in which I shall make application to the minister for some improvement before the session is through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In answer to my request, the hon. minister said the increase of $8,000 was due to an increase in the number of lighthouses, but he gave no information as to where these lighthouses were.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have here a statement :
Salaries of New. Light-keepers of Lights Established.
Nova Scotia-
Little Lorraine	 $ 50
Inner Sambro, Halifax county	 100
Quebec-
Grand Entry (see file) (harbour light)..	50
Upper Traverse	 600
Point Basile	   250
Oak Point (light resumed)	 75
New Brunswick-
Perry's Point (file 17453)	 SO
Zephyr Rock lightship	 200
Gray's Point	 70
Hampstead Wharf	 80
Ontario-
Toronto East gap (additional)	 150
Michael Point (light resumed, P. 4752)...	100
Stag Island	 150
Stribling Point	 180
Squaw Island (F. 17753)	 180
British Columbia-
Brotchie Ledge (Electric Light Co.)	 200
Walker Rock	 240
Ballanac Islands	 180

Lights to be Built, 1901-Salaries.
Nova Scotia-
Charlo	 $ 80
Port Beekerton	 80
Grand Etang	 80
Hawk Island	 150


Jeddore Range ....: ,	 200
Louisburg (fog alarm)	 400
Quebec

Cap Charles (additional)	 80
Father Point (fog alarm)	 400
Ontario

Little Gros Cap	 250
. Middle Ground	 800
Slate Islands	 300

Salaries of keepers lights established	 $3,115
"	"	"	to be built		2,820
For intended increases to light-keepers and salaries for keepers new lights to be established	 2,065


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I saw an intimation some time ago, given in an interview with one of the ministers of this government, that it was contemplated to light the St. Lawrence very much better in the coming year between Montreal and Quebec. I understand that one reason given for the very heavy marine insurance is because the channel is not properly lighted.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I make no admission of the kind. I do not admit at all that the St. Lawrence route is not properly lighted. I do not mean to say that we cannot spend more money on that route, but I have crossed the Atlantic with five or six of the best sea captains who have ever sailed out of Montreal and have put this question to each one. I told each one that I was putting the question in my official capacity as

Minister of Marine, and intended to use bis answer, and on tbe last occasion I bad tbe good fortune of baying two of my colleagues present. Tbe question X put was tbis : Do you know of any aid to navigation between Montreal and Belle Isle wbicb is now wanting, wbicb you would recommend being put there, or any aid to navigation now there wbicb you think ought to be improved. In each case tbe answer was no. The last gentleman to whom I put tbe question, tbe captain of the Parisian, qualified bis answer by saying : You know, I think tbis light at Point D'Amour in tbe Straits of Belle Isle, has bad something coming over it tbe last few months, and you should send an inspector to see what is the matter. I replied that with a naked eye I could not see anything wrong, but would send an inspector down tbe first thing in the spring. I do not mean to say that no improvement can be made, and before tbe supplementaries are through, we may have a special vote on this subject. We spent $40,000 to $45,000 in building a permanent pier at the Traverse and erecting a light there last year, which has been of the greatest possible benefit to the shipping interest. Instead of having a lightship there, we have this permanent light. When the cold came on and the ice formed, the lightship had to be* taken away, or it would be carried away by the ice altogether. With a permanent pier and permanent light there we are enabled to prolong the period of navigation for some time with safety. It is now under consideration-and I may say that personally I favour it-to construct a permanent pier at the other end of the Traverse, about two miles and a half further down. It will cost $75,000 or $80,000. If I can get the approval of my colleagues, and if the Finance Minister is able to grant it, I may ask the approval of the House, at a future time for the vote. There may be other large votes for the improvement of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, besides this. Anything that is submitted to me and which I can be satisfied is a real improvement, will be willingly accepted by me. For. I recognize the vast importance of that St. Lawrence river trade, and the absolute necessity of avoiding cheese-paring in our expenditure upon it to put it in the most effective condition. I do not hesitate to say that I am desirous of going as far as anybody else, short of extravagance or useless expenditure, in recommending the use of every dollar that is necessary to place the navigation of that route in the very best condition. If there are aids to navigation still needed, I wish to put them there ; if any that are there are defective, I wish to improve them. I am willing to listen to suggestions from any side of the House. The subject is under consideration, and I may have some additional votes in the supplementary estimates.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


Mr. FOWLER.: Will the hon. minister please state what arrangements have been made for new* lights in New Brunswick.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are to be new lights at Perry's Point, Zephyr Rock Lightship, Gray's Point and Hampstead Wharf. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) knows that we have, in another place, a large vote for a lightship on the Lurcher Rocks in the Bay of Fundv.


Mr. BICKERDIKB.: I am pleased to hear the minister say that before the session closes he will bring down estimates that will have for their object to give better navigation between Montreal and Quebec. I think there must have been some misapprehension when he asked the captain to whom he refers the question, because a steamship cannot go between Montreal and Quebec during the night at the present time. There are not nearly enough lights to enable that to be done. I am sure that every member in this House will back up the minister in his efforts to provide the best means of navigation between Montreal and the sea. There is hardly a place except Montreal where steamers are confined to daylight in leaving port. On the Sault route there are sufficient lights so that a steamer can see two of them at any time. If we had a similar system of lights between Montreal and Quebec, our shipping would have great advantages, as compared with those they have at the present time.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the hon. minister rises to reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), 1 would like him at the same time to give us some idea of the scheme for winter navigation of the St. Lawrence, concerning which we have heard.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not able to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) any information on the subject to which he referred. As to the remarks concerning lights on the St. Lawrence to make it safe by night, as well as by day, my hon. friend (Mr. Bicker-dike) must remember that the St. Lawrence, between Montreal and Quebec, is not like the St. Lawrence below Quebec. It is not as thoroughly dredged as the Minister of Public Works intends to dredge it. When the channel, which is largely an artificial channel, has been widened and deepened, as is intended, there will be no difficulty about obtaining the necessary vote-at least,
I shall have no difficulty in recommending it-to light the channel with gas buoys. The importance of the route and the trade carried on will justify any reasonable expenditure for improvement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister had better settle that with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), who told

us how important it was to have a better lighthouse service, and said that it was the intention of the government to furnish it at the earliest date, aud the hon. minister from Quebec without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Dobell) supported him.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Were they speaking of the lower St. Lawrence, or between Montreal and Quebec, or above Montreal ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The discussion was with regard to the river between Montreal and Quebec. I was surprised to hear the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he had found a sea-captain who was prepared to say that the channel was all that could be desired, because, I thought the impression was that there was a good deal of expenditure yet to take place.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are speaking of two different thing's. I did not mean to imply that the lighthouse service above Montreal, which was sufficient in former times, is all that is necessary under present conditions. The deepening of the canals has been carried out under the directions of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and they will need to be lighted with gas buoys, because it would be impossible to navigate them unless they were lighted by night as well as day. The remarks of my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals, had reference to that part of the route. I think I am correct in saying that gas buoys have already been ordered to a large amount, and a great many of them will be in place this summer. I was speaking more of the navigation to the sea below Quebec, traversed by the sea captains.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister is mistaken, because specific information was given us by the Minister of Railways and Canals that it was intended to make a chan-nell 450 feet wide all the way between Montreal and Quebec, and when that was done and the channel better lighted, which was intended to be done at an early day, he hoped that the navigation would be all that was desired, and would reduce the cost of insurance, which was now high.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I approve of every word of that.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: The item under discussion, I believe, is salaries and allowances of lighthouse keepers, but we have wandered away from it. I would like to ask what the rules of the government are as to granting retiring allowances to lighthouse keepers when they leave the service.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Those that were appointed before 1S82 come under the Superannuation Act. Those who have been appointed since did not contribute to the Superannuation
Act and are not entitled to the allowance ; those appointed previously to 1892 are.


Edward Gawler Prior: I desire to call the attention of the minister to the case of one Robert Grey, late lighthouse keeper at Entrance Island. He entered the service in 1876 and did not leave until 1897. The reason he left was that his health gave way. He sent in his resignation, accompanied by certificates of two doctors, stating that his health had given way. He had been paying into the superannuation fund for many years, and after resigning made application for his pension, but from that time up to the present he has never had any word from the department whatever. He was twenty-one years in the service, and I do not believe anything was ever said against him ; I believe he did his duty faithfully and well during the whole of that time. His salary for the first seventeen years of his service was $600, then it was raised to $900 a year, owing to the fact that a fog alarm was added to the light. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that when a man has been in the service as long as that, and has done his duty well, and has been paying into the superannuation fund, that he cannot even get an answer from the department or get his pension. He is a very poor man, he has no money whatever now. He has been kept by relatives, and, as I say, he has not been able, up to the present time, to get any information from the department in regard to the reason why his pension is not paid. I hope the hon. gentleman will look into the case and see that the pension is properly paid to him. I do not know how much it is, but it should be paid to him at once, and paid as long as he lives.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have a recollection of that case, and I do not think my hon. friend has stated it quite accurately. Robert Grey may or may not have been entitled to superannuation. He did not apply for superannuation on resigning his place. After resigning his place an application did come in for superannuation on the ground that he was in ill-health ; but the hon. gentleman knows that before a man can get superannuation on the ground that he is in ill-health, certificates of ill-health must be forwarded and must be satisfactory to the Treasury Board.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am informed that two doctors' certificates were forwarded.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Those certificates were not satisfactory either to the department or to the Treasury Board, and an officer of the department, very high up in the department, who went to the locality and saw this gentleman. reported to the department that he was not in ill-health and was not entitled to superannuation.


Edward Gawler Prior: Would you mind saying -who this officer was ?


Tile MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would be glad to bring down the papers if the hon. gentleman wishes to call for them ; or, if he likes to see them privately, he can do so. All I can say is, that there were no certificates of the ill-health of this gentleman which were satisfactory to the department or to the Treasury Board ; and that the reports we have are that he was not in ill-health, or in such ill-health as would justify superannuation being granted.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Did Mr. Balderson produce a doctor's certificate for the Treasury Board, or did Mr. Hayter Reed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Were these gentlemen superannuated on the ground of ill-health ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It was because they wanted the place for somebody else.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would produce the doctors' certificate.
Hon. Mr. PRIOR, It seems to me in a case like that, after the man had put in 21 years, the minister might have stretched the point if possible.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not if he had misrepresented the facts to the department.


Edward Gawler Prior: I do not think he did. Of course, I am not capable of saying whether he did or not, but I would like to see the papers.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that John Sutherland, lighthouse keeper at Port Bur-well, has resigned. Is the minister going to make a new appointment ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I have no knowledge of it.


James Clancy: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman will see that we require this increase for the maintenance of new lights, the names of which I read him, those now building and for supplying new buoys. On the face of the vote the hon. gentleman sees it is for maintenance, and for the pay of the crew of the lighthouse steamer Brant, which was built a year or two ago and now has to be provided for. That new steamer supplies the lighthouses on the coast of Prince Edward Island. She is a new steamer just built.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before this item is adopted, I would like to ask the minister whether he has given further consideration to the memorial from the board of trade of the city of Halifax as regards the establishment of a lightship off the harbour of Halifax, During the last session of the last parliament I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. gentleman, and quoted a memorial which, I think, had been forwarded to him previously, and also a letter from Captain Pye, of Halifax, with regard to the difficulty of hearing the bombs fired from Sambro Island during foggy weather. The hon. gentleman at that time said the matter had been investigated by certain officers of his department, and in respect to some matters mentioned in the memorial, they did not agree with the views expressed by the board of trade ; and that with respect to the best place for the location of a lightship, if one were necessary, the views of the board did not agree with the views of the chief engineer of his department. I understood from what the hon. gentleman said on that occasion that he proposed to give liis further attention to the matter; and I also understood him that he would submit to the board of trade of the city of Halifax the report of his officials in order that they might have an opportunity of considering it and of making such reply as they thought desirable.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I may say to my hon. friend that I have given a great deal of consideration to that matter, in conjunction with the officers of my department, both here and in Halifax, and I have taken advantage of opportunities from time to time of consulting with the captains who enter the port of Halifax and leave it, but I have not yet officially made up my mind upon it. The chief engineer of the department is rather averse to the idea of placing a lightship there, because he does not think it is even


Louis Henry Davies: necessary. He looks upon tlie Halifax harbour as one of the finest in the world, with the lights which are there now, and he is backed up by the opinion of Admiral Erskine, which he quotes from time to time, who thinks that there is no difficulty for the largest ships in the world sailing right into Halifax harbour without danger. But there are others who hold a contrary opinion, and X am inclined to think that I did carry out my promise to which he calls attention, and send to the Halifax Board of Trade the opinion of the officers upon their memorial. I may be wrong in that, but my recollection is that I did send it. I will refresh my memory upon it. The matter is not finally closed ; it is still under consideration by Ool. Anderson and myself, and I do not want to shut the door one way or the other. I had a consultation with my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) upon it. It was brought to my attention some time ago, and I took advantage of my presence in Halifax to consult with the officers there. I went over the charts very carefully, and took the opinions of the officers. I met the inspector of lighthouses, Mr. Hutchins, and Capt. Campbell, lately in command of the Newfield and others. But, I have not come to a conclusion which would justify me in making any recommendation to my colleagues, nor do I mean to say that the door is closed one way or the other. I will again take the matter up before the supplementary estimates are brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dobell), who has great practical experience in matters of this kind, and who has had some practical experience in respect to the necessity of a lightship at the entrance of Halifax, when he spoke of this subject, during the past session, said :
I could easily understand that it would be ot very great benefit If a powerful lightship could he anchored in such a way that, in entering a harbour, the mariner could keep the lightship on the one hand and Chebucto Head light on the other.
Further on he says :
If it is possible to put a lightship there, it should be done.
He went on to express some doubt as to whether there was holding ground at that point, as to which I think, after what we have heard upon that matter during the past two or three years, there is really not much doubt. I understand that so far as the question of holding ground is concerned there is not really any difference of opinion among the hon. gentleman's officers. X did not observe that there was any question of that raised in the report.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think there was.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not recall it. I would like the hon. gentleman to
ascertain whether the report of his officers has gone to the board of trade. I shall take it as a favour, and I may say the board of trade would take it as a favour, if the hon. gentleman would let them have a copy of it, so that they could make observations upon it, if necessary.
Wages of crew and maintenance of Lurcher Shoal lightship (revote) .. $10,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Why was that not spent ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have not got the lightship yet. This is for maintenance for next year.
Construction of lighthouses .... $42,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the list ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I read the list.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I want to say a word or two in reference to this vote.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Let us have the list. These lists are usually handed across the floor of the House. That was the invariable custom some years ago. Strictly speaking, they ought to be in the estimates, and all lighthouses should be mentioned separately. The course was adopted by the minister of leaving out the list and sending a copy across the floor of the House. I would like to hear the list read before we discuss the vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will send it across the floor of the House ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not have it here.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The reason that I speak is that the hon. minister, in referring to the list, read one or two items for maintenance at a lighthouse at Middle Ground. I assume that no maintenance will be required, unless it is intended to build a lighthouse there. This lighthouse, if built, will be to replace one at Point Pelee, which was burnt a year or so ago. A discussion has arisen in regard to where that lighthouse should be built. I understand that the department has decided that it would be rebuilt at Middle Ground, and I am informed that that is not the best place to have the lighthouse. This is certainly the most important lighthouse of any between Duluth, or Chicago and Kingston. More vessels are interested in this point than any other on the upper lakes. They say that Middle Ground is not the best place at which to build a lighthouse, and I understand that strong representations have been made to the hon. minister in that regard. It is perhaps important that a lighthouse should be put at Middle Ground, but if so there should be two lighthouses at that place. It is called Middle Ground because it is land

lying between Pelee Island and Point Pelee itself. If one lighthouse is built there, the other one ought to be built at Point Pelee, on what is called South-east Shoal, which is just near there. That is the one that will best serve the marine interests. I am told that there was a deputation of mariners down, and probably they had an interview with the minister upon that point. If so, it might be very satisfactory, and in the public interest, if the minister could say that he has been convinced that Middle Ground is not the best place to adopt, but that if he intends to build one at Middle Ground, he will have one built at South-east Shoal on Point Pelee itself. This is a very important matter, and I know that a great many people are interested in it and anxious to know at the earliest moment what the department intends to do. I am satisfied that 'the best interests of navigation will not be served by a lighthouse at Middle Ground, which will not answer the purpose at all. It will be good enough as far as it goes, but it is not the best place. It is not as good a place as to build it exactly on the spot where the one was destroyed. But better still would it be to put it on South-east Shoal, and better still would it be if there were two lighthouses, one on Middle Ground and one on South-east Shoal.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not asking for any vote now for the construction of a lighthouse on Middle Ground or Point Pelee.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: We cannot see what you are asking for.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is therefore, hardly fair to ask me to give explanations in as much detail as I would give if I were asking for a vote. Last season when I asked for a vote, I brought down a chart, and the matter was argued and debated. The different locations where it was proposed that this lighthouse should be built were considered, and Middle Ground was preferred. I said in the House that the department had received petitions from a large majority of the captains of the craft in reference to the location, stating their opinion that the proper place to build the lighthouse was in the Middle Ground. I speak under correction, but I think that with two exceptions, they were unanimous in believing that Point Pelee was not the proper place, but that Middle Ground was the proper place. In addition to the opinion of the mariners, the captains of vessels, there was the opinion of the chief engineer, which was thoroughly concurrent, and there was no opinion of any weight or moment advocating the construction of this lighthouse at Point Pelee. There were very serious objections against building it there.


Byron Moffatt Britton: What about South-east Shoal ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There were serious objections to that too. The Middle Ground was the one which was at that time determined upon, and a vote was granted by parliament on the understanding that that was the location where the lighthouse was to be built. The lighthouse has been built and will be ready for the spring. It would have been done last fall but for the storms in October. I beg to assure my hon. friend (Mr. Britton) that if he is under the impression that the majority of the carriers favour the construction of a light on Point Pelee, he is entirely mistaken. I will bring down the petition, which will show that the vast majority are in favour of constructing the lighthouse on the Middle Ground.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
.	After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Salaries of temporary officers, engineers and draughtsmen at Ottawa, at rates exceeding $400 per annum, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act . $3,000


Adam Carr Bell: How many officers are there ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Only two at present : Mr. Fosberry and Mr. Roberts, at $600 per annum, but Col. Anderson says that when the rush of work comes on it will be necessary to employ other officers.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difficulty with regard to the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Civil Service Act only permits you to employ temporary officers, at $400 per annum, and you cannot get a good draughtsman in the Dominion for that.
I pay Messrs. Fosberry and Roberts $600 per annum, and I cannot get any one else at that rate. I hope to get a couple of other good men at about $700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these two employed at present retained throughout the year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They were employed by the chief engineer, and I do not know them personally, but they have been in office only about a year. I was fortunate enough to get one gentleman from the Royal Military College, but he is paid out of the civil service vote.
For the construction and equipment of a lightship for Lurcher's Shoal, supplied with electric light plant, compressed air siren and auxiliary screw power (revote) $80,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Could not a permanent structure be put there as at the Traverse ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: 


Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I never thought it could, no'-did Col. Anderson, but there was a memorandum sent to the department by a civil engineer of the city of St. John-I forget his name-in which he urged, that notwithstanding the great depth of water and the rise and fall of the tide, it was possible to erect a permanent structure there.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Did he give an estimate ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Only in a very rough way, I think. He believed it was feasible, and if so, it would be cheaper in the end. For my own part, I do not propose to incur any part of this expenditure until Col. Anderson has visited the spot and made the necessary investigation. If his report is such as to make it advisable to adopt this course, then the construction of the lightship will have to be postponed.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In a place like this, even with the best lightship, she is liable to move, and then the danger is greater than if there never was a ship there at all. That happened off Chebucto, at the time the old lightship was there. She moved from her moorings and was a source of danger, instead of a guide.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But, this proposed lightship will be fitted out in a way which I think would avoid any reasonable possibility of that. Before I proposed the vote last year, Col. Anderson went down to New York, and the engineers there gave him every information as to the improvements made on these lightships, and which are now used very largely along the American coast; and he gives me to understand that with these improvements, there will be no, danger at all of the lightship moving.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman's ground for asking this vote is rather slender, especially as this is the second year it has been asked. He tells us that it is asked on a mere surmise.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg pardon; I did not say that. The bon. member for Pictou was asking about putting up a permanent structure, instead of a lightship, and I said that I had received a suggestion of that kind from an engineer of St. John, and that before I made any of the proposed expenditure, I would make inquiries and see if there was anything in that suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this was a revote In fact, it was voted without very much knowledge of the subject, and only on a suggestion thrown out by the chief engineer, Col. Anderson.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman is wrong. It was not on account of suggestions made by the chief engineer, but on account of representations made by the board of trade, and on account of the dangers to navigation which we know to exist in the Bay of Fundy. We know that several vessels were ' lost there, one particularly three years ago; and the investigation with respect to the loss of that vessel, which was pretty thorough, satisfied my mind at all events that if there had been a lightship on the Lurcher shoal, the vessel might not have been lost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman, in trying to avoid one dilemma, gets into another, because he has given no excuse for not spending the money that was voted last year, if the vote was based on proper information at the time. So that I do not think he made his case very much better. But, what I rose for was to point to a defect in these estimates-that they do not show which items are revotes and which are new.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This does-at the end of the item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see it does. The custom has been to show the revotes in another column, and I think it would be an improvement to follow that custom.


Robert Laird Borden: For what particular part of the Bay of Fundy is this lightship ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Near the entrance-about midway between Yarmouth and the Grand Manan.
Construction of lighthouses	 $42,000


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The proposed lights and buoys for next year, are as follows :
Ontario-
Michipicoten Island light	 $3,000
Stribbling Point range lights	 200
Thornbury range	 250
Stag Island range	 150
Quebec-
Cap Charles range lights	 1,200
Welch Rock, Lake Memphremagog, to
rebuild	 500
Grand Entry light	 500
Gas buoys on Batture Simon	 4,000
Nova Scotia-
Low Point, re-establishment fog alarm.. 2,000
Victoria Beach	 600
Port Bickerton	     500
Charlo	 500
Grand Etang pier light	 400
Louisburg fog alarm	 4,500
Entrance to Bras d'Or, rearrangement of
lights	 2,000
New Brunswick-
Perry's Point, pole light	 200

British Columbia-
Walker's Rock light		 $2,000
Brocton Point Light and dwelling	 2,000
Lights and beacons en route to Ladysmith 4,000 Additional bell and whistling buoys, New
Brunswick and Nova	Scotia	 10,000
Not yet allotted	 3,500
Total	$42,000


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Wliat is the reason for a light at Brocton ? There are two lights there now very close together, and a very good dwelling.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The engineer says there is nothing but a pole light there now. The intention is to put up a dwelling house, and a proper lighthouse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it intended to put up the range light at Thornbury ? Is it to he put on the shore so as to range with the one at the end of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: At Brocton Point there is already a new light, and a dwelling at the entrance to the harbour; and on the point, not more than 150 yards distant, there is another light- not a pole light, but an ordinary light in a properly-constructed building.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The information I have is that there is a light at Prospect Point, and a light at the entrance. It is proposed to have both lights continued, but to substitute at Brocton Point a good light with a dwelling.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That means that there will be two keepers. Are there two keepers at present ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Though it is not exactly relevant, I would like to say a word with regard to the salary of the light keeper at Thornberry. He has been there for a number of years and his salary has been $80 a year. I think he applied for an increase and, as he is a remarkably capable and efficient man and as he will have more work to do, I hope the minister will see his way clear to give him an increase when the additional light is put there. I think the making of the range light is the proper thing to do and will be appreciated by the people in the locality. Some think that the light on the end of the dock should be raised. I do not know whether it should be raised or not, but I think that the putting in of the range light will be an improvement.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall be glad to bear the Sir LOUIS DAVIES,
recommendation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) in mind.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the estimated cost of the house and of the light ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will be one building- $2,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: For the house and light ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, that is the total.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER, What did the light at Prospect Point cost ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: About $3,000. That was largely on account of the foundation, which had to be made of concrete.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That was very cheap. Was it done by day's labour '!


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I regret to see no mention in the list of Ontario lighthouses of a lighthouse at Bronte, a point about midway between Hamilton and Toronto on Lake Ontario. Last year the government received a vote of $17,000 for dredging the harbour and improving the dock at that place, and it was rumoured that a lighthouse would be placed there also. No appropriation was made for this last year, and I am surprised that the minister has overlooked it this yeaI hope it is simply an oversight and that the minister does not intend to abandon the idea of erecting the lighthouse there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall be glad to consider carefully what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has said. I do not recollect having the matter brought to my personal attention.


David Henderson: I quite understand the minister when he says that the matter has not been brought to his attention. During the election in November last it was stated by the government candidate, I was credibly informed, that a lighthouse would be erected there; and considerable use was made of that statement to secure his election. My own opinion was that no promise had been made by the Minister of Marine, nor do I think that any such promise had ever been made. I merely draw attention to the fact to show the gross abuse of the expenditure of public

money for election purposes. There is no doubt the government candidate gained greatly by announcing the prospect of this expenditure, because he succeeded in getting a larger vote there than was usually obtained by a candidate of that party ;
I have no doubt the real intention was to mislead the electors. I quite believe that the whole thing was gotten up merely to influence the election. However, if the hon. minister does decide to build a lighthouse there, it will be very much appreciated by the electors of that section.
Lighthouse and Coast Service-Repairs to wharfs	 $3,000
Mr. 8 PR Oil LE. Is that in connection with lighthouses ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No-ordinary wharfs. The Marine Department is allowed this amount to spend in small repairs on wharfs without refernce to the Minister of Public Works.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: You save a lot of money that way ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES, We do.
Scientie	Institutions	and	Hydrographic
Surveys-Observatory, Toronto	 $2,700


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was appointed in the place of the late Mr. Carpmael ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Mr. Stupart.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He does not seem to be as successful in his weather predictions as his predecessor was.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am surprised to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) say that. The feeling in the maritime provinces seems to be one of surprise at the great accuracy of ' Old Probs' ' predictions.
Scientific Institutions and Hydrographic Survey-Meteorological Service	$77,593


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is this increase made up ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Salaries, $1,100 ; telegraphs, $1,000-we have extended our information to a larger number of towns than formerly received ' Old Probs' ' prognostications and the cost of telegraphing is greater-instruments, $400 ; postage, stationery and printing, $1,400 ; expenses at stations, $783 ; miscellaneous, $600. The salary increases include $100 to Mr. Stupart, the director ; to Mr. Webber, forecast official, $500 ; to Mr. H. V. Payne, climatologist, and Mr. F. F. Payne, secretary, $50 each ; to Mr. F. L. Blake, astronomical assistant, $50 ; to Mr. Kingsford and Mr. Allan, assistant forecast officials, Mr. Menzies, observer, and Mr. ! 10
Hutchinson, at St. John, N.B., $100 each. An increase of $50 is allowed also to the following : W. A. Bannon, clerk ; D. O'Hallor-an, telegraph operator ; Chas. Ross, telegraph operator ; Ross McA. Cameron, clerk; Harold A. Small, clerk ; Chas. E. Tweedie, assistant observer ; Frank O'Donnell, clerk; and F. N. Dennison, Victoria, B.C., A station in the Yukon will cost $500, and a station on Herschell Island, $50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman tell us approximately how much of the ground in Georgian Bay has been gone oyer, and what he proposes to do the coming season ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understand from Commander Stewart that they have finished the whole of that district excepting this year's work. When this year's work is finished, they will have finished the survey of Lake Huron. This year they are going down the east coast of Lake Huron toward Goderich.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I to understand they have finished up Georgian Bay entirely ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, they have some work to do on the coast of Lake Huron.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has there been any charts published of late which show the survey up to the present time, and that will be available the coming season.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, charts are prepared during the winter months and sent home to the hydrographic office in London to be published, and as soon as they are published they are distributed among the mariners. The moment we get them back from the hydrographer's office they are published.
I do not know whether my hon. friend has ever seen one of those charts. They involve an immense deal of accurate labour.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the cost of these charts in Canada is about ten times the cost for corresponding works in the United States, and I do not know that they are any better. The United States charts of our great lakes are infinitely superior to the English charts, and they are purchaseable at a nominal fee. If you buy one here it costs a large sum of money.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think not, they are not sold to make money out of them.


Mr HUGHES (North Victoria).: They are sold at 75 cents to $1.50, and you can get them for 25 cents on the other side, and infinitely better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood these charts could be given out without charge.


Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, a small charge is made for them. You cannot issue valuable charts of that kind without charging for them, otherwise everybody all over the country would want them. They are charged just enough to cover the cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister! tell us when the charts will be available and what the price will be for the whole of Georgian Bay and Lake Huron ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This next year we will have charts for Lake Huron and the sheets themselves for distribution. The Georgian Bay sheets are out now and ready for distribution. The whole of Georgian Bay has been surveyed and the charts are all ready for distribution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When may we have the charts of the work done last summer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Next year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is just as requisite for navigators to have charts of Lake Huron as it is of the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No time will be lost. We cannot do more than forward the charts the moment after the surveys are made. The officers come back here and prepare the charts, and the moment they finish them they are sent home to the hydrographer's office in order to be properly printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not complaining of the length of time, but I want to know approximately when they will be out, because these questions are asked, and I desire to give information when they will be available.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Next year we will have the first two charts, the chief engineer tells me, of Lake Huron, the first two charts only. They are generally about two years behind in getting the sheet charts ; from the time the survey is made until the sheet charts come back will be two years.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What was the expenditure on the hydrographic survey last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: For the year 1899-1900 it was $12,600. I cannot tell what the expenditure will be for the current year.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then, why does the hon. gentleman ask $16,000 if $12,600 was all he spent in the regular season before, and he does not know what amount he will require for the current year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman knows
that the vessel we employ on this hydrographic survey, the Bayfield, is a very old and almost worn-out vessel. Last year I tiled to get my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to give me some money to build a new boat, but he could not see his way clear to do it. I want to get a new boat now, but I have not got the money yet. There will be quite a large sum of money, $3,000 or $4,000 at the very least, expended in repairing the boiler and the machinery of the Bayfield to make her seaworthy. It is specially for that ; the whole $16,000, Mr. Stewart tells me, will be required.


James Joseph Hughes: If the minister will inquire into the cost of these maps he will find that the United States charts are infinitely cheaper and better.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will make the necessary inquiries ; but the prices of these charts are fixed by the Admiralty Office, and it is very hard to get out of routine.


Edward Gawler Prior: Is it; the intention of the minister to do any hydrographic surveying on the coast of British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not this year, but I am not without hopes that when we get the new vessel afloat we may be able to do something. We have called for tenders for her construction, although the contract has not been entered into yet. I hope she will be ready for service in a short time.


Edward Gawler Prior: If I understand the work these vessels have to do, I do not think they will have time to do any hydrographic work this year. No doubt these vessels are wanted badly, and they are wanted for customs work, and looking after smuggling and lighthouse service. The hon. gentleman will remember that last year a very strong effort was made by boards of trade in British Columbia to have that hydrographic survey carried on. The hon. gentleman must remember there is a tremendously large traffic going on now on that coast up to the Yukon, and also down to San Francisco. I think if he looks into it he will find that he ought to do something this year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Last year my hon. friend brought this matter up and I had it investigated. To a certain extent that coast has been already surveyed by Imperial officers but has not been as completely surveyed as it ought to be. The Quadra is now doing all the work out there, but it is contemplated to have a new ship launched, and the Quadra will be reserved entirely for marine work and the new ship devoted to the protection of the fisheries and customs. That need not necessarily absorb all her time, but neither


Thomas Simpson Sproule: am I prepared to say that she would have time to devote to the hydrographic service. I have made no preparation for any hydrographic survey on the western coast this year.


Edward Gawler Prior: My hon. friend will remember that Captain Walldom, in command of the Quadra, has done considerable work in that regard which does not pertain to his duties.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I know he has, and the work he has done is very creditable to him, but I would not say that an officer of one of the Dominion steamers should not, when he discovers a rock, locate it properly on the chart.
Care of sick seamen In Marine Hospital
and other hospitals in the maritime
provinces	 $38,000
Shipwrecked and distressed seamen _____ 3,000


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The increase of $3,000 in the first item is due to the increase of shipping, especially at the port of Montreal, where there is a very large number of seamen admitted to the General Hospital and the Notre Dame Hospital. In Montreal alone 340 seamen receive treatment, and the treatment of sick seamen at outlaying ports has also largely increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the charge by the hospital ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So much per diem for each seaman-90 or 95 cents.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: According to the Auditor General's Report $35,000 covered everything.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Last year we spent $35,000, but that included $1,000 voted for the St. John cemetery. We estimate that we will require at least $2,000 more this year, basing our estimate on the increased number of patients in the Montreal hospital and the outlying ports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this vote available for Sick seamen in Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, this is strictly speaking a trust fund and does not cost the country anything. To the credit of that fund there is quite a large amount of money. The ships in the maritime provinces and Quebec are liable for the payipent of a tonnage fee which goes into this particular fund. Out of this fund this expenditure is made. In Ontario the ships pay no sick mariners fee and consequently are not entitled to any share in this fund.
Steamboat inspection	 $28,200


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The increase of $1,000 is to
provide for increases in the salaries of inspectors granted them a few months ago.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Who is the inspector now at the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Robinson.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What became of Russell ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He was dismissed.	.
Inspection of Dominion steamers and fog alarms	 $1,300


Edward Gawler Prior: I would like to call attention to the necessity for more fog alarms on the Pacific coast. The Boards of Trade of Vancouver and Victoria have pointed out the great necessity-a necessity impressed upon them by seafaring men-for fog alarms wherever lighthouses are placed. That means a pretty large order, but the frequency of fogs and the large and increasing traffic demand that fog alarms should be put up. Many more lights are also required, but on this subject I shall speak on some future occasion. I would like the hon. minister to promise that this question of fog alarms will receive his early and favourable consideration.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would be happy to promise that it will receive early consideration, but would not like to consent to so large a proposition by promising it favourable consideration. I will give it every consideration possible.


Mr. FRASER.: I would impress on the hon. minister the advisability of seeing whether the people to the south of us might not be induced to do their share in the northern part. Our government have done five times as much as the American government have in that direction.


Edward Gawler Prior: Where is that ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: North, towards Skagway. It would be well if the hon. minister would communicate with the American government so as to draw its attention to the fact in order that it might do its share. I have heard American capitalists say that we did tentimes more in a short time since we have been opening up that country than they did all the time they have had any possessions there.
Salaries and disbursements of fisheries inspectors, overseers and guardians.... $85,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the reason for this increase ? I thought when we were obliged to give up the fisheries to the provinces there would be a reduction in the expenditure rather than an increase.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So there is a reduction. The amount originally was $95,000, and it was

reduced to $70,000 in 1900. At that time it was assumed that we would not have any officers whatever in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, but it was subsequently represented to us that we must have a few inspectors at least to inform us upon the manner in which the regulations, which it is our duty to make and prepare, are carried out by the fishery officers of the provinces. We, therefore, have in new Ontario an inspector, we have an inspector in Ontario, resident in Toronto, whose jurisdiction extends over the whole of Lake Erie and part of Lake Huron, and then we have an inspector in the eastern part of Ontario. We have two inspectors for Quebec, so that, having to pay for the inspectors and their travelling expenses, a matter of $9,000, was incurred more than was at first anticipated. Then, coming to British Columbia, we have had this last year, an additional fishery protection steamer that cost $15,000 last year, and this protection in British Columbia will cost $15,000 this year.


Edward Gawler Prior: What steamer was that ?
The	MINISTER	OP	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. We	had	the Winetta and
Tyce.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that we are getting rapidly back to the old figure that the hon. minister says the expenditure originally reached-$90,000.
The	MINISTER	OP	MARINE	AND


FISHERIES. $95,000.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It came down to $70,000, but in one year it jumped up by $15,000.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. In British Columbia our receipts from fisheries are very largely in excess of our expenditure, and I will have to ask the House next year to increase the expenditure there still more to provide fishery boats for the protection of the fisheries there. We are building one now which we will have to maintain, we are building a hatchery at Sicamous on the Fraser river, we are building another at the mouth of the Skeena river, and I have no doubt that we will be obliged to build other hatcheries and incur other large expenditures.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is not the item for fish hatcheries at all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, but I am pointing out that while you see one side of the account increasing, you do not see the receipts increasing. The receipts from British Columbia, largely exceed the expenditure on the fisheries.


Edward Gawler Prior: Four times.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The reason is that when the Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
salmon fishing season takes place, there is a matter of a thousand boats congregated at the mouth of the Fraser river. These boats have to be licensed and closely inspected, and we have to charter a steamer and to maintain a crew and officers. That costs $15,000, but the receipts are far in excess of the expenditure.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is that something new ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not complaining of that, but I was referring to the excuse given by the hon. minister for the increase. We thought when the fisheries were taken over by the provinces that we would have no expenditure in that line, but we found afterwards that we required three overseers, and that was given to account for the increase in the expenditure. Now, the increase in the expenditure is in British Columbia, which I think would be perfectly proper, but it would be well to inquire how much of that increase was due to the expenditure in British Columbia, and how much was due to the increase in the number of inspectors in Ontario. Then, we will be able to arrive at a proper estimate as to what we require.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman (Sir Louis Davies) has mentioned three inspectors as being employed in Ontario. If I understood the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the other day, lie mentioned Mr. Hurley, of Hastings, as an inspector. These inspectors, I understand, are to see whether the regulations are being carried out. Have the Dominion government the power to say how much the license shall be ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have the Dominion government inspectors any control over the local inspectors ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No, they have no direct control over them. Their duty is to report to the department from week to week how the fishery regulations are observed in the different localities.


Andrew B. Ingram: By whom ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. By the fishermen.


James Clancy: That is the duty of the local government.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Certainly, it is the duty of the local government, but we make the regulations and fix the times and seasons in which the fish may be taken. The local government have the sole and exclusive'right

under the Privy Council decision to grant licenses for particular localities, they get the fees aud they oppoint officers for that purpose. It is a divided jurisdiction and we appoint three officers in order to keep track of the manner in which our regulations are observed, aud report to us whether these regulations are proper or not, aud whether they should he amended or not in this direction or in that direction.
Mr. CLANCY My hon. friend will see' that we derive no revenue from any source, and it is strange that we should be so anxious as to employ a squad of inspectors to look after a matter that is solely concerned with provincial interests. My hon. friend behind me very aptly says that they are employed to draw their salaries. Cannot we discover any other reason for it than that ? Some discussion took place on this same question last year. There seems to be some conflict of authority, some difference of opinion as to what is the proper sphere of action to be pursued by the respective governments in regard to the matter. I would like to ask : Has Mr. Hurley taken the place of some other inspector, or is he a new inspector ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We had a gentleman from the department who undertook the duties of inspecting eastern Ontario lying near here, but we came to the conclusion that it would be better to have an officer who would devote his whole time to the work.


James Clancy: Then Mr. Hurley is a new appointment ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He takes Mr. Cunningham's place.


James Clancy: What were the duties that Mr. Cunningham performed before ? It is necessary to know what the reasons were that actuated the government in coming to the conclusion which they did.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Mr. Cunningham's duties are cljiefly in the department, and lie was asked to do this work in eastern Ontario.


James Clancy: Why cannot he do it now?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Because he would have to be away from his work here.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that his work was neglected here, when he perfomed these other duties ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I am not prepared to say that his work was neglected, but I advised my colleagues that it would be better to have him in the department to attend to the special work that he is required to do, taking charge of the accounts of the fishery expenditure and superintending the hatcheries of the Dominion. Mr. Cunningham may be required to go to-morrow to inspect the hatchery at Margaree, or at Richibucto, N.B., or at Pictou, in Nova Scotia, and to report upon these hatcheries. It does not seem to me that it would be consistent with these duties to discharge the duty of inspector of fisheries in eastern Ontario.


James Clancy: It is very strange that the hon. gentleman should have made that discovery so suddenly. I am quite sure his friends know perfectly, that there has no such state of things arisen other than the necessity of finding a place for an hon. gentleman who was defeated at the election to call for this appointment. Mr. Hurley is no doubt a very estimable gentleman, but that is not what we are discussing here tonight. But, if the reasons the hon. gentleman gives at the present moment are good now, they were good before. The minister might call upon Mr. Cummings or anybody else to go to the maritime provinces, but it would be more courageous for him to stand up and tell us that he wanted to make an appointment, and that this is the excuse.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are glad to know that you do not object to the appointment.


James Clancy: I am not objecting to the appointment of any necessary official. Why should we maintain even a small staff of officials for the purpose of maintaining provincial revenues. The minister I am sure will agree with me, that this is a useless service for the Dominion to maintain and that it should be ended as speedily as possible. If this were merely a temporary arrangement pending a decision of the courts, and if we could ever hope to receive any revenue, then I could understand it. Is it the intention of the government to maintain this service and to multiply the officers as the necessity arises ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is not the intention of the department, while I preside over it at least, to multiply unnecessary officials. I appeal to the experience and intelligence of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy)-and I have never appealed to them in vain-for he knows that the Privy Council decision gave rise to certain anomalies which we did not anticipate and cannot overcome. The exclusive power to make regulations in connection with the fisheries is vested in the Dominion government, but the provinces of Ontario and Quebec having been declared by the Privy Council to be the owners of the beds of rivers and lakes, they were held a fortiori to be the owners of the fish in these rivers and lakes, and it was held that the provinces had the exclusive right to grant fishery leases of areas in these lakes. Therefore the revenues which we formerly derived from the issue of licenses are now

handed over to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


James Clancy: We all know that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am explaining the anomaly. We must make the regulations, and they grant the licenses. With the constitutional duty cast upon us of making the regulations, are we not to see that the regulations are carried out ? WTould the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) suggest that I should withdraw the Petrel from Lakes Erie and Huron? I do not think any one would suggest that.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Is not the Minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) wrong in regard to that decision of the Privy Council, when he says the result of it was that the authority of the Dominion government was gone with regard to the issuing of licenses ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Leases ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman said licenses. We had a system of licenses in the province of Ontario which brought incidentally into the exchequer a very large sum of money. As I understand it, the decision of the Privy Council did not interfere with that system or the right to charge for these licenses because they were not for revenue but for the purpose of restriction, and preventing overfishing.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would not be dogmatic on that question, because there is room for difference of opinion. I have consulted with the Minister of Justice, and the Deputy Minister of Justice and also with Mr. Chris-tojther Robinson as to what that judgment means, and the conclusion I arrived at was that while we may have the power to levy a tax on all fishing we choose, outside of that we have no power to issue a license and charge for it in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I take it, there would be nothing wrong in our passing a regulation that no one should fish without paying, say one dollar a year. What I referred to particularly was the issue of a license for a particular location where a net could be cast, the exclusive right of which belongs to the province and not to us.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Quite so, hut the curious thing seems to be that the federal authority has absolutely withdrawn from Ontario in so far as that license system is concerned.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That license system never was founded upon a revenue basis, but upon the necessity of protecting the fisheries so as to preserve them. That was the attitude always taken in this House, and when a comparison was made of the large amount taken from Ontario as compared with the other provinces, the explanation of the policy of the government was that this was a mere incident, the system not being to obtain revenue from the fishermen of Ontario but to preserve to these fishermen the fisheries, and with that end in view a fee was charged for tugs and for nets and so on. That being so, there is not a line in the judgment which says that system is wrong and that the provinces alone should charge a license. The provinces of course exercise proprietary right, but according to the statement of the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) the Ontario government are carrying out that license system and obtaining the incidental revenue from it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is the condition of things now.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then it is a great concession from the federal government and it is a concession which causes the federal government to recede from the discharge of their responsibility to regulate the fisheries. If these are the regulations, they get their forge from Dominion laws, and not from local.


James Joseph Hughes: If the Ontario government derive a revenue from the fisheries, why should not the Ontario government maintain a fishery protection service ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They do.


James Joseph Hughes: They do not pay for the Dominion boat.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is maintained from a national, or rather international standpoint. It is for the purpose of protecting the fisheries of the inland waters from the inroads of American fishermen, which one would

hardly suppose to be a duty properly relegated to the province.


James Joseph Hughes: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Inasmuch as it is international ; and inasmuch as we maintain the protection of the sea-shore fisheries out of the Dominion treasury, it is equally reasonable to suppose that we should maintain the protection of the inland fisheries from the encroachments of American fishermen.


James Joseph Hughes: Each state of the American union maintains its own fishery officers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are not in the same position as the states of the American union.


James Joseph Hughes: In this case we are.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If my hon. friend thinks we should withdraw the Petrel and abandon the protection of the inland waters, I am prepared to discuss that question with him.
I hope he will not take that ground.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand the hon. gentleman, the Ontario government own the fish in the rivers and lakes of the province.
I would like to know if the Ontario government endorse the regulations of the Dominion government, and are willing to carry them out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not mean to say that there has been no friction. On the contrary, there has- been a disposition on the part of the provincial government to arrogate-if that is not an improper word-powers with regard to these regulations, which I do not think they possess. They undertook to pass regulations supplementary to ours, contending that as the proprietor of the fisheries, they had a right to make supplementary regulations. We challenge that right entirely, pointing to the words in the fishery judgment stating that the sole and exclusive right to make regulations relating to the fisheries is vested in the Dominion. That is our contention. We have taken the opinion of the Justice Department on it once or twice, and we have no reasonable doubt as to the righteousness and legality of the ground we stand upon in that regard. But there has been more or less friction. We pointed out to the Ontario government that in an Act which they passed on the subject, one or two sections went beyond their powers, because in them they took power to pass regulations which we contend is vested exclusively in the Dominion. But generally speaking, I have no complaint at all to make as to the manner in which the Ontario government and their officers administer the regulations which we pass. With
certain reservations, I think they are doing fairly well.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: They get the fees, and you pay the officials.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh. no ; the hon. gentleman is quite mistaken. They have to pay a very large sum of money for protection. They pay the fishery overseers and guardians.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What do you want, then ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I want an inspector to report to me whether the regulations are being carried out. A department like the Marine and Fisheries Department has no right to be vested with the exclusive power to make regulations, unless it is posted from time to time with a knowledge of those conditions, and their modification from time to time, which should be known to the man who makes the regulations.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I want to know is whether the Ontario government are willing to recognize the Dominion authorities. Is' it the policy of the Ontario government to deplete the fisheries they own in the rivers and lakes ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think their policy is to protect them.


Andrew B. Ingram: If that is true, and if they endorse the regulations passed by the Dominion government, what is the necessity of their having inspectors ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not sure that they will carry that out. The industry is too vast and important and valuable, and the responsibility on my shoulders as Minister of Marine and Fisheries is too great, for me to ignore. Nor would this House justify me if I sat back and Ignored my responsibility by saying that inasmuch as the proceeds of the fisheries go to the Ontario government I would do nothing to protect them.


James Clancy: I understand that the Ontario officials are in no sense answerable to the inspectors appointed by the Dominion, but are solely answerable to the province. Let us suppose that they disregard in a large measure the faithful carrying out of the regulations made exclusively by the Dominion ; then, what recourse has the hon. gentleman ? One word more. I quite understand that if the provincial government pass supplementary regulations, the hon. gentleman would have his remedy by disallowing so much of those regulations as conflicted with the authorities of the Dominion. But I would suppose a set of officers who would be wholly unanswerable I to the hon. gentleman's inspectors for the

faithful carrying out of his regulations, and I ask him what his recourse would he ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The one recourse, if the provincial officers refused to enforce the regulations, would be to appoint officers of our own to enforce them.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman power to do that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, yes ; and so far as the breaches of the regulations come to the knowledge of any of our inspectors, it is part of their duty to punish the wrongdoer.


Andrew B. Ingram: The regulations involve the fixing of close seasons ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Dominion government have the right to say what shall be the close season ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The exclusive right.


Andrew B. Ingram: The fishermen may differ as to the time that ought to be fixed for the close season ; and suppose the inspector of this government found that in a certain distx'ict the fishermen were not carrying out the regulations of the Dominion government in that respect. The local inspector takes no action. Has the Dominion inspector authority to have an investigation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, full power.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose the inspector of the Ontario government is found to be negligent, what authority has this government over him ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has no authority over him ; but I would report to his government. But the wrong-doer himself who transgressed our regulations would be summoned and punished by our inspector.


Andrew B. Ingram: In case an inspector of the Ontario government were receiving money and not returning it to the Ontario government, I suppose you would have nothing to do with that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nothing whatever.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The passage of the decision which I have reference to is not long, and I would like to bring it to the attention of the minister, because it underlay what I suggested-that these regulations under which the license fee was charged, were passed as regulations, and not for the purpose of retaining any money. Passing to the question of fishery and fishery rights :


James Clancy: Their lordships are of opinion that the 91st section of the British North America Act did not convey to the Dominion of Canada any proprietary rights in relation to fisheries. Their lordships have already noticed the distinction which must be borne in mind between rights of property and legislative jurisdiction. It was the latter cnly which was conferred under the heading, ' Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries,' in s. 91. Whatever proprietary rights in relation to fisheries were previously vested in private individuals or in the provinces respectively, remains untouched by that enactment. Whatever rights might previously have been lawfully made by the provinces in virtue of their proprietary rights could lawfully be made after that enactment came into force. At the same time, it must be remembered that the power to legislate in relation to fisheries does necessarily, to a certain extent, enable the legislature so empowered to affect proprietary rights. An enactment, for example, prescribing the time of the year during which fishing is to be allowed, or the instruments which may be employed for the purpose (which it was admitted the Dominion legislature was empowered to pass) might very seriously touch the exercise of proprietary rights, and the extent, character and scope of such legislation is left entirely to the Dominion legislature. The suggestion that the power might he abused so as to amount to a practical confiscation of property, does not warrant the imposition by the courts of any limit upon the absolute power of legislation conferred. The supreme legislative power in relation to any subject-matter is always capable of abuse, but it is not to be assumed that it will be improperly used.
That was brought out much more strongly in the argument on the interruption of the counsel, when Lord Herschell made an observation directly on the illustration which counsel was making on the basis of that license svstem.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As a matter of policy, we have not attempted to issue general licenses.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the hon. gentleman, he has no advice from the Department of Justice that it would not be possible for this government to issue licenses. It seems to me the language of the Judicial Committee would indicate that you might issue licenses. ' Fishing regulations and restriction are within the province of the Dominion, inasmuch as the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to sea coasts and Atlantic fisheries.' In the well-known case of the city of Toronto vs. Virgo, it was held that the by-law in question was ultra vires, because it destroyed the trade or right which it purported to regulate. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that regulation could only be consistent with the continued existence of that which is to be regulated. Here you have the power to regulate, why not exercise it by means of licenses as well as anything else ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We might do that and possibly charge for the licenses too, but I would

draw a distinction between a general license to fish and a license to fish in a particular locality. The latter would be a matter affecting the proprietary right. For Instance, if we should divide off from the shore a certain location, A to Z, and give a license to fish in that location, that would amount to a lease, and should come from the province alone. A general license we might issue, saying that nobody shall fish in the province unless he has a Dominion license, but as a matter of policy we have not adopted that system.


Edward Gawler Prior: My hon. friend has said that the Dominion government has given up all claims for the revenue from licenses in the province of Ontario. Why have they not done so in the province of British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is a broad distinction between the two. The reason on which the judgment of the Privy Council was based is that the proprietary rights in the fisheries belong to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, inasmuch as the beds of the rivers and lakes are the property of the provinces.
In the maritime provinces, the question whether the bed of the sea, from low water mark, to the three-mile limit, belongs to the province as a proprietary right, or whether the Dominion has proprietary jurisdiction over it, is a question not absolutely determined. I have frequently expressed my opinion that the Dominion has the right over the sea coast fisheries and that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have the right only to the inland fisheries, because they own the beds of the lakes and rivers.


Edward Gawler Prior: A large number of the licenses collected by the Dominion in British Columbia are licenses to fish in the rivers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not many, but there are some, and an adjustment is being made in the accounts between the province and the Dominion in that regard. I had a lengthy interview with the premier of British Columbia. on the matter. I admit that if I were to give exclusive leases of any part of a river and charge for them, the fees would belong to the province ; but if I give a general license to fish and make a regulation that nobody shall fish without that license, that is within my power.


Edward Gawler Prior: My hon. friend said some time ago that he would have to make a larger expenditure in British Columbia than he has done in the past. To strengthen his hands with his colleagues, and especially with the hon. the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), of whom he seems to be afraid


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, no, you will find the Finance Minister very generous.


Edward Gawler Prior: Let me draw attention to some figures I have just taken out of the Auditor General's Report. In Ontario the revenue was $794, and the Dominion government expended there $3,704. In Quebec the revenue collected amounted to $2,563, and the expenditure was $5,549, or the expenditure doubled the revenue. In Nova Scotia the revenue was $5,494, and the expenditure $27,461, or there was five times greater expenditure in Nova Scotia than revenue collected. In New Brunswick the revenue was $12,015 and the expenditure $21,459-or the expenditure nearly doubled the revenue. But in British Columbia where the revenue was $53,195, the expenditure was only $13,662, or the expenditure in that province was only one-fourth of what the government received. The revenue collected from British Columbia was four times more than that collected from New Brunswick, and yet the expenditure in New Brunswick was one and three-quarter times that expended in British Columbia. And while the revenue from British Columbia was more than ten times that of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia had twice as much expended in that province as British Columbia. Those figures show that British Columbia once more came out at the small end of the horn, and I trust that the hon. minister will take those figures into consideration and establish more fish hatcheries in British Columbia and appoint more overseers to look after the lakes and the rivers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I appreciate a great deal of what my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) has said. He will find that the expenditure for the current year is much larger.


Edward Gawler Prior: It is the same old thing. Always promising.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, the hon. gentleman will find that the expenditure is larger, and it will necessarily and properly continue to increase.


Edward Hackett: I notice a great increase in the expenditure for the protection of fisheries in Prince Edward Island within the last few years. In 1895-6 the expenditure was $3,555, and in 1899, it was $7,264, an increase of one hundred per cent in four years. Will the hon. minister tell us what changes have taken place in Prince Edward Island to warrant such an increase ? I know of none. The fisheries are no better protected than they were. We have had a number of by-elections, it is true and several defeated candidates-and that is the only way I can account for it. Last October, when I was going about soliciting the votes of the people, I went down to Richmond Bay where the oyster beds are, and I found there a regular swarm of men paid by the government, the object being, no doubt, to

elect the government candidate. The fishermen were being watched as closely as if they were preparing to steal something that belonged to the government. The object was to secure support for the government, but it did not have that effect. The time when the fishing is going on is not the time to protect the fisheries. The time when watchfulness should be used is during the spawning season. But, when the men are fishing, do not put on a force of camp followers to watch them at their work every day. As I have said, the hon. minister is losing prestige among the fishermen by using the men in this way. Merely that he may hand over'the loaves and fishes of government patronage to the men who were wandering in the wilderness for eighteen years hungering for the flesh pots of office. This may be a growing time, but the day may come when the government will require every dollar they are now throwing away in this reckless manner. I had the honour to be inspector of fisheries for Prince Edward Island for a number of years. In 1895 I found the amount placed at my disposal quite sufficient to protect the fisheries. Since then, as I say, the expenditure has increased a hundred per cent and it has been increased for a corrupt purpose, to influence the electors.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) knows, and as every hon. gentleman knows, it is not a very popular thing to enforce fishery or any other regulations, and, in the attempt to enforce properly the regulations of the department and preserve the great fishing industries of the people, an officer or a minister will not gain, but will lose popularity. The hon. gentleman is right in saying that I have not gained in popularity in my native province, but have lost. But I should be recreant to my duty if I allowed men to break the regulations I have sworn to carry out. The increase of expenditure has been made in an honest effort to protect the lobster and other fisheries. I know it is very unpopular, but I intend' to do it, as I have done it in the past.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one point respecting this fishery expenditure to which I wish to call attention. In the report of the Auditor General with respect to overseers or wardens appear sums such as these: Salary 9 months, $45 ; travel, $294.05; salary 9 months, $75, travel $204.49 ; salary 9 months, $75, travel $782.56. It seems to me that the salary is very small in proportion to the travel. There seems to be very little bread, to a monstrous deal of sack in this case. When a man travels to the extent of $782, it seems to me he should be paid more than $75 for it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is very difficult to explain Mr. HACKETT.
to the hon. gentleman this apparent an-nomaly, but it is all right. A man is paid a certain sum as guardian or overseer of a certain district. If he sits at home and does nothing, he might as well not have been appointed. If his district is a large one he should travel long distances. He must keep a record of all the travelling he does, where to, and the number of miles. He must make a return, and this is checked by the officers of the department. A man cannot be expected, for $50 a year, to take his horse and carriage out or to travel by rail or boat at his own expense. Therefore, the department allows so much a mile for travelling fees. The law allows payment only for mileage actually travelled bona fide in the discharge of the duties of the office. The question is whether we have a good check upon these returns, and the officers in the department think we have.


Robert Laird Borden: The $50 or $75 is in the nature of a retainer then, and the other represents not actual expenses but a mileage allowance really part of the salary ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


James Clancy: Has the minister had any complaints from his inspectors that the Ontario officials have failed to carry out their duties in enforcing the regulations ? If not, the only reason for the expenditure for inspectors is the burning zeal of the hon. minister to carry out a duty that is already well discharged by those who have the greatest interest in discharging it faithfully. If he is prepared to say that cases have come to his notice, that might be a reason, and if he is prepared to say further that he has taken means to remedy the evil complained of, that would be a reason ; but, if the hon. gentleman is not prepared to make a statement of that kind, then, I submit, they are absolutely of no use, and there is no reason for retaining the inspectors to do work that is being well done simply because it is in the interest of the province to do so.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I can only tell my hon. friend that he must have failed to follow the statement that I made before, that is, the absolute necessity of retaining some officials in the great province of Ontario to keep the department informed as how their regulations are observed. The hon. gentleman sees it is not a matter of whether the officials of the Ontario government carry out their duties to their superiors that I am concerned with ; they may collect their fees or they may not, they may issue licenses properly or they may not, that is not the point that I am concerned with. The point I am concerned with is this : Are the regulations that this department makes from time to time the proper regulations and,

secondly, if tliey are, how are they observed by the fishermen ? Now, I must have somebody to inform me from time to time whether those regulations which are made by the department as to times, and seasons, and methods of fishing, are proper regulations or whether they should be amended. It is not the duty of the Ontario officials to do that, and if I have not got an official there to do it, it will not be done at all. These officials make reports from week to week, not how the Ontario officials discharge their duties, but how the Ontario fishermen observe our regulations, and whether those regulations are right or whether they ought to be amended. From time to time we receive our information from our inspectors, which we transmit to the Ontario officials for their information, and, therefore, we keep in touch one with the other. It is not our fault if these apparent anomalies exist between the powers of the Ontario government and the powers of the Dominion government ; the Privy Council is responsible for that, for its declaration of what we formerly supposed was not the law. So, I say, it would not be good policy on the part of this government to withdraw altogether from the great province of Ontario the presence of two or three officials, who travel about from week to week and fortnight to fortnight to keep the department here informed as to whether our regulations are good and proper, and whether they are being properly observed. Now, if I found out from the reports of my inspectors that these regulations were not being observed, it would become my duty to appoint officers to enforce them. It is part of the duty of these inspectors to" enforce them if they come face to face with any breach of them. On view they could convict and punish any offender against the regulations, and it is their duty to do so : and if they fail to do so we must appoint others to do it, in case it is reported to us that breaches become numerous. So far we have no material grounds of complaint. Of course complaints are always coming in, being investigated, and disposed of ; and, speaking generally, we are getting along fairly well. There must be some friction existing between the Ontario government and the Dominion government, each not being quite sure where the line of their duty ends and where the duty of the other begins. However, this will adjust itself, it is adjusting itself now from season to season. I think my hon. friend would be well advised not to ask us to withdraw the only officials we have there, but to ask us to keep down the expenditure to the lowest possible notch.


James Clancy: My hon. friend has still failed to make out his case, as it seems to me. The hon. gentleman bases his case principally upon the fact that he is anxious to know how these regulations act upon the
fisheries of the respective provinces. Now, if it is conceded that the hon. gentleman has a right to make the regulations regarding provincial fisheries, it is a fair presumption that he makes them in the best interests of those fisheries, and in the best interests of those who are solely concerned. If that be true, is it not also a fair presumption that if they are not working well, representation will be made to the hon. gentleman's department by the provincial officers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I do not think so.


James Clancy: It is the most natural thing that if these fishery regulations are harsh and are not working well, the parties concerned will inform the hon. gentleman. He does not require a set of inspectors to inform him if these fishery regulations are not working well and require amendments. I can understand that if a set of regulations made, not in the interest of the Dominion, but in the interest of the provinces, were found to work contrary to the anticipation of those who made the regulations, representation would be made to the department at once. The true test is the fishery officials in the province, and not the inspectors over the inspectors, as the hon. gentleman has them. The provincial officials are better judges, as they report to their principals whether those regulations are working well or not. The province will always communicate to the Dominion in matters of that kind, especially since the hon. gentleman says that they always keep in touch in regard to these matters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What objection would there be to imposing those duties upon provincial inspectors ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have no power to do so. I would rather be relieved of the necessity of appointing an army of these provincial officials.
Building and maintenance of fish-breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries	 $50,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the policy of the government with regard to these fish hatcheries now, since the fisheries are given over to the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have made no change, we have determined to carry on the fish hatcheries. There is a slight increase here in the amount asked for maintenance of fish hatcheries in Canada. There will be three new hatcheries, one in Margaree, county of Inverness, Cape Breton, one at Gaspg, and one in Sicamous, Granite Creek, B.C., and a small one at the mouth of the Skeena river, in British Columbia also. The hatchery which as been started at Gaspe is a combined lobster and salmon

liatchery. Lobster fisheries are entirely under the control of the Dominion, being a deep-sea fish ; and salmon may be con-siderd, while it is in the river, to be a provincial fish, but in the sea it is a Dominion fish. However, the policy in the Dominion has not been altered in respect of fish hatcheries by reason of the Privy Council decision. We have gone on, at all events, and parliament seems very generally to have approved of the fishery expenditure. I think it is money well spent. A large number of those engaged in the lobster fisheries believe that a large number of the small lobsters, innumerable almost, three, four and five inches in size are the result of the Pictou lobster hatcheries. Whether it is so or not, I cannot positively assert, but their presence in very large numbers within a reasonable area from the place where the spawn are deposited by the fish hatchery officer leads to the reasonable conclusion that they are the product of the fish hatcheiy. Taking it all in all, I think the money is well spent, and unless there is a very strong opinion expressed in parliament against the continuance of the expenditure, I should be disposed to advise its continuance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to the expenditure; I am only asking whether it is the policy of the government, in view of their abandoning their rights in the fisheries, to continue this work. I approve of this policy, and I want to ask the hon. minister if he would not do justice by establishing one or two more hatcheries in Ontario. There are three in New Brunswick, three in Quebec, and he is asking-
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Three in New Brunswick ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. There is one at Miramiehi, one at Newcastle and one at Restigouche.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No, you are wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are here in the Auditor General's Report.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Perhaps you are right; I am surprised.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to ask that the Georgian Bay, where the great supply of ova of whitefish and salmon trout for the fish hatcheries of the Dominion is obtained, should be provided with a fish hatchery. There is no fish hatchery on the Georgian Bay at all, right in the locality that supplies the ova for these hatcheries. These waters are being depleted from year to year. A few years ago, I brought this question to the attention of the late government, and I also brought it to the attention of the present government. I regret Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
that I was unable to induce them to establish some hatcheries in that part of the country, it is very important to the people living in that locality, not only to the fishermen, but to those who use the fish, that those waters should be kept as well supplied with fish fry as possible. There are plenty of suitable localities for these hatcheries. I am not objecting to the expenditure at all, but rather approving of it, and I am asking the hon. gentleman to go farther and to do a little more than has been done in the past.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The matter was brought to my attention a couple of years ago. I think Wiarton was the location suggested where a fish hatchery could with advantage be built. I am not sure it was Wiarton, but I think it was.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was Wiarton and also Beaver river valley. The Beaver river empties into the Georgian Bay at Tliorn-bury.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: How far is that from Wiarton ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is forty or fifty miles.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: At the time the matter was presented to me, I was favourably impressed with the suggestion. I think the original location of a hatchery at Newcastle was a mistake, but there were special circumstances arising out of Mr. Wilmot's connection with fish hatching, which I think induced the department to establish a hatchery there. There is no doubt, that it is not a proper site for a fish hatchery. The whitefish hatchery at Sandwich is all right. There is a good deal in the arguments advanced by those who believe that a fish hatchery should be established for the Georgian Bay portion of the Dominion. 1 have not given it lately very much consideration, but I was very favourably impressed by the representations made. 1 promise my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) to take it up anew at an early date.
Fisheries protection service, including
maintenance of new vessels in British
Columbia	 $120,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of $20,000. What is the explanation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman knows that we called for tenders for the construction of a new steamer there; we anticipate she will be ready, and if she is ready, $20,000 will be required for her maintenance.


Edward Gawler Prior: As a matter of fact you have let contracts for two vessels.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: One is for a small vessel which is more for the protection of the

fisheries at the mouth of the Fraser river than anything else, but the large one will be for the protection of the deep sea waters of British Columbia. We are taking a vote of $20,000 for the maintenance of this vessel.


Edward Gawler Prior: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he has done anything in regard to sending out some black bass to British Columbia. I have been urging this upon his attention for three years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There has nothing been done yet, but I am putting the Commissioner of Fisheries under bonds that they will be forwarded at the very first opportunity after he gets the ova.


Edward Gawler Prior: Is it not a fact that the department have had some ponds where they have been breeding this ova ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES, Yes.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has it not been a success ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, I believe it is a success. I saw a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Fisheries to a gentleman in British Columbia, saying that they were being sent forward.


Edward Gawler Prior: I have had to ask for this for three years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I tell the hon. gentleman that I will put the commissioner under bonds to do this.	[DOT]
Legal and incidental expenses	 $2,000


Andrew B. Ingram: Explain.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is an item which is taken every year to provide in case there is any litigation. Seven hundred dollars was spent last year. Wo do not expend any more than is necessary. I am very economical in that regard.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: After the election.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Before and after. I am afraid my professional friends think I am too economical.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice an item in the Auditor General's Report :	Hon. Edward
Blake, legal expenses, $2,452. It is an advance.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have had for years an arbitration pending between the British government and the Russian government in respect to the seizure of certain Canadian sealing ships in Alaskan waters. We have for a long time been trying to arrive at a
basis of arbitration. We think we have at last succeeded in agreeing upon a form of reference. We were instructed by the Home Office to retain counsel. We retained Mr. Blake and made up a brief for him. He accepted the retainer and entered upon his work. He has done some work and been paid, not by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but. by the Department of Justice. It arises out of these Behring Sea sealing claims.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman any idea what the total is going to be ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I could not tell that, it is a large international arbitration.
Canadian fishery exhibit	 $2,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is at the corner of O'Connor and Queen streets.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this for exhibition at home or for some exhibition abroad ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. A great many of the exhibits were sent over to Paris. There is no increase in the vote, but during the coming year, the department intends to put in new specimens. About 20,000 people visited that exhibit last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the minister carrying on a hatchery there ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: It is the finest fishery exhibit in the world.
The	MINISTER	.OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, and we are going to improve it this year, by the introduction of new specimens.
Oyster culture	 $7,000


Robert Laird Borden: Where is this money expended ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. In different parts of the maritime provinces. Next year the work will consist in examining the oyster beds already planted. There has been a large area planted in Murray Harbour, P.E.I., and a very successful bed planted in the harbour of Shediac. The oysters taken off the latter bed brought $3.50 a barrel to the fishermen at the wharf. They were remarkably fine, and made a very favourable impression on those who were lucky enough to eat them. Mr. Kent hopes to spend the greater part of the present year in inspecting the beds already planted. The Cara-quette beds will be thoroughly looked after. Mr. Kent has to hire a tug anad incur other expenses. He is examining Buctouche to see if there are any beds there that can be planted.

To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait for deep-sea fishermen, under conditions to be fixed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries	 $25,000


James Clancy: Is that service still being carried on ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, yes.


James Clancy: Who is at the head of it V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am happy to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that Mr. Fraser, the engineer, who has the control of this service has sent me a memorandum, and as the subject is somewhat new, I trust the Committee will pardon me if I shall read it. Mr. Fraser's memorandum is as follows
since the inauguration of the fishermen's bait associations.'
At the conclusion of the fishing season, in sending in the annual report of the Frog Pond feezer for 1900, Mr. Larkin, the president, further writes :
Permit me now, at the close of our season's business, to enumerate or place before you some of the benefits derived by our people from having a constant supply of fresh bait. Last year (1899) our cove, with the same number of boats and men engaged in hand and ' set ' lining, took some 95,000 pounds codfish, hake and haddock. During this season the weather was fine ; we had very few mackerel along our shores, and so the men devoted the greater part of their time to the pursuit of codfish, hake and haddock. A great deal of time was lost trying to procure a supply of bait. During this season (1900) our men in this cove have landed about 210,000 pounds codfish, hake and haddock; 9-10ths of all those fish were caught with frozen bait. Men


BE COLD STORAGE FOR BAIT FOR DEEP-SEA FISHERMEN.
[Stage Direction]
The following Bait Freezers were operated during the season of 1900:-
« Freezer.	County.	Province.	Nominal capacity.	No. of tons bait frozen.	Bonus earned.
			Tons.		§ cts.
Ballentyne's Cove	Antigonish	N.S.	20	14	70 00Prince.. 	P.E.I.	20	23	100 00Alberton	*[DOT] 	"	HO	10	50 00
Port Hood I.   .@: Inverness	N.S.	20	Neil's Harbour. . . 	Victoria	"	20	47	220 00


RESULTS OBTAINED FROM FREEZING.
[Stage Direction]
Ballentyne's Cove, N.-S.-Commenced operations on April 25, 1899, and fourteen tons herring were frozen and stored. The fresh bait season was exceptionally good, better than for many years past. Mackered struck in early and provided an excellent supply of bait. In consequence, the fishermen did not require the frozen supply. Owing to neglect to ice the storage room frequently enough, two tons of herrings were spoiled. The charge was ultimately converted to other uses. The presence of the freezer was, however, a guarantee that bait would at all times be available. This freezer will be operated by the fishermen during the coming season.
Frog Pond, P.E.I.-Commenced operations in April, 1900, and has proved a great boon to this fishing settlement. The president of this association, writing about the middle of the past fishing season, states : ' I am buying most or nearly all of the codfish caught in this vicinity, and am keeping a record of the kind of bait they were caught with. Our fish books show over one-half our total catch has been caught with frozen bait. Furthermore, were it not for the constant supply of bait insured to the fishermen by the bait freezer, not one-half as many people would engage in the busines for the simple reason that it would not pay the men to engage in this business -without the certainty of a constant and sure supply of bait. I feel quite certain that we are on the eve of a new era in the codfishing business around our shores Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
who in the first season had not any great faith in frozen bait, kept some nets out; sometimes they got a baiting, sometimes only part of a baiting. Those people tested the matter thoroughly, and so satisfied did they become with the frozen bait that they took their nets ashore. We have some very practical and observant fishermen in our cove, and they declare that so long as a supply of frozen bait is to be had they will not set any nets during codfishing season, the supply of bait from nets, they say, is no better when had. Again, there is no certainty of obtaining bait every fine day.
I might say just here that we had twelve shares of stock unsold when we met on the 22nd. During the meeting we offered them for sale ; within two minutes they were all taken-taken by fishermen who had a share each before. This will give you some idea of the faith and estimation which our fishermen have of frozen bait, and the benefits derivable therefrom.
You will observe on looking over the sheets where a record of bait taken and issued appears that our fishermen knocked off fishing early this year. The reason for this is that this has been an unusually stormy season. In all my experience I have never known anything like it. With weather such as we had last year (1899) we would have certainly doubled our catch. Another cause for more fish, codfish. &c., not being taken was that in the month of July and the early part of August mackerel struck in -quite plentiful ; our men paid considerable attention to that branch of fishing at the expense of the other.

I may say for myself that I am more than ever convinced of the benefits derivable from having a bait freezer in our midst.
Alberton, P.E.I.-Commenced operations in May, 1900 ; ten tons of fish were frozen. The directors did not provide sufficient ice to carry the charge until fall, when the Caraquette fleet from New Brunswick make Tignish and Alberton their headquarters^ In consequence, no decisive results were obtained. Used locally, the bait gave satisfaction.
Port Hood Island, C.B.-This freezer was finished in October, 1900, and a supply of ice being available, a test charge of one and one-half tons of squid were frozen and used in December. The secretary of this association writs :
' We had our freezer completed about November 20, 1900. As we had some ice left over from last year, we transferred it to the new ice-house, and commenced freezing squid. We froze about 3,000 pounds on trays and in crates and kept them for future use ; the result was that after the middle of December there was no bait on the fishing ground, and the fishermen were glad to use bait from the freezer.
' Some boats caught over $100 worth of fish, using frozen bait, which they would not have caught if they had not bait from the freezer. One fisherman states that he earned his three shares in the freezer on New Year's Day, over and above his neighbours who baited on salt squid, fishing on the same ground and with more trawls than he had ; all were expert fishermen.
'The fishermen here were always doubtful about the value of frozen bait; now they are very favourably inclined towards our freezer, and expect great benefit from it next season. I also have frozen a quantity of haddock and codfish, and expect to supply fresh fish to Port Hood and vicinity during March and April.'
Neil's Harbour, Victoria County, C.B.-A freezer was built at this point by. private enterprise from the department's plans, and was not under the supervision of the department's inspectors. Mr. M. G. McLeod, who was principally interested, writes : ' Our Neil's Harbour cold storage did not prove a success owing to the ignorance and carelessness of our men. A lot of squid was packed in it, but in such large quantities that they got red before they froze. Had the squid been properly frozen they would have been worth at least 1,500 quintals of codfish to us.
' When we will get the Neil's Harbour storage to work well, it is sure to pay, and possibly better than any other cold storage in the province of Nova Scotia. It was not the fault of the cold storage that the squid did not keep well. The storage, I believe, is all right, and with some experience, will be worth thousands a year to our fishermen and ourselves. If the squid had kept in our storage last fall we would have more codfish stored away for winter than we could handle for drying next spring. Next year I hope we will be able to give a good report.'
In the report of the Fisheries Intelligence Bureau, under the direction of Commander O. G. V. Spain, for 1900, Messrs. A. N. Whitman & Sons, of Canso, N.S., remark : ' The laudable efforts of the Dominion government to establish bait freezers along the coasts are meeting with gratifying success, and it looks as though in a few years every fishing port of any importance would be supplied with one. Properly managed, they must materially add to the catch of fish.'
The following is a list of the freezers completed, under construction or arranged for up to February 15, 1901, together with data as to
cost and capacity :
Locality.	County.	Nominal capacity.	Cost.	Proportion Govt, grant.Ballentyne's Cove	Antigonish, N.S	Tons. 20 20 30 50 40 15 20 20 15	$ cts. 1,361 04 1,180 18 1,347 67 2,064 39 1,982 82 96.3 41 1,313 60 1,043 08 829 62	$ cts. 861 04 590 09 673 83 1,000 00 991 41 481 70 656 80 521 54 414 81Alberton	
Souris	
. ... Gabarous	
White Head 	
Port Hood I	
Port Beckerton	
Bayfield	King's, P.E.I	
Cape Breton, N.S	
Guysboro', N.S	
Inverness, N.S	
Guysboro', N.S	
Antigonish, N.S	230	12,085 81	6,291 22

[Stage Direction]
Locality.	County.	Nominal capacity.	Estimated cost.
		Tons. ro 30 25 20 30	$ cts. 2,000 00 1,400 00 1,200 00 1,100 00 1,000 00
			
			
	Yarmouth, N.S. 	 Halifax, N.S			
Sambro				
			6,700 00
Arrangements have been completed to build at:-			
Petit DeGrat	 		Richmond. N.S		20	1.100 00
[Stage Direction]
Arrangements are under way for construction at the following points : -
Locality.	County.	Nominal capacity.	Estimated cost.
		Tons.	$ cts.
		50	2,000 00
Cheticamp	Inverness, N.S	20	1,100 00Caraquette	Gloucester, N.B	30	1,400 00100	4,500 00
The inspector in charge of the work has received communications from other points than those mentioned above, and it is expected that at least twenty bait freezers will he in operation during the season of 1901, and that if the success attending the operation is such as is anticipated from past results, a large number of new applications will be received.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, February 16, 1901.
I thought I could not do better than just read to the House the memorandum which the engineer himself wrote, giving this information.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understood that correctly, the government pays half the cost of these establishments ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, where they are built under inspection, at the completion of the work.


James Clancy: Some discussion on this subject took place last year. The ground of the objection taken then was that this measure interfered with private enterprise which would supply the want now supplied by the government. That is a very rosy report ; and if everything in it is true, there would seem to be no necessity for the government bearing any share of the cost of this undertaking. Another feature that was discussed-I am not attempting to criticise, but merely to state the objection raised in the former debate-was that this bait was sold to American as well as Canadian fishermen. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if that is true, and if so, do the government feel bound to take the place of private enterprise in order to furnish bait to American fishermen ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE ANI) FISHERIES. The hon. gentleman will remember my stating last year that the greatest possible care would be taken not to interfere with commercial enterprise. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island there are many places where the fishermen congregate in fishing villages, and where there is no great inducement to prompt commercial men to undertake the establishment of freezers. Most of these will be built for the benefit of the fishermen themselves. Few, if any, will enter into Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
competition with the bait freezers established by such men as the Whitman Bros., for commercial purposes ; and I may say that the enterprise which the government have entered into has the warmest encouragement and support from such men as these. It cannot do other than increase largely the supply of fresh fish. I know of nothing which this government have put their hands to on a small scale calculated to produce better results than the assistance we have given to the bait freezers. Everywhere it is appreciated, and everywhere it is doing good. Of course, there are cases in which the licensed American fishermen may purchase bait, where the bait freezers choose voluntarily to sell it to them; but the unlicensed American fishermen cannot buy bait from the bait freezers or from any one else. Therefore, to the extent to which the licensed American fishermen could buy bait, it would be rather harsh, I take it, on our part to intervene and say we ought not to sell it to them.


James Clancy: I am not putting the objection on that ground, but on the ground of public enterprise supplying what might be supplied by private enterprise.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As a rule, I think the bait freezers will supply the bait to the fishermen who are the shareholders in the association itself. Occasionally they may have a surplus to sell to the ships, and in some cases they may sell to licensed American fishermen ; but that will be a very small proportion of the total amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the hon. gentleman has adopted the principle of supplying cold storage for the benefit of the fishermen, I hope he will press on his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), the necessity of granting an equally Urge subsidy for the supply of cold storage to the farmers of the country.


Mr. KENDALL.: I take this opportunity of placing before the members of the House, particularly the members from the west, the importance of this industry which the government are endeavouring to foster in this way. The line fishermen of the maritime provinces number about 20,000, and the annual catch of fish known as line-fish

amounts to about $8,000,000. We have altogether about 45,000 fishermen in the maritime provinces, who, it is estimated lose from thirty to sixty days each in the season for want of a constant supply of fresh bait. The aggregate loss of the fishermen of the maritime provinces on this account amounts altogether to 800,000 to 1,000,000 days of fishing in the year. The fishing industry is our second most important industry. Agriculture, poor as it is with us, is still our first industry. We hear a great deal of our lumber and mining industries in the east; but our fishing industry is far in advance of these in importance, I think more than equal to both combined. So that the House can readily understand that to make provision for overcoming so great a loss as 800,000 or 1,000,000 days of fishing is a matter of vital importance to the maritime provinces. We hear it frequently stated that the fishing population along our coasts is becoming depleted, a believe it is a fact that for years past the industry has been unremunerative. At the same time, our fishermen are large consumers, and very heavy contributors to the revenues. They use large quantities of imported goods and manufactured goods from the west, and their return from their catch of fish has to depend not on any benefit which the government can give them. They have to send their fish to the West Indies, to South America, to Brazil, and to the Mediterranean, in competition with the fish of the whole world. For these reasons the government were urged, some eighteen months ago, to take this step. We recognized that a cold storage system had been established for the benefit of the farmers of the western provinces and the province of Quebec, not only on shore but on sea- a cold storage system virtually extending from their farms to the consumers' tables in the old country ; and we urged that something in the same direction should be done for the fishermen. 1 happen to have been the promoter of this scheme, and I am entirely gratified at the success which it has achieved in so short a time. If hon. members will give it their support, we will not require a great appropriation to establish a pretty effective system all around the coast, from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the mouth of the St. Croix river. Perhaps from 100 to 110 small freezers will meet the requirements. A considerable number of gentlemen in the maritime provinces, who are well acquainted with the fishing industry, feel sure that this measure will enable our fishermen to realize anywhere from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 per annum more than they do at present. We expect also to establish a better class of cold storage cars, so that we may send our fish in good condition from the maritime provinces to the west, even as far as Chicago.
To-day we have not in Canada a cold storage' car equal in construction to many used by the Swift and'Armour firms in carrying their freight from Chicago to Portland and Boston. I may say that the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) has employed the expert who made these cars in the western states, to construct two at Moncton on the same plan. What we want is a car that will carry fish, apples and other perishable products without freezing them, and to-day we have not got in Canada a first-class cold storage car.
We may look forward soon to the time when the western part of our country will be populated to a far greater extent than it now is, and furnish a great market for fish, more particularly as the fish of the great lakes, in all probability, will not hold out. We have in our fishermen a large consuming population who are adding to the wealth of the country and contributing very largely to its revenue, and I ask gentlemen from the west, in particular, to take this matter up and give it their best consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether there is any probability of these establishments being built as commercial enterprises which will be selfsustaining.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I know of three that are to be put up by fish merchants and fishermen, who do not want to be hampered by the restrictions imposed by the government, and I have no doubt quite a number will be put up ns commercial enterprises.


Robert Laird Borden: In the larger districts, that is likely to be the case, but in the smaller I suppose government aid will be required for some time to come.


James Clancy: It is proposed to give government aid every year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We give a small bonus each year for three years, determined on the quantity of bait in the freezers.


James Clancy: And after three years the bonus ceases.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice, under the heading of iighthouse and coast service, appropriations not required for 1901-2. $60,000, and also under the heading of fisheries appropriations not required for 1901-2, $78,790. I would like to have some explanation of these two items amounting to $139,000. Were these voted for election purposes, and then not required ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend must not imagine that I am animated by such unI worthy motives. Nothing but the highest



motives directed us to ask this money from the representatives of the people, and political motives had nothing to do with it.
To meet expenses in connection with the superintendent of insurance service, including $2,300 to A. K. Blakadar, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	 $9,300


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: This is the usual appropriation for the insurance branch of the Finance Department. The appropriation covers the statutory increase of $50, and an increase of $150 in the case of one officer whose services are appreciated. All these expenses are only a nominal charge on the Dominion, as they are entirely repaid from levies made, under the Insurance Act, on insurance companies.


Mr. BELL (Pietou).: Is the $200 increase to Mr. Blakadar ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, $150 above the usual statutory increase.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Monday, February 25, 1901.