1903-06-23

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Galliher :
That that portion of the 16th report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines reporting the preamble of the Bill (Nio. 157) to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company, not proven ; be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.
This Bill came up at the end of the meeting of the Railway Committee to-day and when the motion on the preamble was put by the Chairman I demanded that the yeas and nays be taken. The requisite number of members stood up, but the Chairman did not take the yeas and nays and declared the preamble lost. I consider that the Bill should go back for further consideration.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (GaspS).: I might explain, that in the absence of the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) I acted as Chairman of the Railway Committee this morning. The question was put to the committee whether the preamble should be adopted or not on three different occasions

and each time the committee answered almost unanimously against the preamble. At the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) I asked the gentlemen who were in the committee to rise for and against the preamble. Five members were in favour of the preamble and fifteen against. Then the hon. gentleman asked that the yeas and nays be taken. One o'clock sounded and I declared the preamble lost. I suggested to the hon. gentleman that the yeas and nays be taken as the members would rise from their seats, because I would have to call the whole list otherwise, which I thought was not necessary. The sentiment of the committee was taken and it was nearly unanimously against the preamble.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale).: I may say that I was one of the live who stood up in favour of the preamble. The facts are as stated by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) who was Chairman of the committee, but in seconding the motion I may say that if my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) thinks that some-I would hardly call it injustice has been done him-if he thinks it would be fairer to him to take the yeas and nays in the usual way I do not see any objection to that being done. I am bound to say that the feeling of the committee seemed to be against the Bill at the time, but nevertheless I think that the Bill should be referred back in order that it may receive the usual treatment.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: From the moment this Bill was introduced in the committee the sentiment of the members was clearly against it. No attempt was made by the promoter of the Bill to show that there was any probability of the road being constructed. The clause describing the route was so badly worded that it was impossible for the members of the committee to determine where at least one branch of the road was intended to be run. The Chairman of the committee has stated the case very fairly. There was a clear response from the committee in the ordinary way signifying nay to the preamble. As the Chairman of the committee has stated only five members rose in favour of it and fifteen in opposition. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) no doubt did ask for the yeas and nays, and the Chairman of the committee fairly offered to have the yeas and nays taken in the way he has described-not in the usual way, by calling the roll, and each man responding for himself, but by asking those who were in favour of the preamble to stand up, and the clerk would record their names, intending then to ask those who were opposed to the preamble to rise in order that their names might be recorded by the clerk, just as a vote in this chamber is recorded by the clerk of the House. This would have saved considerable time, as it could have been Mr. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).
done much more quickly-the hour of one o'clock having nearly arrived-than calling a roll of 150 or 160 names, the greater majority of whom were absent. To my mind the committee expressed its opinion, and expressed it very decidedly as being opposed to the granting of this charter, and I see no reason for asking that the Bill be referred back any more than any other Bill which had not received the approval of the Railway Committee. I consider that the Chairman of the committee acted with all fairness to the promoter of the Bill, and the yeas and nays would have been recorded in the manner I have indicated had not the hon. member for Saskatchewan himself decidedly objected.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I suppose I may have a word in closing this discussion. As to the merits of the Bill, I do not think they are before us at the present time, although the hon. gentleman has seen fit to go into them. The case is this. The chairman of the committee seems to have got it into his head that it is a standing rule that the committee should adjourn at one o'clock. So far as I know, there is no such rule at all, and when I asked for the yeas and nays I think I had a right to do so ; and I now ask that the Bill be sent back, because of its not having been fairly treated in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 207) to prevent the improper marking of butter and the manufacture or sale of adulterated butter.
Mr. SPROULE.: Explain. '


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is the'Bill founded on the resolution which passed the House the other night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the hon.-the Postmaster General, I move for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 20S) to amend the Post Office Act.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Explain it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Bill deals with the salaries of certain officials of the department, and also provides for reducing the postage on newspapers.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Should not this Bill be introduced by a resolution ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That
would have to be determined after we knew

the contents of the Bill. A Bill referring to salaries need not necessarily be a money Bill. It need not be of any avail unless parliament provides the money. It is like an amendment to the Civil Service Act, which does not require to be preceded by a resolution.


John Graham Haggart: If it is for a reduction of salaries, I do not think it would require a resolution.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Before the second reading we will see as to that.


John Graham Haggart: It is with the understanding that if necessary a resolution will be introduced.


Mr. SPEAKER.: In the meantime we will see whether the Bill comes under the rule. In reading over the Bill, it seemed to me that it was similar to the Civil Service Act, which is not introduced by a resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One portion of it provides for a reduction of postage on newspapers, which must mean a reduction of the revenue.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That does not require a resolution.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: An increase of the revenue requires a resolution, but not a reduction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpajrick) moved that the House do, on Thursday next, go into committee to consider the following resolution :-
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Acts, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting judges of provincial courts, and to provide as follows:-
1.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court in Canada, resigns his office. His Majesty may, by letters patent under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to' the salary of the office held by him at the time of his resignation ; to commence immediately 'after his resignation ; and to continue thenceforth during his natural life ; provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge and as stipendiary magistrate of the North-west Territories, for twenty years oir upwards : or (b) attained the age of seventy years, and continued in office as judge of one qr more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.
2.	If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of a Superior Court of any of the provinces of Canada, resigns or has heretofore resigned his office as such judge, to accept the office of lieutenant governor of a province, and if he
serves, or has served as such lieutenant governor. and is not otherwise eligible for any retiring annuity, as such judge, His Majesty may, at any^ time after the expiration of the term of service of such judge as lieutenant governor, grant unto such judge an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary annexed to the judicial office which he held at the time of'his resignation : to commence immediately upon the issue-of such letters patent, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
3.	Every county court judge who has attained
the age of eighty years shall be compulsorily retired ; and to any judge who is so retired, or who. having attained the age of seventy-five years, resigns his office, and who in either case has continued in office for a period of twenty-five years or upwards, His Majesty may grant an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period than twenty-five years, equal to two-thirds of such salary ; provided that to any such judge who is so compulsorily retired, or who so resigns within	years after
the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions. there may be granted an annuity equal to the full salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement or resignation, irrespective of the number of years he has continued in office.
4.	If any judge of a county court, after having continued in office for a period of thirty-five years, and become afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, resigns his office, His Majesty may. by letters patent under the great seal of Canada, grant to him a pension equal to the salary of his office at the time of his retirement : the said annuity to commence immediately after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I would ask the Minister of Justice if we may expect soon to have a similar resolution with regard to an increase of the salaries of the judges ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is another and a different matter.



WEST LORNE ACCIDENT.

Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals if he is yet prepared to lay on the Table the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the, cause of the railway accident at West Lome ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have the report ready, and with the consent of the House I would move that an Order of the House issue for the laying on the Table of the report of the commissioner appointed to examine into the West Lome railway accident.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BELL.: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to ask if the Department of the Interior has

sent any Instructions to Dawson affecting the representation of the Treadgold claims ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not so informed.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

["There might be but it is not customary. The railway companies try to avoid it if they can.\nSection, as amended, agreed to.\nProgress reported.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I desire to take the necessary steps to introduce a Supply Bill to give effect to the voting of the supplementary estimates which lion, gentlemen opposite were courteous enough to facilitate the passing of. Owing to an error that was discovered in the vote of one of the departments, it became necessary to change the resolution, and therefore the Supply Bill was not proceeded with yesterday. I would now move :
That the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means to consider a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $1,384,016.51 * be granted to His Majesty out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada to meet certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 30th of June, 1903.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 206) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money required to drfray certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 30th June, 1902.
Motion agreed to, read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 184) to amend the Patent Act.- The Minister of Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the laws respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.	,
On section 184,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: This section stood over. I propose to change the section, acting upon the suggestion of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). I will read the clause as it will stand, if amended as I propose :
The railway may be carried upon, along or across any existing highway upon leave therefor having been first obtained from the board as hereinafter provided. But the board shall not grant leave to any company to carry any street railway or tramway or any railway operated or to be operated as a street railway or Mr. BELL.
tramway, along any highway which is within the limits of any city or incorporated town until the company shall have first obtained the_ consent therefor by a by-law of the municipal authority of such city or incorporated town.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I am not opposing that amendment so far as it goes ; but it only goes half way, in my opinion. That emphasizes the fact, if any emphasis were required-and I do not think it was necessary-that, so far as this Act is concerned a steam railway could be operated along any highway without the consent of the municipality. I greet with appreciation the amendment suggested by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and I congratulate the minister upon accepting it. But while I entirely agree with it, I am even more opposed to steam railways running upon highways of municipalities than I am to electric tramway's. This section provides that a railway may be carried upon, along, or across any existing highway. This section was changed from its original form. The hon. minister said it was only the difference between tweedledum and tweedle-dee, but I am confident that I am right in saying that as the clause originally stood, the onus was more in favour of the railway company exercising this right-this pretended right-than it was under the old Act. I desire to amend this section by striking out the words ' upon, along or ' in the first subsection as amended by the minister. Under my amendment a railway could not be carried upon or along the highway, but could only cross it. Without detaining the committee at length with my reasons, I may say that the principle I advocate is the same as" that favoured by the hon. member for West Toronto and the gentleman with whom he has been advising in getting the minister to accept the amendment providing that tramways or electric roads should not be allowed to operate in municipalities without the consent of the municipal authorities. But, with all due deference, I would suggest that if the committee were to accept my amendment, there would be no need for the amendment of the hon. member for West Toronto, for it would prevent the operation of any railway upon a highway in any municipality not only cities and towns without the consent of those who own the highway. Now, I am bound to emphasize to-day the point I made when this matter was under discussion before, because, the more I think of it the more sure I am that I am right. My contention is that this parliament has no right to empower anvbody to interfere with the highways, except so far as it may be necessary for carrying on a work which this parliament has the power to authorize. The highways are vested in the provincial authorities and are delegated by them to the municipal authorities. This parliament is ultra vires if it attempts, without the consent of the provincial and municipal authorities, to interfere with these highways, unless for the

necessary work of carrying out an undertaking which this parliament has the power to authorize. I wish to put myself clear with the committee, 1 state plainly that this parliament can authorize a railway to he built and can authorize the use of the highway necessary for the construction of that railway ; but, any use of the highway that is not necessary for the construction of the railway cannot be authorized by this parliament. If it is not necessary for the railway to cross a highway, this parliament has no power to say upon what terms the municipal authorities shall allow the use of the highway. If further argument were necessary, I might point out to the House what the Ontario Railway Law is. That Act is passed by the provincial legislature which controls the highway. It provides that no railway shall be carried along existing highways and shall only cross a highway without the consent of the proper municipal authorities. When we consider how the provincial authorities here guard the rights of the people on the highways, may we not ask ourselves if we are not doing an almost outrageous thing in undertaking to authorize the Railway Committee, which is the creature of this parliament, to allow railways to pass upon or along highways without the consent of the municipal authorities ? This provincial law that I have quoted is the enactment of that authority which, under the British North America Act, owns and controls the highway. That authority has seen fit to enact that no railway shall go along or upon the highway, but may merely cross the same without the consent of the municipal authorities. And we are asked to enact here, as if we knew what we were doing, that a railway may not only cross, but may run upon and along a highway if the commissioners, who derive their authority only from this parliament, choose to say so. As I said the other day, there is no doubt in my mind that we are passing legislation that we have no power to pass in attempting to interfere with the highway without the consent of the municipal authorities or the provincial authorities from which the municipalities get their power. We have the right to control so far as it is necessary for the carrying out of any work that we have the power to authorize!" It is necessary for any railway almost to cross highways. But our legislation is ultra vires if it goes further. The House may be willing and the minister may be willing to pass such legislation ; but though I cannot stop them, I am bound to put myself upon record as clearly as I can, giving my reasons, in protest against such legislation, first upon the ground that it is ultra vires of this parliament. Besides the question of whether it is intra vires or ultra vires, I want to point out that in my judgment it would be a very improvident and improper thing for this parliament to undertake to interfere with
the control of highways, because that would at once involve a contest with the provincial legislature as well as with the municipal authorities. The municipal authorities are given their power by the provincial legislature to say what shall be done with the highways and who shall control them. We all know that if a highway is out of repair the municipal authorities are responsible for the consequences, any township that is incorporated is responsible for keeping its highways in good repair, it is bound to protect travellers in passage over the highway, to keep the highways open and in proper use for the public, and it has this control by authority given it by the provincial legislature. So that outside the question of whether the provision is intra vires or ultra vires, it would be improvident for us to undertake to say, by a commission which we constitute, that any interference can be made with these highways without the consent of the municipal authorities, or of the provincial legislature which gives that power to the municipal authorities.
As I said a moment ago, a railway must sometimes cross a highway, but it need not do any more. If it is desired to use the highway for any other purpose than merely to cross it, it must be because the railway is going to try to do something that the municipality does not want it to do. If it is necessary to give a railway power to do more than cross a highway, if it is wanted to give this commission power to enable a railway to. do more than cross a highway, it must be because the railway may want to force their way along a Wigliway and do something more than merely to cross it without the consent of those who control the highway. That, I say, is something this parliament ought not to be a party to ; and in my judgment, if a case of conflict should arise and was carried to the highest court of the empire, this authority proposed to be given would be decided to be ultra vires. Therefore, I move to strike out these words ' upon, along or,' so that the railway may only cross an existing highway That is plenty of power to give these commissioners. They may have to decide under what terms the railway shall cross a highway, because that may be necessary. I want, moreover, to tell the minister that the Electric Railway Act of the province of Ontario also provides the same thing. There is a General Railway Act in the province of Ontario relating to steam railways, and as near as you can make it, their legislation is analogous to the Act now before us. That is the General Railway Act that has always been in force before we had any electric railways, and which I have quoted. There is also an Electric Railway Act which does not even allow electric railways to be used upon highways without the consent of the municipal authorities. So that if this legislation passes, undertaking in this wide

way to allow these commissioners to give power to railways to interfere with the provincial and municipal control of highways, there is going to be trouble made in this country that will take a great deal of expense and a good many years of litigation, perhaps, finally to decide ; and there is no doubt in my opinion that it will be held to be ultra vires. But, as I said, even if it is not so held, it is an improvident and wrong thing for us to interfere with the municipal control of highways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I have stated more than once that I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman's views that this power is one which the parliament of Canada cannot lawfully exercise. I think the power is intra vires of the parliament of Canada, and I think this power may be more than assumed when we remember all the years that this law has been upon the statute-book.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That does not prove anything.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say it does. It proves that no one has ever thought it worth while to raise the contention in all the controversies that have arisen, and they have been innumerable.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has that question ever arisen ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it has arisen, it has never been carried to any court; and if no body has raised the question in the courts that this provision is ultra vires of the parliament of Canada, I say there is almost an irresistible presumption that if any lawyer had thought that the point could be successfully raised it would have been raised long before this. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation at all in promoting this legislation so far as its being within the legislative competency of this parlianient is concerned. Now, I readily consented to the amendment which the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked me to consider, because it had reference to the question of the operation of electric tramways within cities and towns. I think there is a very good case to be made out in favour of the fullest authority being vested in the municipal corporation of the city or town to say whether, where, when and how their streets should be occupied. When an aggregation of people are crowded into a large town or city, the dangers, risks, annoyances and property losses that are often occasioned by these railways, are of such importance, and the questions raised are of such magnitude, municipally speaking, that I think it well the corporate authority of such city or town should be consulted before these works are laid down. Moreover, I do not myself sympathize very Mr. LANCASTER.
heartily with the idea of this parliament concerning itself with legislation respecting the construction and operation of tramways in cities. These are essentially local questions, and I do not think, except in the most exceptional cases, that parliament ought to give any countenance at all to the requests made to us to legislate respecting them. These are the two reasons which led me to accept the suggestion that was offered by the hon. member for Toronto.
Now, I cannot go any further. I cannot go to the extent which the hon. gentleman asks me to go, because I think it would be unwise to do so. I have had a good deal of experience as to the operation of this clause respecting highways generally throughout the country, during the years in which I have acted on the Railway Committee, and I know of no instance in which the Railway Committee was called upon to-decide these cases in which we had not before us the representatives of the city, town or other municipal corporation, and in which we did not hear their objections, if they had any, and gave them every consideration. There is no doubt at all that the commission would act exactly in the same way. They would have no interest in doing anything else than to meet the reasonable wishes and the reasonable objections which these municipal officers might make. Now when you are reasonably assured that the commission will exercise all due care, it is not well to treat this question as if they would only desire to meet the wishes of the railway company without any regard to the views of the municipal authorities. It is not well to treat the question in that way, in view of the fact that this parliament has. during its existence, thought it well that this power should reside somewhere of determining whether or not a railway should use a public highway in any given case. That power I think ought to continue to reside in some supreme authority. I think, therefore, it would be unwise for parliament to say that all the highways of the country should be excluded from use by railway corporations unless and until the municipal authorities gave permission to use them. I hope the hon. gentleman will not press his motion, because, if he does, it will be my duty to ask the committee to reject it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I know there is a good deal in what the minister has said, but I desire to say that I had considered all these things before I made this motion. I am not saying for a minute but what the Railway Committee in the past has considered" the municipality's representations, but there is a difference between the municipality being the judge of the case as distinguished from being one of the parties interested. The hon. minister's enactment would put the municipality down as one of the parties whose rights were in dispute

and who is at the mercy of the railway commission. I say that the municipality's position is beyond that. The municipality controls the highway and this parliament has no right to say that we will allow you to control the highway if you do what we tell you, and we will be the judge as to the manner in which you control it. This railway commission will look at the question as a board composed of honest men acting in the interests of the whole of Canada. It may consider that in the interests of Canada it would be necessary to force some municipality, whether city or town, or village or township, to allow a steam railway to run up its main street. The commission might say :	We know that
it makes ducks and drakes out of the town, we know it is going to ruin your principal business street, we know it is going to destroy your town, we know it is going to disarrange everything and cause the people to; pull up stakes and leave, we know that this is against the wishes of everybody in the neighbourhood, but in the interests of the railway which is going to run from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or, it may be, a shorter distance, and because it would cost them too much money to go anywhere else, you must allow them to use your main street to get through the town. Has not the municipality the right to say :	We do not
want the railway here ? You must buy your way if you are going through the town and you cannot use our main street for the purposes of the road. They have the power under the law to say that they do not want their streets used for* railway purposes. This parliament has the right to say that the municipality shall not have the right to interfere with the railway going aloug and that it must allow the l-ailway to cross the street. That commission can force a municipality to allow a railway to cross its streets and there is provision made in the Act for all the machinery necessary to carry out that authority. But, to go further and say that a municipality is wrong in not allowing its streets to be used for railway purposes and to say that this commission shall have power to say that it will override the municipality's wishes and to force the municipality to allow its streets to be used for railway purposes is placing power where it has no right to be and where this parliament cannot put it. By assuming authority we do not give ourselves that authority. The British North America Act has settled that question. By passing an Act saying that we can do this we do not make our Act any more valid or binding, even if it had been in existence for fifty years, if. we did not have the power. This question has never been decided by the highest court and I am still of the opinion that if it were decided the Act would be held to be ultra vires in so far as it forces a municipality to allow its streets to be used against its will by any authority constituted 165
by this parliament. Although the hon. minister is very willing now to allow some of the municipalities to control electric roads which are matters of local importance in his opinion does the hon. minister think that an electric road is as dangerous, as obnoxious and as damaging for a municipality to have upon its streets as a steam railway ? The municipality should, I admit, have control of electric roads and it should not be obliged to have electric roads run along its streets without its consent. The hon. minister believes that is right and says that the Bill is now to be amended in order that it shall not interfere with the municipality's control of its streets in so far as electric railways or tramways are concerned, because he thinks the municipality should have control over them. That being the case I ask this committee to say how much more ought we to say that the municipalities ought to be consulted and not the board of railway commissioners as to whether or not a steam railway shall run upon its streets or highways. With all deference to the hon. minister and because I believe X am right upon this question I cannot withdraw my amendment and I must ask the committee to pass upon it.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Lancaster) negatived.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the amendment of the hon. minister apply to cities and incorporated towns only or would it apply to rural municipalities as well ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only to cities and incorporated towns.
Amendment (Hon. Mr. Blair) agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 185,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That section 185 be amended by adding after the word ' obstruction ' the following words 'unless otherwise directed by the board.'
Section as amended, agreed to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not yet in a position to take up the drainage sections or the fences, gates and cattle-guard sections. I propose that the committee shall pass to section 202.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before we proceed with that section, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is redrawing the sections relating to fences, gates and cattle-guards or are they to be as printed in the Bill ? I have several amendments to propose and to make them sensible it would be necessary for me to know if the sections are to be re-drawn.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND-I CANALS. I am redrawing them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: May I ask the hon. minister to let me have a copy of the redrawn sections ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS A5u CANALS. I will before we go into committee upon it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is section 196 relating to farm crossings, to be redrawn 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that possibly there may be changes in that.
On 'subsection 1, section 202-headway of bridges and tunnels,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move :
To insert after the word ' portions ' in the last line the words * portions of any such structure thereafter constructed'; and to add at the end of the section the words ; ' unless by leave of the board.' In the first subsection to strike out the words ' in order to comply with the provisions of this section.' In subsection three to strike out the words ' the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of ' in the first line ; on the fourth line to strike out the word ' so '; and to strike out all the words after 'airbrakes ' to the end of the section.
The section will then read:
The board may exempt from the operation of this section any bridge, tunnel, erection, or structure, over, through, or under which no trains are run except such as are equipped with air brakes.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 203-leave of board required in certain cases before construction,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to strike out the words in brackets in the first section (other than structures included in the provisions of sections 177 to 190, inclusive, concerning railway crossings, navigable waters, and highway crossings). I propose to add after the word ' Board ' at the end of subsection 1:
Unless such construction, reconstruction or alteration is made in accordance with standard specifications and plans approved of by the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not that leave it entirely to the discretion of the board 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
On section 206-appointment of inspecting engineers,


Mr. LENNOX.: I notice that this section provides that inspecting engineers may be appointed by the minister or the board.
I think it would be better to confine that appointment to the responsible minister, as it is not, I suppose, a matter of immediate urgency at any time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that it is well for the minister to have the power of ap-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
pointing an inspecting engineer with the approval of Council; but there are many duties devolving upon the board which make it important that they also should have that power. Some sudden emergency might call for the immediate appointment of an inspecting engineer, during the absence of the minister, and it would very much tie the hands of the board if they were not empowered to make such an appointment, as it is their duty to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out, and that the safety and security of the railways are looked after.


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps I do not quite apprehend the way these appointments are made. I took it for granted that there would be a certain number of inspecting engineers appointed when the Act went into force, and that these would be available for instructions from the board; and I think that, unless there is some difficulty in the way which I do not apprehend, the selection and appointment of these men would be better left in the hands of the minister, but that they should be subject, so far as their duties are concerned, from time to time, to the control of the board.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will observe that the approval of council will be necessary to the appointment by the board as well as by the minister. Of course, the minister, representing the Railway Department, would make the recommendation just as he does now. I apprehend that the hon. gentleman is right in thinking that there would have to be a small staff of permanent engineers from whom the inspecting engineers employed by the board would be taken. I think it would be well, however, that they should be persons recommended by the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it contemplated that the board may appoint an engineer in any certain locality to inspect any specific piece of work rather than take an engineer a long distance to do it 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the intention.
On section 207, subsection 4.-inspection of railway.


Mr. BARKER.: That makes the board absolutely bound by the report of the engineer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the board is not satisfied with his report, they can send another engineer or two others to revise it.


Samuel Barker: Even though the inspecting engineer did not report favourably, it would be better to let the board take the responsibility of deciding on the question. They might give a conditional order. They might give an order to allow the company to open for freight and not for passengers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In actual practice it would happen more frequently that the road is open before it is quite ready than that a refusal to allow it to open is given when it is. My experience is that companies say their road is in working shape and ready to be passed, and when we send out our engineers they report, in quite a number of instances that it is not. The engineer states the reasons why he considers the road not ready ; and if his reasons are not considered sufficient, the board can send out another officer. But as a rule it will be found that the engineer's report will state the facts.


Samuel Barker: I know as a fact that sometimes an engineer is sent out by the department who may not be a man of great experience. He goes 400 or 500 miles to inspect a bit of work, he is unfavourably impressed and makes an adverse report, and you give notice to the company. Surely it would be better to say that the company's engineer and the inspecting engineer should appear before the board and the board should hear both parties and take the responsibility of deciding.


Haughton Lennox: This does not give the board a fair opportunity of having the question decided whether the railway is ready or not. If the clause were worded so that the inspector would make a report to the board and the board would hear both parties, that would give protection to the public and the necessary degree of protection to the company. It might happen that the engineer would be a young man, technical, very zealous, and make an adverse report, and although he may have to state the facts on which his judgment is founded, yet it should be left to the board to consider the whole matter and give its decision, I would suggest that the latter part of the clause be amended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The section provides that the engineer shall state the grounds for his opinion and the company shall be entitled to notice thereof, and the board shall refuse such application in whole or in part, and may direct a further inspection and report.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would be willing to strike out the word ' shall ' and insert the word ' may.'
I move that the word ' shall ' in forty-seventh line be struck out and the word ' may ' inserted in its place.
Subsection, as amended, agreed to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a condition I wish to provide for by making a new subsection. Very often, before these roads are in shape to do business or carry passengers, it is necessary that they could be used for carrying freight-freight for the prosecution of
165*
the works and that sort of thing. I propose to insert the following as subsection 6, making the subsection 6 subsection 7 :-
The board, upon being satisfied that public convenience will be served thereby, may, after obtaining the report of an inspecting engineer, allow the company to carry freight traffic over any portion of the railway not open for passenger traffic in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 211. Safety appliances on trains.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The opening words of this section are 'every company shall provide and cause to be used on all trains the best and most efficient obtainable apparatus, appliances and means.' I move that this be altered to read ' modern and efficient apparatus ' and so on.


Samuel Barker: Would not the words ' most efficient ' be better ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, the supposition is that the latest is the best. I think it will be found that when the company gets modern things they will get the best things, otherwise they would not continue to use them.


Samuel Barker: It would appear to have the effect of compelling them almost to get the most modern, though they may not be the best.


Haughton Lennox: I think it is paring down the old Act a little too much. The appliances may be perfectly modern and still not be safe.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have got to be, not only modern, but efficient.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The old Act said that they must use such apparatus as would ' afford good and sufficient means.' There is a little difference between efficient and sufficient. It might be modern and efficient, yet not be as good as possible.


John Graham Haggart: It would be hardly fair to compel the railway company to use the best apparatus, so long as they used one that Is efficient.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think it reasonable to ask the company to be constantly changing. But I would call the minister's attention to this point, that unless he sees some good reason for changing the wording of the old Act, it is inadvisable to make an alteration. He knows perfectly well that we have had from time to time judicial decisions upon these statutes, as they have been in force for a long time ; they have received a judicial construction, and it is unsafe to make an alteration In the wording unless there is a necessity for it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is right in his general proposition, and I have not violated the spirit of the principle, so far as I know. I think that where the words have acquired a distinct meaning and have been found to answer all purposes, it is desirable to retain them. But in the present instance I think there is a good reason for making a change in the construction of this section. The words ' good and sufficient ' are not terms that I think have been subjected to any judicial interpretation. I think they could be improved, I think the word ' efficient ' is better than ' sufficient,' it is a stronger term, and we need not hesitate to use strong terms when we are regulating the means of guarding life and property more securely. The word ' modern ' is not open to the interpretation that some gentlemen have put upon it. It does not mean that all apparatus must necessarily be of modern invention ; it only means that it must be of modern use, that it must be an up-to-date apparatus, an apparatus which is used generally on first class railways. Railways are using a good many devices that are efficient, and yet are very old ; that is, they have been invented a long time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the words * best and most efficient obtainable ' correctly express what we want to bring about.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is hardly fair to say that every railway should be compelled to use the very best, because the best might be more than efficient ; it might be very expensive, and it would be unduly loading a railway to require the company to go to the expense of getting the very best, when an up-to-date and an efficient appliance would be all that is required, all that anybody could reasonably ask for. There are grades in value and grades in cost, and when you ask them to use the very best, you are taking an extreme ground.


Haughton Lennox: I agree with the minister that it would be unfair to compel the company to be constantly changing and to adopt the latest invention, merely because it was the most modern. If they procure what is the best at the time, that ought to be in compliance with the Act. But I call the hon. minister's attention again to this matter, and I think there is more reason now than I thought of when I was speaking before for preserving the wording of the old Act. We have had a number of decisions in regard to setting fire.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are provisions later on covering that.


Haughton Lennox: Are there express provisions 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: 


Haughton Lennox: If there are specific provisions as the hon. minister says in reference to railway engines throwing fire, I do not know that I have any objection to this particular clause.


John Graham Haggart: There is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says, where you require the best or most efficient appliances. Would not that apply in case of fire to the other ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That comes later on. This section relates more particularly to the means of making travel secure for passengers on trains.


Samuel Barker: It is very important not to use words here that would imply that the appliances must be effectual for the purpose ; otherwise, you would make the railway the guarantor of the safety of passengers. It has never been held that they must provide appliances that will effect these objects. They can only do their best to do so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I thing the word ' efficient ' is not objected to. I have had it under discussion with railway people, both the employers and the operating staff, and they see no objection to the word ' efficient.' I beg to move that subsection (a) be amended by striking out the word ' the ' before the word ' train ' in the second line and substituting the word * any passenger.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the hon. minister think it would be well to leave it as it is ? Of course, the consequences of an accident to a freight train are not so dis-asti'ous as in the case of a passenger train, but still there are lives upon a freight train. The safety of a freight train requires that communication shall be easily obtainable between the conductor and the engine driver. The wreck of a freight train for want of such communication might cause a disaster to a passenger train in which many lives might be lost.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not be practicable to make this provision apply to freight trains. There is nothing yet devised to provide sucli communication.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a bell-rope on most freight trains.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a very short freight train on which there is a bell-rope. When you come to haul fifty or sixty cars, some flat cars and some box cars, you will find it quite impossible to have a rope that can be relied upon. That is the universal judgment of railway people. I know it is the judgment of our own people. I have had occasion to have the subject considered by them.


Samuel Barker: Does this cover the case of a mixed train ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, any train that is taking passengers. I beg to move also :
That subsection (bj be amended by striking out. in 'line five, all the words from ' including' to the word ' possible ' in the eighth line and submitting the following : ' Including the'power, drive wheel, brake and appliances for operating the train brake system upon the locomotive and having a sufficient number of cars in every train so equipped with power or train brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control the speed or bring it to a stop in the quickest and best manner possible without requiring the brakesman to use the common hand-brake for that purpose.
These clauses which are being incorporated in the Bill now are clauses which are to be found in a Bill introduced during the present session which was promoted by some of the railway employees.
Subsection, as amended, agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS Aim) *CANALS. I move to strike out subsections 3 and 4 and to insert after the word ' train ' in the second line :
Couplers which couple automatically by impact and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of going in between the cars.
I move to strike out in subsections (d) and (e) lines 11 to 15 and to substitute therefor :
Provided that the company shall not be obliged to equip all trains with the power drive wheel brake or air-brakes as provided in subsection *(d) of this section, nor to equip the cars with automatic couplers as provided in subsection (c) of this section before ithe first day of January, 1906.
I may say that the association wished the limit to he 1905 and the railways wanted it 1907, and I think that perhaps we arrived at a fair date by taking 1906.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose that some improved appliances were discovered, they would still have to go on using these appliances.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. This House of Commons passed a Bill once if not twice containing this power brake clause, and it seems to favour the idea that it should be used. We are therefore not making a new departure. I propose to ask the committee to insert in subsection 2 the following :
Every company shall adopt and use upon all of its rolling stock such height of draw-bars as the board may determine in accordance with any standard from time to time adopted by competent railway authorities.


Samuel Barker: What does the minister mean by a competent railway authority ? Would it be Sir William Van Horne, or Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, or Mr. Hays ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is called the Master Car Builders' Association regulates these things generally. It is a United States organization, and I did not like to mention the name in the Bill, but it does regulate all these questions as to what shall be the standard with regard to such appliances.


Samuel Barker: If the Master Oar Builders of the United States adopted some patent, we would have to follow them, although we might have a better one of our own. Would it not be better to leave this to the commissioners than to some railway authority which nobody knows ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Master Car Builders are an association of very high standing. That is a general name given to a sort of final railway court of appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 212-power of board respecting train equipment,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to insert after the word ' section,' in the fifth line, the following :
And may, by general regulation or in any particular ease, on good cause shown, exempt the company from using on its railways or any portion thereof any of the appliances in the last preceding section mentioned, and may from time to time extend the period within which such appliances shall be used.
I also move to insert the following as subsection 2 :
2. The board shall endeavour to provide for uniformity in the construction of rolling stock to be used upon the railway, and for uniformity of rules for the operation and running of trains; and m.ay make regulations designating the number of men to be employed upon trains, or providing that coal shall be used on all locomotives instead of wood in any district, and generally providing for the protection and safety of the public, of property, and of the employees of the company with respect to the running and operation of trains by the company.


Haughton Lennox: I want to call attention to a point which I mentioned the other day. It is not for the purpose of obstructing the measure, because we are all anxious to get through with it as soon as possible. I do not know how it may be with the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hng-gart) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), both of whom, I believe, are familiar with railway matters and railway law' ; but I may tell the hon. minister that, although I am very anxious to follow' these matters, with these amendments coming in without any previous notice, it is impossible for me to grasp their meaning so as to know whether they are such as we ought to agree to or not. I suggested the other day that if the hon. minister would furnish the hon. lender of the opposition with half a dozen ' copies of proposed amendments, where tiiey

are long, this would enable us to give him the benefit of our views, which I assume tlie hon. minister wishes to have.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I recognize that there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says, and the committee have displayed a great deal of indulgence in the matter. But it is entirely unavoidable. I have been giving a good deal of attention to this measure outside of the House, almost every spare moment I could get, in obtaining the views of railway people and of those who have special grievances, and who thought something ought to be done In this Bill to remedy them. I have listened most carefully and attentively to what they have had to say on all sides, and wherever their suggestions have commended themselves to my judgment, I have given them effect. It is the general desire, I think, on all hands lhat we should have the Bill in as workable a shape as possible ; and my intention is, immediately after it passes this committee, to have the Bill reprinted and put into the hands of hon. members ; and after it is reprinted, if hon. members will take the trouble to go over it, and desire to have any section reconsidered, or to be informed on any question connected with the Bill, I will not place any obstacle in the way. I invite suggestions from the members of the committee, and I shall be glad, when they have the whole measure before them, to have them call attention to any defects which it exhibits.


John Graham Haggart: I would suggest that the Bill be reprinted and distributed to the members of the House before it passes through the committee, so that they will have an opportunity of looking over it and making suggestions before it is reported to the House.


Samuel Barker: I think what the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has suggested would be desirable in addition to the reprinting of the Bill ; that is, whenever there is a material amendment to be moved, the minister should hand to the leader of the opposition one or two or half a dozen copies, and thus a good deal of time could probably be saved.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 213-bell and whistle on locomotive,
Mr. GERMAN.: Before that section is passed, I desire to move an amendment. There is a certain danger to property adjoining a line of railway from which under existing conditions there is really no escape. There has been a good deal of discussion in reference to cattle-guards. Sufficient cattle-guards are necessary, but people owning stock have an opportunity of taking some reasonable precaution to protect their cat-


Haughton Lennox: tie, even when there is an insufficient cattle-guard, by preventing them straying on the public highway. There has been a discussion of the subject of drainage, and there is a reasonable opportunity to the owners of land to have their property drained by an application to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. But there is a danger arising from fire occurring from sparks and cinders escaping from locomotives from which the farming community have no protection. The difficulty lies here. Most of the locomotives which are in use in this country are not equipped with proper and sufficient fire screens.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the clause under consideration.


William Manley German: Yes, I am proposing to amend that clause by providing that the railway companies shall equip their locomotive engines with proper fire screens.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That amendment will come in better on subclause E of clause 24, which was allowed to stand, and which deals with devices on engines to avoid fires. I would ask my hon. friend to hold his amendment over until we go back to that clause.


William Manley German: I have no objection to keep my amendment back at the hon. minister's request and on his assurance that I will be given an opportunity to present it when the clause he suggests comes up for consideration.
On section 225,
_ A watchman shall be stationed at every crossing where two main lines of railway cross each other at rail level and no train shall proceed over such crossing until signal has been made to the conductor or engineer thereof that the way is clear ; provided always that in the case of an electric street railway car crossing an electric street railway track, it shall be the duty of the conductor, before crossing, to go forward and see that the track to be crossed is clear, before giving the signal to the motor-man that the way is clear and to proceed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to revise that so that it shall read :
No train or engine shall pass over any crossing where two main lines of railway cross each other at rail level until a proper signal has been received by the conductor or engineer in charge of such train or engine, from a competent person or watchman in charge of such crossing that the way is clear ; provided always that in the case of an electric street railway car crossing any railway track not otherwise properly protected, it shall be the duty of the conductor before crossing to go forward and see that the track to he crossed is clear, before giving the signal to the motorman that the way is clear and to proceed.


Haughton Lennox: The necessity of having a watchman at the crossing Is a matter of implication. You say the engineer shall not cross until be has received a signal

from the watchman or other competent person in charge that the way is clear. Do you think that is as good as it was before ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is better or I would not suggest it.


Haughton Lennox: It is not as explicit.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not put the responsibility on the watchman but on the train hands and on the people who are crossing. They must not cross without this signal. The company will see to it that they have watchmen in charge because they cannot cross until that signal is given showing that the coast is clear.


Haughton Lennox: I know what the argument is, but I think it would be better as it was before.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to expressly declare what the amendment proposes by implication that a watchman shall give the signal?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There must be a signal given and the train cannot cross unless it is given.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to say that the signal must be given by a watchman stationed at the crossing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the first place he is not stationed at the crossing, and besides that there are various other means of sufficiently protecting a crossing than having a watchman. There are electric signals and bells *which are being very generally used and which do not necessitate the actual presence of a watchman. We want to have a sufficient signal no matter by whom or by what means it is given.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What I am thinking about is not only the signal to the train hands, but the signal to any one approaching the crossing. There might be danger in that case, and a warning should be given to those approaching as well as to the train hands unless this section is only to apply to a railway crossing where there is no highway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where there are two railways crossing one another it is a particularly dangerous thing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As a rule there is no highway at such a crossing, but there might be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There might be but it is not customary. The railway companies try to avoid it if they can.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
North-west Mounted Police-pay of force, $182,500.
['Well, we can say that the hon. gentlemen were very good last evening, and I wish they would go on being good. However, if they refuse, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the right hon. gentleman to give us some information respecting this.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend will see from the map all the posts marked which we have at present in the North-west Territories, and there are some new ones on the Mackenzie river. They extend from the frontier of Manitoba along the boundary line and are chiefly in the McLeod district. There are altogether eighty different stations. We have a new post at Athabasca lake and we are building a post at the mouth of the Mackenzie river. Inspector Considine left in the month of May last to install a station there. The duties of the Mounted Police are well understood. We thought at one time that we might decrease the force but we have found it extremely difficult in view' of constant applications from the settlers. This appropriation is for 500 men at $800 a year per man, including maintenance pay and everything else. The force is composed of : one commissioner, stationed at Regina; one assistant commissioner; nine superintendents ; 24 inspectors ; 2 surgeons ; 70 sergeants; 30 corporals and 363 constables. The pay of the commissioner is $2,600; assistant commissioner, $1,600; superintendents, $1,400 each; inspectors, $1,000 each; 1 surgeon at $1,200 and one at $1,400 ; sergeants from $1 to $2 a day; corporals, 85 cents; constables, from 50 cents a day to $40 a month. In addition to the two surgeons we have to call in contract surgeons whom we pay at the rate of $60 per month and who are allowed to engage in private practice.


John William Bell: How many Indian scouts ?
The PRIME MINISTER, We have very few Indian scouts at present; they are chiefly white men.
North-west Mounted Police-pay of Yukon force. $170,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many men have we in the Yukon ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have an increase of $50,000 in that item. Two or three days ago I had to take an appropriation of $150,000 to cover the expenditure of this year. These estimates were taken for 250 men, but some eighteen months ago we received notice which turned out to be true that a sort of conspiracy had been hatched at Skagway with the intention of rushing the country. They were said to be American

sympathizers, but I think really they were simply men of more or less loose morals who wanted to make a raid upon the Yukon. We sent an additional force of fifty men, but nothing came of the affair. I am sorry that we have not found it possible to withdraw these men. At present we have thirty-five posts in the Yukon between White Horse and Fort Cudahy, including two posts on the Dawson trail behind Pyramid harbour. These men do almost everything. They assist in the collection of the royalties, the collection of customs; they assist the bush rangers, the timber inspectors, the magistrates; they guard the court-house and the banks; they serve notices and do all kinds of work, and I am glad to say that the reports we have of them are very satisfactory. I do not foresee that it will be possible for us to decrease this force, and the total appropriation of $500,000 means about $1,600 for each man.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they receive additional pay for extra work 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. The pay of 300 officers and men is $170,000; subsistence for 300 men at eighty cents per day, $87,600; forrage, $10,000; fuel and light, $42,400; clothing, repairs and renewals, horses, dogs, arms and ammunition, medical stores, stationery, billeting and contingencies. -$70,000; buildings, $25,000-they put up their own buildings; transport $65,000- making a total of $500,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the pay of the force serving in the Yukon ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am going to give it now. One assistant commissioner, at $1,600; two superintendents, at $1,400 each; nine inspectors, at $1,000 each; four surgeons-two at $1,400, two at $1,000; special allowance to sixteen officers, at $1.25 per day each; command allowance to the assistant commissioner, at $2 per day; twenty-two sergeants, at from $1 to $1.50 per day each; special allowance, at 75 cents per day each; twenty corporals, regular allowance, at 85 cents per day each, and special allowance, at 50 cents per day each; two hundred constables, at an average of $1.10 per day each; forty-two special constables, at an average of $50 per month. In addition, there is working pay for mechanics, &c., for which we make a special estimate of $12,355.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that the mounted police were employed for special work, such as collecting customs duties, looking after timber, and so forth. Are they paid anything extra for this work ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For instance, they deliver the mails and collect customs duties. Is there not an allowance made by the other departments for this work ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Department of the Mounted Police pays nothing extra, but I think the Customs Department and the Post Office Department pay something.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that goes to the individual members of the force who do the work 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. If the members of the committee are interested in seeing some of the work that is done by the police, I lay on the Table some photographs taken by themselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to keep up the same number of men as usual in the Territories ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: 1 am sorry to say that I see no possibility at this moment cf decreasing the force. 1 think myself that the force might be somewhat decreased in the older settlements in the North-west Territories, and, that in the near future we must compel these settlements to take care of themselves. But at present when we take men from the older districts, we require them farther north, and I cannot say that we contemplate any reduction in the force for some time to come.
Compensation ;o members of the North-west Mounted Police for injuries received in the discharge of duty, $2,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this a vote taken annually for this purpose, or are there specific cases ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a vote taken annually, an estimated appropriation which we judge to be sufficient for the number of casualties that occur.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did you pay out last year 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two dollars and seventy-five cents. This is to compensate men for injuries received in the performance of duty. I will give you some instances : broken and deformed leg, broken and deformed arm, broken leg, concussion and loss of sight, rupture, varicose vein, and so on. These men receive a small compensation-in one case $73, in another $109, in another $219. &c. The amount of compensation is fixed by a board of the police themselves.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Senate, $74,726.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here of $1,700.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not responsible for this part of the estimates. I understand that the Senate have sent these estimates to the government, and that they have been accepted.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Has this item decreased
1 or increased during the last few years 7


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not know whether it has increased or not.


George Taylor: I see in the estimates of two years ago that you asked for $63,188 for the Senate, which shows an increase of $11,000 since the last two years. Are there more Senators ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not aware that the number has increased. The Senate is responsible for this.


George Taylor: Is the Senate not represented by a minister of the Crown to give explanations here ?
House of Commons, $222,782.50.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With regard to the increase of $20,000, this year we are asking in the one vote $60,000 for the debates. We were in the habit of asking for only $40,000 in the main estimates, but in the supplementaries we asked $20,000. At the suggestion of the hou. leader of the opposition last year, we are putting this year in the main estimates the sum of $60,000 instead of $40,000. There is a decrease of $750 in the salaries of the House of Commons, so that the increase is only with regard to the publishing of the debates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: After what has been said by the Speaker, I wish to say that those who read the French version of the debates have noticed this year a remarkable improvement over preceding years. We have this year the best staff of translators we ever had. and I must compliment Mr. Speaker on the efficiency of the staff.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am always very willing to receive compliments, but in this instance they are due to the Debates Committee.


George Taylor: I see here an item ' Estimate of the sergeant at arms as approved, $40,302.50.' Who approves of the sergeaut at arms estimates ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is that for ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Expenses in connection with messengers and the House generally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact that in one of the rooms which is used by six members, there are only two lamps and there are no desks, only plain tables. There is not a place in which we can put away any papers. I applied to the sergeant at arms and he said that he had no authority to furnish anything. Then I applied to Mr. Speaker, but whether he forgot all about it or not, we have not seen any improvement since. We ought to have some better convenience for doing our work. At least we should have sufficient lights, and it would be only right to furnish desks or some convenience for putting away papers.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I may say with regard to the desks, that they are generally supplied by the Public Works Department and are not under the control of the Speaker, though, of course, we may make some time some small expense in connection with buying desks. As a rule, however, they are under the control of the Public Works Department, and I think that I did call the attention of the department to my hon. friend's complaint and will be glad to do so again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we apply to the Minister of Public Works he says that he has nothing to do with it, and when we apply to Mr. Speaker, he refers us to the Public Works Department. One shifts the responsibility on to the other and we do not know where to go. It used to be the sergeant at arms who had to do with these matters, but he has nothing to do with them now.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There has been no change in that respect. Last year the room now occupied by the members from Toronto was furnished by the Public Works Department. I do not think that we ever supplied any of the rooms with furniture. All the new rooms we had last year were supplied by the Public Works Department.


George Taylor: And the lights also ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We can get the lights supplied by our own staff, and I shall be very glad to have justice done to the hon. gentleman and see that he has a sufficient number of lights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We shall be very grateful. I notice that the room occupied by the Toronto members is very well furnished. I have no objection to that, but I think that others ought to be treated in the same way.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The other day I was in the room of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and found it very badly furnished. I suppose he would be very glad also to have some changes made, and I shall be glad to do all in my power with the limited means at my disposal.


George Taylor: I see that the estimates of the sergeant at arms in 1897 was $33,858, and it is now $40,800, an increase of $7,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The explanation. I am told by the chief clerk, is that we estimated for a session of one hundred days, and now we are estimating for a session of one hundred and thirty days. But we are not spending more money; in fact we are spending less this year.


Haughton Lennox: I presume this is, about the only opportunity we have of speaking our minds to the hon. Speaker of the House. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has referred to the furnishing of room 56, of which room I am one of the

occupants. Of course, we all like to have good furniture, but I am always afraid to advocate anything in the line of extravagance, or even generous expenditure, because we find it our duty to be constantly telling the government to keep within reasonable limits. Therefore, though I want to make it clear that I hare great taste for really good furniture-for elegant furniture, if you like-still, having regard to the fact that this is an extravagant government and liable to err on these lines, I wish to be distinctly understood as saying nothing whatever about it.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I desire to bring the attention of Mr. Speaker, though I do not know whether it comes within his purview to the disgraceful condition of the bathrooms downstairs. I give credit to those who deserve it for what has been accomplished in the way of improvement within recent years. At the same time, the place is nothing to what the House of Commons should have. The whole arrangement down stairs is very unsatisfactory. Another point is with regard to the messengers of the House. Messengers with impunity use the washroom set apart for members of the House, and associate with members. And I would draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that many of these messengers impose upon two or three good-natured ones of their own class. The large amount of work is done by very few, while the others sun themselves in ease and luxury.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) has called attention to this matter.


Samuel Hughes: I do it publicly.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I never knew the complaint made before, but I will give instructions suitable to the case.
Library of the parliament-salaries and officers of the library, $17,462.50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here of $332.50.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that this is for the regular statutory increases.
Legislation-general-printing, printing paper and binding, $125,000.


Haughton Lennox: There is an increase of $15,000 here.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That item is not entirely under my control, but is more under the control of the Joint Committee on the printing of parliament. But I am informed that this increase is due to the fact that the number of volumes that we have to print has increased. The expense in connection with the vote is simply in payment of the Printing Bureau for the printing of our documents.


George Taylor: Is any of the printing done outside ?


Haughton Lennox: 


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, it is all done at the Printing Bureau.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What percentage of all our printing is done in the Bureau ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I cannot give that information. I can only speak with regard to the printing done for the House. Ail the money expended last year was expended with the Printing Bureau.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A discussion took place in the Upper Chamber the other day, and I was surprised to learn the large percentage of public printing that is not done in the Bureau-about 50 per cent if my memory serves me well.


Mr. PARMELEE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there was a trifle over 50 per cent done outside. It has always seemed to me that either we should have our printing done at the Printing Bureau, or we should have it done some other way. I do not think it is justifiable to allow a portion of the work to be distributed amongst the newspapers, very often at extravagant prices. There can be no doubt that, as the figures have been analysed by those who are experts in these matters, the price we pay for outside printing is very high. If the Bureau is not large enough, we should enlarge it; if it has not plant enough we should provide more plant. But we ought not to continue the dual system of having a Printing Bureau and still have work done outside.


Charles Henry Parmelee: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is entirely wrong in the supposition that 50 per cent of the printing of parliament is done outside of the Bureau. As a matter of fact nearly all the printing of parliament is done in the Bureau. It does happen, once in a while in a congestion of work, owing to the lateness with which the reports are prepared, one or two of the departments find it necessary to get their work done outside. I agree with the hon. member for East Grey that, as far as possible, the public printing ought to be done in the Government Printing Office. But I do not agree with him in his statement that when we do go outside we pay extravagant or extortionate prices. I think that the prices obtained from outside contractors will compare very favourably with the cost of work done in the Printing Bureau.
Mr. S'PROULE. I remember that an analysis was made some time ago, and the facts as set forth by those who might be regarded as experts in printing showed that the prices of work done outside were nearly double of what we paid at the Bureau. As to the statement that only a small proportion of the printing is done outside of the Bureau, that does not agree with the figures given in the Senate the other day. I am sure that my memory is not so far astray.


Charles Henry Parmelee: It included newspaper advertising.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is true that it included advertisements in newspapers, but it was pretty nearly 50 per cent o-fi ail we paid for printing and publishing.


Charles Henry Parmelee: That is where the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has been led astray. He has not separated the two accounts. In the Auditor General's Report appears what is paid to each newspaper receiving the government patronage. But a very large proportion of that is for advertising and not for printing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is advertising but printing ?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Parmelee) as chairman of the Printing Committee, says with fair correctness, that the printing of parliament is done in the Printing Bureau. But if he takes into account all the printing done for the government, he will find the statement of Sir Mackenzie Bowell-who is a printer and usually scrutinizes these matters carefully-made in the other House is in accordance with the statement of my hon. friend from East Grey, that the government printing done outside the Bureau amounts to more than that done in the Bureau. Here is the statement as published :
Sir Mackenzie Bowell stated that the extent to which the government had carried the abuses of the patronage system had run high up into the tens of thousands of dollars. One paper in Montreal had received $100,000 and could not exist without this patronage ; one of the ministers was deeply interested in it, it even being stated that he was a director.
I presume that it is the Minister of Agriculture, who is a director of the Montreal 1 Herald,' and the Montreal ' Herald ' received last year over $100,000 for printing for the government.
He gave figures, showing that in five years this paper had received $97,790, entirely in contravention of the Act. He read a few of the sums paid newspapers supporting the government. During the year ending 30th of June, printing and advertising cost $383,164, while the departmental printing cost $383,000.
When our hon. friends opposite sat on this side of the House they condemned the Conservative government because a little printing was done outside, but now we find that they have paid out $383,000 to outside newspapers. and $100,000 to the Montreal ' Herald.' of which one of the ministers is a director.
So that government papers received a little more than the legitimate printing at the bureau. The Halifax ' Chronicle,' once Mr. Fielding's paper, received $8,853 in the year ending 30th of June, 1902; the St. John 'Telegraph' received over $18,000, of which $17,000 was for lithographing, which the law provided should be done at the bureau ; the Winnipeg * Free Press,' well known as the Minister of the Interior's organ, received
$2,693. Mr. Templeman's paper only received $490, but he did not grumble, as in outlying districts all printing could not be done at the bureau.
Now, there was a charge made in the other House that this government was not only violating their pledges but violating the law as well, in order to give patronage to papers in which it is openly stated by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, in the other House, that ministers are interested, one in the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' one in the Montreal ' Herald,' and besides, there was the Finance Minister's paper, though he did not know wThether it got any of the printing.


Mr. FRASER.: I remember last year the Minister of the Interior distinctly claimed that he had no interest in that paper, I know nothing at all about the Montreal ' Herald.' But I rise to call attention to the fact that these papers do no printing, perhaps they may do some lithographing. But what the papers get is largely for advertising for the Department of Public Works and other departments. I know myself, so far as the 1 Morning Chronicle ' is concerned, that they do no printing, they have no printing department, they cannot print anything except the paper. It is for advertising and perhaps lithographing that these sums are paid out, and they cannot be put down in the same category as printing done at the Bureau. I do not know whether the Bureau is as well equipped as it ought to be, but I think we ought to be careful in increasing it, for the reason that a large part of the work it has to do must necessarily be done during the time parliament is in session; and to put on a large plant that would not be busy all the year round might not be the best course for the government to adopt.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) is not correct when he says this is all for advertising. He must surely remember that only last year the Postmaster General told us that a large portion of the work belonging to the Post Office Department was done in Montreal.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I only spoke of the Halifax ' Chronicle,' I know nothing about the other papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Weil, I was speaking with reference to advertising as well as printing, and the statement I made was even under the mark, for I find that we paid about $300,000 a year for work done at the Bureau and we paid $383,000 for work done outside the Bureau. Therefore, when I said that we paid about fifty per cent of the money that is paid for that kind of work outside the Bureau, I was under the mark, because instead of fifty per cent we paid a good deal over that. My complaint is that this work ought to be done in the Bureau

if we pretend to keep up a Printing Bureau for the purpose of doing government printing.


Mr. COCHRANE.: In reference to the Montreal ' Herald,' would any gentleman pretend to tell me that $97,000 was paid to that paper for advertising alone ? Now, it looks to me rather suspicious, to say the least, that a paper in which the Minister of Agriculture is a large stockholder-we are informed he is a director of it-should get so large an amount for printing. That paper is undoubtedly patronized by the government of which he is a member.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: It looks very fishy.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I think it is more than fishy. It looks as if there were some suckers around that department. I should think the government would feel rather ashamed to face that fact, that a paper in Montreal in which a minister of the Crown is a large stockholder-and I challenge contradiction of the statement-but whether a stockholder or not. that paper is getting $97,000 for printing. The Chairman of the Printing Committee tells us it is for advertising. Now, I think the hon. gentleman will take that back and correct his statement. I say that the rule should apply that where so large an amount of money is expended in printing it should be let out by contract. All things being equal, I am not disposed to criticise the government for letting their friends have it, I am not disposed to criticise the government for spending small amounts to papers that are supporting them, as the papers do something for it. But when it comes to paying nearly $100,000 I say they should draw the line, and retrace thteir steps, and rectify the mistakes they have made during the last seven years.


Charles Henry Parmelee: Hon. gentlemen on the other side persist in confusing accounts that are paid for printing and accounts that are paid for advertising. As a matter of fact, a very small portion of the public printing is done outside the Bureau, and when it is done outside the Bureau it is because the Bureau is congested with work and is not able to turn it out in proper time and shape. The Bureau is fairly well equipped. As everybody knows, this is a growing time, and during the last ten or fifteen years the amount of printing' done for parliament has probably doubled, while the Bureau has not been increased in order to keep pace with the increased public printing and the printing of all sorts in connection with the departments of the government. Now, when the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says tbat the Montreal ' Herald ' has been paid $100,000 a year for printing and advertising, he does not make the distinction between printing and advertising. But I venture to say that he is entirely wrong in his figures. The


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Montreal ' Herald ' has never been paid any such amount.


George Taylor: For five years.


Charles Henry Parmelee: Well, I think the hon. gentleman did not make that very clear.


George Taylor: I read Sir Mackenzie Bowell's statement in the Senate.


Charles Henry Parmelee: I understood the hon. gentleman to say it was for one year. For five years, possibly he is in the main correct. But I can say this, that all the public printing done outside the Bureau has been done at reasonable prices, and not at fourteen prices, as we know were charged some years ago by printers who did printing for the government when our friends the enemy Were in power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is quite a gratuitous statement. In analysing these accounts, we found that in some cases the parties were paid double prices and treble prices for printing, and to say the government get value for it, is to say what we did not find by actual inquiry when we had the accounts brought before us. As to the statement of the hon. gentleman about the very small percentage of printing done outside, could that hon. gentleman tell us how much of it is done outside ? I have heard some similar statements made in that connection in this House, but when we come to look into them closely we find that they are not borne out in fact at all but that the very reverse is the case and that a very large percentage of this work has been done outside. I remember that one or two years ago the statement was made that there was practically no printing done in connection with the department of the hon. Postmaster General and that afterwards the hon. Postmaster General himself admitted that a large proportion of the work was done in Montreal. Hon. members, when speaking upon a subject of that kind, ought to speak of What they know and they ought to give the source from which they get their information, because we want rather a reasoned judgment than the ipse dixit of any hon. member.


Mr. HOLMES.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is absolutely wrong in so far as he charges that exorbitant prices were paid to the Montreal ' Herald.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not mention the Montreal ' Herald ' at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) need not put up a man of straw and then knock him over.


Robert Holmes: Some hon. members have been alluding to the accounts of the Montreal ' Herald.' The accounts of the Montreal ' Herald ' were investigated before the Public Accounts Committee last year, or two years ago, and they are being investigated at the present time, and I venture to say that the committee will find that only fair and reasonable charges have been made
5274

in connection with that expenditure. It was proved before the House, and the statement was made by the Chairman of the Printing Committee, that the Hamilton ' Spectator ' had received fourteen prices for job work which was let out by the late government. On general principles X believe that the Bureau ought to do all the printing that it is possible to do, and I believe that is what it is doing at the present time. If the hon. gentleman will take up the report of the King's Printer, he will find that he repeats the complaint that he has made year after year that the facilities at the Bureau are not adequate for turning out all the printing that is required to be done for the various departments in connection with the printing of parliament. The Bureau, at the time it was erected, was too small to meet the demands made upon it, and with the increased demands which have arisen since then, it is absolutely impossible to turn out the work required by this parliament. I am not justifying the giving of work to outside offices unless it is absolutely necessary. In regard to the charges that are made, hon. members must remember that these are for lithographing work as well as printing. The Bureau does not do lithographing work. Lithographing work is a separate branch of printing, and has to be done in outside offices. I venture to say that if hon. members make an examination of the accounts in the Public Accounts Committee, they will find that the charges made for work done are the ordinary charges for commercial work in any city in the Dominion.


Haughton Lennox: It is very refreshing to hear the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) give us his little lecture. He is an hon. gentleman, I believe, who is eminently capable of that kind of thing, but in dealing with a business matter it may, perhaps, be better to deal with it upon some business basis. For any hon. member of this House to get up for the purpose of making the plea that years ago some government paid a large price for work similar to this, is to make a very poor plea indeed. I think if the hon. gentleman cannot make a better plea on behalf of the government than to go back to the olden days aud resurrect something without proof, as a matter of fact, -but, even if you admit it to be a fact-if he cannot give any better argument than that, he only weakens the case that he endeavours to support. It is not a question at all of what other governments have done. This government came into power pledged that they would do a great deal better than any government which preceded it.


Robert Holmes: So they did.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. FRASER, And they had not much of a task.


Haughton Lennox: Is there anything the matter with hon. gentlemen over there ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Keep cool.


Haughton Lennox: I can keep cool. I want to say what meets with the concurrence of every sensible business man, and it is that it is time we were done absolutely and for ever with this miserable, petty plea brought forward from time to time, ' you did the same thing.'


Robert Holmes: You had better set an example on that side of the House.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know to w'liat the hon. gentleman alludes. He may think he makes a telling point by that, but I cannot see what relevancy it has to what I am discussing. If the hon. gentleman contends that this is a good and proper method, why then, I feel to a. certain extent set down and knocked out, and for this reason : The hon. gentleman is a very high authority on all questions, on business questions, on questions of printing, on questions of morality, and I believe on questions of religion, but I do not understand him to seriously contend that is a proper course for any government to pursue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In reference to printing, the hon. member for West Huron made the statement that I referred to the printing done by the Montreal ' Herald.' I never spoke of the Montreal ' Herald ' at all. What I referred to was a sheet distributed for immigration purposes and which was brought before the Public Accounts Committee. I think, if I remember correctly, that sheet cost something like $800 or $1,000 to print. I have heard from practical printers, who have been in the business for years and years, that we paid more than three prices for that work. It was, I think, literally admitted that there were very large prices paid for it, even by hon. members on' that side of the House wrho were trying to put up the best possible defence they could at the time. If we are to regard this as an example of what we may expect to find in other branches in connection with government printing, I said that we were justified in coming to the conclusion that we were paying out a very great deal of money for printing and that we got very little in return.
Contingent expenses in connection with voters' lists. $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is that to be used for now ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that when we approach the end of parliament, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has to provide for more expenses in connection with procuring and printing of the voters' lists. That is the reason why the amount is larger than the amount voted last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you want any more than you had last year ? You will not print any more voters' lists.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that when the parliament becomes older, when we come near the end of the parliament, as next year we will be very near the end of the parliament, we are supposed to expend more money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose that is to provide for the coming elections, because, otherwise we would not want to spend $20,000 upon the lists this year. They will not be held until two years hence.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, this is an item that we used to hear a good deal about, and we were told that it was all going to be changed when we adopted the voters' lists that are provided by each of the provinces. I used to hear a good deal about the expensive Dominion franchise, when hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House. That is one of the items they used to hound us about when the party that I support was on the ministerial benches. You have a Dominion Franchise Act now under which the voters' list is provided, in the province of Ontario at least, of which I am speaking, by the municipalities. These lists are corrected by the judges and revised in readiness for an election at any time. Now, we have the same expense exactly and there is not a word from the government side of the House in reference to that expense, not even from the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) who used to challenge this expenditure and point out to the House and to the electors how extravagant it was to spend all that money when it could be remedied. He has applied the remedy, and he sits smiling to think that the same amount of money is being expended that he denounced when in opposition.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It was awful in those days.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You are spending twice as much and. it is all right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This amount is too little to print the voters' list and too much to print the lists for the by-elections.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that it was the unanimous wish of the House some years ago that the lists required for byelections should be printed.


Samuel Hughes: Are some of your members to get lucrative jobs ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Not that I know of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Judging by this large vote the only explanation is that a lot of these hon. gentlemen opposite are going to get their reward.	,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 


David Henderson: There cannot possibly be a dollar required for printing the voters' lists in Ontario or any of the older provinces where the lists are made up each year. It might be that in Manitoba you would require to print the list for a byelection, but certainly not in the other provinces.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that the Bill as introduced did not provide for the printing of these lists, and at the request of the Hon. Mr. Montague an amendment was made providing that this printing should be done.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this printing done outside of the Bureau ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No. All the printing for the House of Commons is done at the Bureau.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that you have to pay a certain sum to the clerks of municipalities for furnishing these lists ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The clerk of the Crown in Chancery buys these lists every year. This is provided for by law.


John William Bell: The preparation of the voters' list for the Lisgar election cost $5,080.4(1. If that is to be the price for each constituency then the system under the late Conservative government was much less expensive. The commissioner who had charge of the work in Lisgar got $600; thirty-five registration clerks, $1,137; tjhe Winnipeg ' Free Press ' for printing $875.64. Some one appears to have applied the pruning knife because the accounts rendered amounted to $7,321.2S and the amount paid was $5,680.40. It is a most monstrously extravagant way of proceeding. In this case you are asking a vote of $20,000 and that would provide for three or four by-elections even in the province of Manitoba. If the elections are held in other provinces I cannot see where the expense comes in.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have no information with regard to the Lisgar election, but I will be happy to get it for the hon. gentleman.
Mr. OSLER, Is there any reason why there should be an increase this year from $12,000 to $20,000? Was the vote sufficient last year ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It was sufficient last year, but I am told that at the end of a parliament it is customary to take a larger vote for this purpose.


Mr. OSLER.: There must be something ill view or surely you would not increase this vote more than double. It seems to be out of all reason, but seeing the pleasant smile of Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will have to let this pass.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot understand why Mr. Speaker says that this vote

is increased at the end of a parliament. The rule is that there are more by-elections at the beginning of a parliament than at the end of a parliament.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In the past it has been customary at the end of each parliament to take a larger sum for this vote and we are simply following the precedent.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 admit that the last session of a parliament would provide a larger amount for by-elections than the session immediately after a general election. If this vote is taken in expectation of a general election, it is all right.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand that a certain amount is provided for the first year, and a certain amount for each subsequent year, as required. It is gradual.


George Taylor: We are ready for a general election.
To pay customs and other officers for services in compiling and forwarding daily reports in connection with the Fisheries Intelligence Bureau for the season 1902, $270.


John Dowsley Reid: What is that for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This amount is voted every year. These reports give us information in regard to the United States fishing fleet. The allowance of each officer is placed at $15.


George Taylor: In item 10 of the main estimates I find :	' Salaries, including R.
E Tyrwhitt at $950, and L. Bance at $1,400, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' I would like to inquire of the minister when this Mr. Bance went into the department, if he has passed the qualifying examination, and why he is receiving $1,400 salary.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That item has been voted.


George Taylor: I understood that we could ask any question we liked on these estimates, and I want to make this inquiry. I want to know who this Mr. Bance is, and why he is put over the heads of older officials.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Bance was recommended by the officers of the department as an expert French translator. He has been in the department eleven years, and has had charge of all the French correspondence of the department, and he was recommended for a first-class clerkship. The amount was recommended by the minister and voted by the House when the item was called.


George Taylor: Did he pass the qualifying examination ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AID
FISHERIES. I am informed that he passed
all the examinations.


George Taylor: I am informed that he did not pass the qualifying examination.
^ The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. I am informed he did. I will inquire and give the hon. gentleman the information.
Fisheries-further amount required for construction of new steamers in British Columbia, $9,000.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND I' ISHERIES. In 1901-2, $50,000 was placed m the estimates for the construction of a steamer in British Columbia. Of this amount $11,290 lapsed. The vessel has been completed and has been accepted by the department-the ' Kestrel '-and the amount due is $9,000.


Mr. EARLE.: What was the total cost of the ' Kestrel 1
' The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. Seventy-two thousand dollars.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Was it built by contract ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Are there any steamers engaged in the fisheries service on the lakes ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I gave a list at a previous sitting of the committee. There are two vessels employed on the lakes, the ' Petrel ' and the Bayfield.' The 'Bayfield' is on the Georgian Bay or Lake Superior, and the ' Petrel ' is doing fisheries service.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: I understood that the 1 Bayfield ' was sold.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We sold the old 'Bayfield.' The new 'Bayfield' used to be the 'Lord Stanley.'


Samuel Hughes: I regret that I did not hear the statement of the hon. minister the other night in regard to the fishery inspectors in the province of Ontario. Will he kindly tell us what the duties of those inspectors are, and why they are maintained, since the Dominion government has surrendered its right to control the fisheries, and what their functions are.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We went over this question at the last sitting of the committee, and I thought we had covered all the ground.


Samuel Hughes: What are the duties of these officers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They were stated so many times in the last sittings of the committee that I did not think that it would be necessary to repeat them. According to the

judgment of the Privy Council, the fishery rights and privileges belong to the provinces but the Dominion government must see to the enforcement of the laws and regulations; and pending a settlement of the difficulty between the Dominion and provincial governments, we are carrying out the judgment of the Privy Council as interpreted by the Department of Justice. Three inspectors or overseers have been named for Ontario. Their duties are to see that the regulations are carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year we were told that we were on the eve of a settlement.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The government is prepared for a settlement. All that is required is an agreement between the provincial and the Dominion governments for a submission of the case to the Supi'eme Court, so as to have a legal interpretation of this judgment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be better to reach an agreement by a conference ?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is rather difficult. The best mode is to agree on a case and submit it to the1 Supreme Court for interpretation. We had representatives here from the provincial government on the question of increased subsidies, and during the conference this question of the fisheries was discussed, and we decided that a submission of a case to the Supreme Court would be the most reasonable way of arriving at a settlement.


Samuel Hughes: Do these officers visif the various localities and fishing centres ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman will read their report in the blue-book of the Marine and Fisheries Department of 1902. he will make himself familiar with what they are doing. They are obliged to go around the districts assigned to them and see that the regulations are observed in the lakes and rivers.


Samuel Hughes: I happen to come from a riding where there are a great many inland lakes, and I have never heard of any of these gentlemen visiting them. These lakes extend for a chain of 150 miles, and you might as well look for a needle in a hay stack as try to detect any infraction of tlie law by sending an inspector there. The only way would be to have local officers appointed, who would live on the lake shore and could see from their window what is going on. If the hon. minister wants to know what these gentleman do, I can tell him that some of them take a very active part in elections. I have seen them at work in my own riding, and perhaps their labours in tha-t respect have been charged up.


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are many local inspectors appointed by the provincial government.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. minister find out anything about that $100 to which I referred the other evening ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was nothing paid.


George Taylor: The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) informed me that my hon. friend from Grenville made a mistake in the name. He referred to a man named Collins, but the party who made the protest against him was Cornelius Mullen, and he was promised by Hurley that if he would sign that protest, he would get him a contract to get out buoys. If you will look into the Auditor General's report you will find that Mr. Mullen got his pay.


John Dowsley Reid: Did Cornelius Mullen receive $100 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If he did the work, he must hnve been paid. The hon. gentleman surely does not expect me to carry in my head payments made two years ago. I have my officers and they have to look into the books to find out.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not expect the hon. gentleman to know anything about it because he was not in the department at the time, but I gave him notice Friday last.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND BTSHERIES.: You gave me notice about a man named Collins and now it appears the name is Mullen.


John Dowsley Reid: I explained the circumstances. I referred to $100 having been paid to some man in the county of East Hastings, and I supposed that his name was Collins.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: ' I find in the Auditor General's Report for 1901-2 an item C. Mullens, Belleville, for the season of 1901, $33.


John Dowsley Reid: For putting out buoys ?	.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


George Taylor: Where ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In some of the waters of that section.


George Taylor: That is a portion of the payment. The hon. member for West Hastings says that the arrangement was that C. Mullens should get $100. He was promised a job and he got it.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. He must have got left on
the job.


George Taylor: No, this is only a portion. This goes to show that the affidavit made by Mr. Hurley is contradicted, for the exMinister of Marine and Fisheries made a statement, on the strength of what Mr. Hurley said, that Mr. Hurley had nothing to do with it. Now, Mullens tells Mr. Porter's partner that Mr. Hurley recommended him for a job, and he got the job of putting out buoys, and was paid for it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Hurley had nothing to do with it.


George Taylor: He got the job on Mr. Hurley's recommendation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We had nothing to do with Hurley. The buoys are put out under contract, the service being under a special officer of the department.


George Taylor: This is the first time Mullens has had this contract. Who recommended him ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He got it by open tender.


George Taylor: Will the hon. minister bring down the tender and contract of Mullens ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister will remember that I brought the matter up the other night and the statement was made that Mr. Hurley was the means of having a protest entered against the hon. member for West Hastings. And I understood from the statement made in the House that the protest was made by a man named C. Mullens. After that statement had been made in the House, the hon. minister in charge of the department notified Mr. Hurley, and Immediately got an affidavit from Mr. Hurley, the fishery inspector, who was charged with having arranged for this protest, declaring that there was no truth whatever in the statement that he had promised Mullens $100, or any other amount. It was taken for granted that that affidavit was true. But now we find that Mullens was engaged in accordance with the statement made by the hon. member to put out these buoys, and he was paid for doing the work, and this is shown by the Auditor General's Report. Of course, it does not show in this one item an amount of $100. Now, the worst part of the whole matter is that the payment of this man proves that the statement made by the hon. member for West Hastings was true and that the affidavit of Mr. Hurley was false, and I would like to have the minister state if these are not the facts in their proper sequence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No sfieh inference can fairly 166
be drawn from the facts as that drawn by the hon. member (Mr. Reid, Grenville). A man gets a contract in fair competition to do some work for the department. At first it was said to be one Collins ; now it appears that it is Mullens. Mullens and Collins are so mixed up that there is neither head nor tail to the statements-


John Dowsley Reid: The minister need not work himself up in this fashion. Mullens was the man.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Then let it be Mullens. If the information possessed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville) about Mullens is as accurate as that about Collins, some hon. members of the committee will draw their own inference. It seeihs that Mullens' name has been mentioned in connection with some transaction that I know nothing about, and that nobody seems to know anything about. The mere fact that a man gets $33 for services to the department, service that is rendered in the ordinary way, does not show anything whatever. Mr. Hurley Whose name has been mentioned, has had nothing to do with it.


George Taylor: How does the hon. minister know that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is not part of the duties of Mr. Hurley to have anything to do with these matters. There is an officer of the department in charge -of the buoys. Mr. Fraser, I think is in charge of this service.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman says that this was done by tender and contract. Will he bring down the documents ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have already told the committee that I will bring them down.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister makes light of this because I mentioned the name the other evening as Collins. But the hon. minister who had charge of the department'followed it up by speaking of the man as Collins. It is treating the matter in rather a small spirit to try to wiggle out of it by dwelling on the mistake of names. Now, Mullens is prepared to make affidavit that the agreement was what has been stated, notwithstanding what the minister has said, and notwithstanding the affidavit of Mr. Hurley, produced here last session.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Since questions have been asked in regard to the steamers employed on the lakes, I would like to ask the hon. minister with regard to the steamer ' Bayfield,' employed on the Georgian bay. I have a few questions on the Order Paper, but I would like the hon. minister to answer them now, if convenient ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. I have the answers to the

questions ready, and X have sent for the paper. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thomson, Grey) desires, I will be able to give him the information in a moment.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that a steamer has been purchased lately for service on the St. Lawrence, a steamer named the ' Alaska.' What is she to be employed at ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will get the information more definitely. I know there was a small boat bought lately to do the work of sweeping out the channel between Montreal and Kingston.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that the steamer ' Scout ' was on the river.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The ' Scout ' does not do this work of sweeping out the channel, but a different class of work entirely.


Mr. WILSON.: How many fishery overseers are appointed by this government for the province of Ontario ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Three inspectors and overseers, they are the same thing.


Uriah Wilson: Where do they live ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Hon. gentleman will find full information regarding these officers by reading their reports, which are to be found on pages 12 and 13 of the report of the department.


Mr. BENNETT.: Where do they live ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. Mr.	Hurley lives at	Belleville, Mr. Duncan at Marchville, Out., and Mr. Shepherd at Toronto.


Haughton Lennox: Is this inspector Hurley that has been referred to so frequently, also an official of the Ontario government ?
The MINISTER OF1 MARINE AND FISHERIES. I do not know that he is.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that these three men, employed by the Dominion government, are also deriving an income from the Ontario government. I am not prepared to prove that, perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would be able to tell us definitely whether that is the case or not. But we have the fact that Mr. Hurley is receiving from the Dominion government $1,200 a year, and we have also the fact that he received $255.51 for travelling allowances, making a total of $1,455.51 for the period of one year. I find by looking at the Public Accounts that during that year Mr. Hurley also received for expenses in connection with the census of the Dominion of Canada. $155, and for revising the


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: returns, w'hatever that may mean, $178, making a total for that item of $333. Now, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is new in the department that he has the honour to preside over, and we expect that he has come to that office with a great deal of ardour to do what is night and to remedy any evils that he may find. I hope I have only to call his attention to the fact that this official has been receiving two salaries where he is only entitled to one, to see the hon. gentleman set about at once to remedy the evil. I am sure he will come to the conclusion that it is a most iniquitous thing to allow that gentleman, while receiving full pay and travelling allowances for services as fishery inspector to receive in addition this $333. I assume this money has peen paid, and perhaps the minister would not be able to control it. But I point out to the minister a remedy that is In his own hands. We are voting the full allowance for his salary, and out of that salary it would be proper for the minister to deduct this $333. In this way the minister will have an opportunity to show him that no official v in his department, at all events, shall be paid twice over for his services.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand a steamer has been purchased, as the minister States, to be employed in sweeping the channel. Now the minister will find on inquiring in his department that the steamer ' Scout ' was built by the government two or three years ago, and at that time it was stated that she was to be used for the placing of buoys between Montreal and Kingston, and to look after the channel generally. Now this steamer the ' Scout,' is well adapted for that purpose, because she was built for it. But the minister knows that if she only looked after placing the buoys she would not have more than two weeks work in the whole season. She is running up and down the river between Montreal and Kingston, and could easily do any sweeping of the channel. She is better built than any other boat for that purpose. I have not the slightest doubt that this new boat, the ' Alaska,' which is being put on by the government will create an extra and constant expense. I would like to have some further explanation given whether he really means that the ' Alaska ' is merely to be used to follow the ' Scout ' up and down the river, and is being used practically as a pleasure yacht during the whole season.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I was misinformed when I told the committee that this boat had been bought. She has been rented for six or seven weeks for the purpose of sweeping the channel, a work which the ' Scout ' cannot do. Now we have retained the services of the captain of the ' Alaska,' and have put on some men of the crew of the ' Scout ' to help the ' Alaska ' -in the work she is

doing in sweeping the channel, which is of a temporary character.


John Dowsley Reid: Then I understand that the statements publicly made around the St. Lawrence that the ' Alaska ' has been purchased or is to be purchased by the department, are not correct ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They are absolutely incorrect. The amount expended on repairs to the ' Bayfield ' during the last six years was $0,571.89. The steamer ' Bayfield ' has been sold to Messrs. John Harrison & Son for $3,250, the highest offer. The intended disposal of the ' Bayfield ' was generally known and that was the only favourable offer received. The sale was confirmed by Order in Council on the 14th of March, 1903.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: We have expended $6,571 for repairing this vessel within the last six years and we sell her by private sale for $3,250. I do not think this is satisfactory. I am sure that when the matter goes out to the people of North Grey it will not create a favourable impression in the minds of the friends of the hon. gentleman	opposite in	that	vicinity.	What
makes it more deplorable is the fact that this boat has been sold by private sale.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the sale made since the hon. minister came into the department ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. It was made on the 14tli March, 1903, after I came Into office.


George Taylor: By tender ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. As regards	the repairs that
were made to the boat, if we had been obliged to charter another boat there it would have cost more than $6,571. The boat was found in such bad condition that it was considered better to dispose of her than to continue spending money in repairing her.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What was the justification for selling that boat by private sale Y
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. It was well known since last fall that the boat was for sale and we had many offers. The highest offer which was received near the opening of navigation was that of Messrs. John Harrison & Son and after consultation with the officers of the department who recommended that the sale should be made, the offer of Messrs. Harrison & Son was accepted.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the length of the ' Baj-field ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 92 feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: I happen to have known something about this vessel for years, and I 166}
must say that I am surprised that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, right at his entrance to office, should have performed the act he has, namely, of handing over this' boat to a party friend and a strong partisan without public competition. This boat, I am bound to say, if it had been offered for sale on the open market, instead of bringing $3,250 would have brought twice that amount. . She was a vessel with heavy machinery and a vessel which for many years had been kept in first class repair. This boat has been employed on the surveys on lake Superior and Huron and the Georgian bay, putting out in all kinds of wind and weather and yet the hon. minister as one of his first official acts does this : Without exposing this boat to public competition and sale, without giving any notice to the general public that the boat was for sale, allows pressure to be brought to bear upon him by party friends and practically makes a present of this boat to party friends, Messrs. Harrison & Sons, who are the strongest party friends the hon. gentleman has in the town of Owen Sound. This is oniy on a par, except that.it is more exaggerated, with the job that was perpetrated in the same town a few years ago when the steamer ' Petrel ' was handed over to a party friend and I think it was Mr. Harrison who got it. I think I am right in the name, but perhaps it was a different man. The hon. minister must give some information to the committee as to what steps he took in the public interest, not in the interest of Messrs. Harrison & Sons and some party friends up there, to find out what was a fair price for this boat. Who made the report as to the value of the boat ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The report as to the value of the boat and the condition in which she was, was made by Mr. W. J. Stewart the officer in charge of the hydrographic survey. He condemned the boat, and he refused to go to Lake Superior in her. That boat has never done service on Lake Superior as she was unfit for such service. He informed the department before I took charge that another boat should be procured. The ' Lord Stanley ' would have gone on the survey on the lakes during the season of 1902. if she had not been rented to the Department of Public Works for the trip made west by the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). It was well known all over the country that the ' Bayfield ' was unfit for service and that she was unfit for sale. Mr. Stewart tried to sell her and asked for offers.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where was the boat employed last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: At the entrance to Lake Superior, but she could not go into the lake and that is the reason why Mr. Stewart

recommended that she should he replaced by another boat and that she should he disposed of. We found the [DOT] Lord Stanley ' ready to undertake that work. She had been undergoing repairs in the works at Sorel. It wras recommended by the officers of the department that we should ask for prices for the * Bayfield we looked around, we got different prices and we sold her to the highest bidder.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who else put in tenders for the boat besides Messrs. Harrison & Son, since the hon. minister has said in the most emphatic way that after looking around and receiving a number of tenders they found that of Messrs. Harrison & Son the highest 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) must not put words into my mouth that I did not say. I said that there were offers made. I know of one in particular, although 1 do not remember the name, that was made to me. I consulted Mr. Stewart in regard to it, and Mr. Stewart said to me: You had better wait as we may have a better offer than that. After that we got this offer of Messrs. Harrison & Sons and after a good deal of discussion about it during which we tried, as I remember perfectly well, to get a little more, we accepted the offer. I consulted the hon. ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who knew more about it than I did. He knew the circumstances of the purchase of the ' Lord Stanley ' to replace this boat. After due consideration the ' Bayfield ' was sold to Messrs. Harrison & Son for the price which has been mentioned and the sale was confirmed by Order in Council.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, there is nothing very astonishing in the minister making a statement that the sale was confirmed by Order in Council. Surely, if the hon. gentleman's colleagues had any confidence in him, when he made his report, they would confirm it. 1 am not reflecting on the hon. minister directly or suggesting that he profited by the sale, but I do say, that the hon. minister gave an exhibition of weakness when he permitted his party friends at Owen Sound to crack the whip over his head and force him into doing what was wrong. The hon. minister knows very well that he is not disposing of his private property but the property of the people of the Dominion, and that he has no business to give this property to his party friends because pressure is brought to bear upon him to induce him to make the sale. I can tell the hon. minister that if there had been a public sale this boat would have brought twice the amount he received for it and it lies at the door of the hon. minister that lie has been a party to a wrong act on the part of his department towards the people of this Dominion in allowing himself at the Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
crack of the whip in the hands of party friends in the town of Owen Sound to dispose of a property that was worth double the amount for which it is sold. As an excuse the minister tells us that Mr. Stewart reported that the vessel was unfit for service on Lake Superior. I can well believe that Mr. Stewart would not care to trust the lives of himself and his men in that boat on Lake Superior during the late fall. But the fact that a boat is not fit for service on a tempestuous lake is no reason why she should be handed over to a party friend at his own price. There are other lakes where she could be utilized. On the shores of the Georgian bay where this boat is well and favourably known it will be an excellent piece of campaign literature when we are able to tell the people that the government practically made a present of this valuable steamer to a party hack.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has something to find fault with the government for.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I corroborate what has been said by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) I was asked to place this question on the Order Paper because in the town of Owen Sound no one knew to whom the boat was sold or what she was sold for, and that will give an idea of the publicity which the minister gave to the sale of the ' Bayfield.' She is a magnificent steamer in first-class repair, and if she were put on the market she would bring double the price the government received for her. I do not know of any better campaign literature for the Conservatives than to be able to showr to the people the reckless and improvident manner in which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the government transact the business of the country.
Mr. HUGHES Victoria). There is a more important side to it than a [DOT] mere piece of campaign literature. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries must remember that he is merely the servant of the people and he will have to learn that he will not get off with impunity when he perpetrates jobs like this. What qualification had Mr. Stewart to pronounce on the fitness of this boat.


William Humphrey Bennett: He is a surveyor.


Samuel Hughes: He is not an engineer at all. Who is this Mr. Stewart 7


Robert Holmes: He is a good Conservative; he is not a supporter of this government.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Stewart is the engineer in charge of the hydrographic survey of that part of Ontario. He is an old employee of the department and if the hon. gentleman will look at ' Hansard ' he will find that some years ago Mr. Stewart was praised

by Sir Charles Tupper himself as being one of the ablest engineers in the department.


Samuel Hughes: For valuing ships ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Oh, well, I do not think it takes any extraordinary ability to value a ship of that kind, since we have got the opinion of the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who put a value on it, and also the member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) who said it was worth double what we got for it. I am informed by my officers that Messrs. Harrison & Son were so dissatisfied with the purchase that they wanted to return the boat and get their money back a few days after the sale.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Any ordinary business man would have sold this boat by public tender, and that is what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should have done. I want a direct answer to the question why he did not advertise this boat for sale; also the amount of money expended on her for repairs twelve months prior to the sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have answered that for the last Six years $6,571.89 have been spent on her for repairs.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: How much last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is an average of about $1,000 a year. I have not got the books of the department here and I cannot say what was spent on her last year, but I can get that information. If I had been asked for the expenditure for one year I would have obtained it and given it just as readily as for six years.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The minister did not tell me why he did not advertise that vessel for sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Purely and simply to avoid expense.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Hon. gentlemen do not seem to recognize what it would cost to advertise an article for sale in a dozen or two dozen or perhaps three dozen newspapers. The boat was pronounced worthless by the officer and if we spent $1,000 or may be $2,000 in advertising-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Rot.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It might cost $2,000. If we advertised only in the Liberal papers we would be censured and if we advertised in all the
newspapers it would cost a very large sum. I am informed that the engineer is a most respectable and a most efficient officer. He reported to me that the vessel was worthless and seeing that it would cost so much for advertising, offers were taken, and I remember that one was lower than the offer of Harrison & Son.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember the name.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I must confess that the defence made by the minister for the disposal of this boat in such a way is a mighty weak one.


Haughton Lennox: Let me ask the minister some things that he can tell. He tells us that it would cost a matter of $2,000 or $3,000 to advertise this boat for sale in the newspapers. That in itself indicates the extravagance of this government. Although the hon. gentleman is new in the department I presume he knows something of the inward workings of the government, and when he tells us that it would cost this large amount of money to advertise the sale of a boat he knows that the government is accustomed to make such reckless expenditure. It is something for the people to pause over and think about, that a Minister of the Crown, when dealing with a piece of property that he wants us to believe was only worth $3,000 pledges his position as a Minister of the Crown that he honestly believed it would cost from $2,000 to $3,000 to advertise in the newspapers the sale of that vessel.


William Alfred Galliher: He did not say that. He said from $1,000 to $2,000.


Haughton Lennox: It does not make the slightest difference whether it was $1,000 or $2,000. Put it at $500, if you like. It illustrates the same extravagant way of dealing with these questions, the same want of either judgment or candour. It must be well known to any business man that in a port like Owei) Sound, and in the neighbouring ports of Midland and Collingwood, having in them men who would be open to a reasonable transaction such as the purchase of a vessel like this, it would be amply sufficient to advertise in one newspaper in each of these towns at an expenditure of $10 or $15, perhaps not more than $5, in order to ensure an ample number of tenders-not from servants and supporters of the government, but from honest men willing to give a fair price for a good vessel such as this was. I say it does not commend itself to the common sense of this committee, and it will not commend itself to the common sense of the people when it goes forth, that a minister of the Crown in order to bolster up a bad case, tried to lead us to believe that the advertising of this vessel would cost $2,000.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Will the minister tell us how he would advertise that vessel to make it cost $2,000 ?


Samuel Hughes: Go to the Montreal ' Herald.' That would cost $1,000.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not think the Montreal ' Herald ' would be the proper paper in which to advertise the sale of a vessel in the Georgian bay. I think if it were advertised in the ' Globe ' and the ' Mail ' and in a trade journal, that would be sufficient, and that would not cost more than $25 or $50. When the minister, in order to defend this deal, which is a deplorable one, gets up and states that it would cost $1,000 to advertise the sale of that vessel, his case is very weak indeed, and I am sure the country will view it in that light.


Samuel Hughes: What did the minister do with the furnishings '! Did they go with the ship V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They were put on the other-vessel, the new ' Bayfield.'


William Humphrey Bennett: 
George Taylor: The hon. minister stated a few minutes ago that the reason he did not advertise this boat was that he wished to save expense. Now, this government profess to be a business government. I ask the minister how any farmer would dispose of some surplus stock which he wanted to-get rid of. He would go to a printer and get out one hundred or two hundred handbills. If the minister had done that, it would have cost $2 or $3, or perhaps $5. He could have sent these to his officers at Midland or Owen Sound, and they would have distributed them. These hand-bills would have announced that this boat would be sold by public auction on a certain day, and there would have been competition in purchasing her. The people of this country trusted the minister with that piece of their property, expecting that when it was no longer fit for service he would get the most he could for it. Did he do what any practical business man would have done, who had some surplus stock which he wanted to get rid of ? Hon. gentlemen who know that boat say that it is worth two or three times what the hon. minister sold it for to one of his political friends. I will guarantee that the engines and boilers of that boat could be sold for as much as the hon. gentleman got for the whole vessel. The bare fact is there, and the country can see it, that the hon. gentleman has handed over a valuable piece of the people's property to a political friend for half its value. He said he had another offer, but he does not remember who made it. Is it not on record in the department ? This whole transaction is an outrage, and the opposition will not he doing its duty if it does not bring in a motion censuring the government for it. Instead of putting the boat up for sale by public auction or tender, the hon. gentleman receives in a corner of his office this gentleman from Owen Sound, who wanted this boat for a particular purpose. and lets him have it. I venture to say that there was not a business man in Owen Sound who knew that the boat was for sale, except this political friend who wanted her for a special purpose, and the government handed the boat over to him. This is the way this business government, who nrofess to be an honest government, are trafficking politically with the property of the people of this country. I would feel untrue to my position. as a representative of the people, if I were to see the public property sacrificed in this way without making a protest. Is there a minister of the Crown who will get up and justify the course followed, or say be deals in this way with the people's property ?
/


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister said he had a lower offer from another party. What is the name of the party -who made that offer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember the name but will furnish it to the committee tomorrow with the report of the engineer aud everything else.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hou. minister the offer of this man and the report of Mr. Stewart ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Of course, all papers connected with the sale will be put before the House.


Samuel Hughes: Has he not also a letter from Mr. Harrison wanting him to take the property back and shedding a few tears over it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, it was Stratton who shed the tears.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This would not be so objectionable were it not the second time that the same thing has been done in Owen Sound. Only the year before last there was another transaction of a similar nature. The 'Petrel' was sold for about $2,000, and I have a letter in my possession saying that it was sold for one-third its value or less. Had an advertisement been put in the paper at Owen Sound, which would have cost fifty cents, that boat would have brought $5,000 or $0,000. I brought that transaction to the attention of the House, and I asked that in future, whenever any property belonging to the government was to be sold, some public notice should be given so that the country might get a reasonable return. This year we have a similar transaction again. The ' Petrel ' was bought by one Harrison, not the same gentleman who has bought this boat, but also a strong friend of the government. I ask again that in future some public notice should be advertised. I have a letter in my possession with reference to this boat, which says distinctly that if it bad been known in Owen Sound that she was for sale, she could have been sold for three times the money, but that nobody was made aware of the sale. We have sold this boat for $3,250 and have paid $50,000 for another boat to take her place. This boat had been kept up from year to year, and a few years ago it was stated that she was practically as good as new. She was in splendid repair and in good condition, and this is the first time we ever heard of her being otherwise.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the Auditor General's Report for last year, I find that over $3,000 was spent by the department on this boat in one year. On this same steamer, the ' Bayfield,' $3,000 were spent, according to the report of the Auditor General, in 1901. In the report of 1902, I find the following
expenditures on the steamer ' Bayfield.' John Harrison got $66 out of her; Carey & Co., London, got $107.80; Lewis Rice & Son, Toronto, got $102; A. M. McGregor, was paid $140 for labour of fitting her out; Maitland Rixon & Co., got $18.50 for lumber; Andrew Malcolm, Kincardine, got $35 for oak wainseotting; John Nisbit, Owen Sound, got $605 for labour, and the North American Bent Chair Company were paid $1,850 for work and supplies of all kinds for this boat; and Rickard Bros., of Owen Sound, for painting and graining, received $203. Yet in the face of the fact that all this money was spent last year, over $3,000 on this boat, the hon. minister was so weak that when his friends came down and cracked the whip over his head, he sold her to them for $3,200. I would ask the hon. minister this question, whether a deed of a certain water frontage in the town of Midland has been granted to Pratt & Co., coal dealers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is under consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the hon. gentleman how much under consideration it is, that the parties have already erected a $20,000 dock on the property-a property which the town had bought on the understanding that the piece in dispute would pass to it. What is the consideration these people are paying ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have stated that this water front has not been granted, and the hon. gentleman has no right to ask me what consideration has been paid.


William Humphrey Bennett: I asked what consideration is in the deed. The parties have made an offer to the department which the department is considering. What is the money consideration which has been offered for this water front ? What money consideration has been offered for this water frontage ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: These things are done in different ways. Sometimes a person applying for a foreshore makes an application purely and simply for a foreshore, leaving it to the government to decide the amount to be charged for the concession. Others make a direct offer, which is taken into consideration by the government. In this case, I think there was no direct offer made by these gentlemen. That is probably the reason why the matter is under consideration, because we must learn what value we should put upon the concession.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can state, for the benefit of the hon. minister that


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not think that we shall arrive at anything definite by departing so widely from the question before the Chair. The item under discussion

is tlie amount required for the construction of new steamers in British Columbia. I cannot see the connection between that and the foreshore in Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: We shall hear more of the foreshore. The hou. minister shall hear more of it in that town. And the hon. minister must have given a promise, because these people have erected their dock at the cost of $20,000 on this property. Going back to the question of the vessel. I think a good deal is to be said as to why the minister should be voted money to construct vessels. He has some good vessels-that is, his department has, though he seems to regard them as his own-and he accepted a great deal of responsibility when he permitted his party friends to force him (I am charitable enough to believe that he must have been forced), to sell this vessel for $3,200, when no less than $3,000 had been spent in repairs upon her only last year. Had there been a fair, honest, open, aboveboard sale of this vessel, she would have brought, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said, three times that amount. I am sure that the vessel, from what I have known of her in the past, and knowing that $3,000 was spent on her last year, would have sold for far more than double the amount that was actually obtained for her. So long as the hon. minister is in the position he now occupies, if he conducts the affairs of his department in this unbusiness like manner, he deserves, and, so far as I am concerned, he will receive, the censure of this side of the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sorry I was not here when this discussion commenced, and so have not had the advantage of hearing all that has been said. But 1 would recall to the attention of the minister some statements he made on assuming the office that he now holds. We had the statement from him that it was the intention of the department to establish the nucleus ofj a Canadian navy and to have training ships on the great lakes, and also on the Atlantic and the Pacific. It seems to me that, if it is the intention of the government to establish a naval force on our inland waters, the government lost a golden opportunity when it failed to retain this vessel to be used as one of its training ships. She was a staunch vessel, sea-worthy in every particular, and in view of the fact that $3,000 of the people's money had been spent, only a few months before, in putting her in good repair, it was little short of criminal not to retain that vessel as one of the means of making the nucleus of a navy upon the lakes. I reiterate and reaffirm what has been said by my bon. friends on this side, that this transaction was most unbusiness like .and most unfair to the country, that a vessel that has done such service as the ' Bayfield ' has done, and that has been maintained in a state of efficiency year after


Peter Macdonald: year at the expense of the country, when being put out of commission was not offered publicly for sale, so that the people interested might have an opportunity to bid upon her. If this practice is to prevail, and 1 am afraid, from what I can gather, that it prevails in other departments of the public service-the public money must be frittered away instead of being spent to the best advantage. Business methods are not being adopted by this so-called business government in directing the affairs of the country. I am sorry that the minister has neglected a manifest duty In not endeavouring to get the highest possible price for this vessel if her term of public service was to be closed. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what he is doing towards establishing a naval service on the lakes ? Does he intend to have training ships ? If so, will he buy second-hand vessels, or does he intend to get some out-of-date vessels of the imperial navy in order to establish this naval force on our inland waters as well as upon the ocean ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The matter of the naval reserve is under consideration. It is being studied, just as the question of the militia reserve is being studied. I do not think that anything practical will be done in reference to this matter before next year. The two projects require a good deal of study as to the cast involved and as to how the whole scheme is to be carried out. So, we have not considered yet whether we shall buy old vessels or construct new ones. That is a question upon which information must be gathered, that wre may establish the military service upon the best and most advantageous conditions


Peter Macdonald: I think I must call the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) to order. I do not think the discussion upon which he has entered has any relation to this item. Therefore, I would ask the committee to come back to the item and discuss the propriety of voting the sum of $9,000 for constructing new steamers in British Columbia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must come to the defence of the hon. minister. I have a very distinct recollection that when we were dealing with these items in the main estimates, a general discussion was not gone into at the time, because it was said that when we came to the supplementary estimates, In dealing with any one item, we could travel over the whole field, and discuss not only this branch of the service, but the other. Therefore, I respectfully submit that any member of this House is justly entitled to travel outside the record of this particular item.


George Taylor: And we are discussing
item 93, which covers not only this amount,



[Stage Direction]
but several others, and opens up practically the whole service of the department.
Peter Macdonald: Of course, if there has been an agreement between the minister and the committee as to liberty to be granted in this discussion, I do not wish to interfere. My business is to point out the rule, and allow the minister to make his own arrangement.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: To return to the point under discussion, I do not require the amount expended on the vessel last year, for the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has given that from the Auditor General's Report-over $3,000 spent in repairs of this vessel last year. Yet, she is sold by private sale for no greater sum than was spent in repairs for one year. It is possible for a minister to make a mistake, and for one mistake we would not criticise very severly. But this kind of thing has been repeated. The hon. minister will not even tell us now that such a thing will not take place again. When the estimates for supply were under discussion the other evening, we found out that he was paying from one hundred to one hundred and fifty per cent more for supplies than would be charged in any retail hardware store. We asked him if he would publicly call for tenders in future, and he would give us no satisfaction, but said in effect, that he would do as he liked in the matter. X think it is to be regretted that an hon. gentleman holding so high a position in the government of Canada should allow the funds of this country to be frittered away in the manner which characterizes the administration of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister bring down the names of the gentlemen who tendered for this vessel ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I said I would.


Samuel Hughes: No, he said he would bring down the letter of Mr. Harrison.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg pardon, I said I would bring down all the papers.


Samuel Hughes: What preliminary conversations or .correspondence did the hon. gentleman have with this Harrison Arm about this ship ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not know them, never saw them in my life.


Samuel Hughes: I think the minister has -carried on the deal at somebody else's direction. Who gave him the direction to make this deal ? We would not for a moment charge the minister with knowing anything about Owen Sound people. It must be some one in Ontario that
arranged the deal. I would like to know all the particulars that the minister can furnish us.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: There is another pertinent question. I would like to know if the Liberal candidate in the late byelection was the one who recommended the sale of this vessel at this figure ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I could not tell the hon. gentleman. I never saw the man in my life, and had no communication with him, directly or indirectly.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am simply asking the question : Was the sale of this vessel recommended by the Liberal candidate in the late by-election ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I repeat that I have had no communication [DOT]whatever with the gentleman to whom the hon. gentleman alludes. I do not know him at all, received no letters from him, had no correspondence with him whatever.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Who recommended the sale of the vessel ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Stewart recommended It.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Was it the minister who recommended the sale of this vessel to Harrison and Sons ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I took the responsibility, along with my colleagues, on the recommendation of the officers of the department, who told me the vessel was useless, and that the sooner we disposed of it the better; that the price offered was fair and reasonable, and that it was the highest price that we could get for it.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Were the officials who, in 1891, advised the expenditure of $3,000 on this vessel to put it in first class repair, the same officials who tell him today that this vessel was useless ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It was repaired in the previous season to do the work in the next season of 1902, and the officials stated that it would cost more than $3,000 to charter another vessel. The fact that $3,000 was spent on her during the season of 1901 shows that the vessel must have been a very poor one to require such extensive repairs in order to fit her for the season of 1902. She would not have been put in commission, I am informed, in 1902 if the ' Lord Stanley ' had not been used by the Department of Public Works.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Will the minister answer why he recommended that the vessel should be sold by private sale instead of by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Because I thought it was in the public interest to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did this whole transaction occur by accident ? Did the minister receive, without any previous communication, a letter from Mr. Stewart saying : You had better sell this vessel to these gentlemen, it is the best we can do; it is true we have not asked anybody to make a bid, but if we can get $3,000 it is my advice to take it and get rid of her as quickly as possible ? I would like the hon. gentleman to answer that question. Does he think that was a business-like proposition that this vessel, on which more than $3,000 had been expended the previous year, was no good after that, or that she was only worth $3,000 ? The hon. gentleman has said that $3,000 was spent on the vessel the previous year. What was it expended for ? The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) read out some of the items of the expenditure, including wainscotting put in the cabin. Were thirty-five men required to do duty on her as a crew in the previous season? Are there any reports in the department as to the condition in which the vessel was at the end of navigation in 1902 ? Surely if the hon. gqntleman hopes to pose as the equal in business capacity with his colleagues in the ministry, he will have to make a better showing than he does in this business. How does it happen that this transaction was done behind doors ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman had been here at the beginning of the discussion he would have heard what I have repeated several times, that when I entered the department in the fall of 1902 they were considering the service for the next season, and it was recommended to me by the officials of the department that we would have to replace the steamer ' Bayfield ' on the survey on Lake Superior, by the ' Lord Stanley,' which had been bought the year previous especially to do that service. Then in providing for repairs of the different steamers belonging to the department, nothing was provided for the steamer ' Bayfield ' because it was recommended by the officials to dispose of her. That is what I learned in the department. Mr. Stewart, I understand. the engineer in charge of the hydrographic survey in that part of Ontario, tried, as he informed me. to sell the boat. He notified, I think, everybody that he met that the boat was for sale. That is the report he made to me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A report in writing ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. I have said that 1 would bring all these reports before the House. Everything was done above-board. Hon. gentlemen will see by the papers that the whole transaction was done in good faith Mr. THOMSON fNorth Grey).
and as I have sand just now, for the sake of the .public interest and nothing else. If the officers had supposed that they would be able to sell the vessel for a higher price by advertising her for sale, they would have advised me to that effect. But that would have entailed considerable expense, and we would not get a cent more for the vessel. Under these circumstances, when we received the offer from Harrison and Son, we took the precaution to get more reports concerning the vessel, and it was after their offer had been in the department for a few days that the matter was closed. I consulted with the officer who Had been in charge of this part of Ontario, who is one of the most competent and honest officers in the department. After taking all these precautions, if anybody thinks the department has been cheated, well, I could understand there would be a reason for prolonging this discussion. But 1 do not see that there was anything out of the usual course except that public tenders were not asked for, and they were not asked for because they would have entailed a large expenditure. We sold the vessel under the best conditions possible.


Samuel Hughes: Are the government steamers inspected by government officials every year, their boilers, hulls and so on ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I forgot to mention that the vessel was condemned by the inspector.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister bring that report down to-morrow ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: What is the name of the vessel that was put on in place of this one ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The 'Bayfield.' It used to be the ' Lord Stanley.'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What price was paid for the ' Bayfield ' ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I am informed the ' Bayfield ' was bought in 1902 for $45,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understood the minister to say a moment ago that the very fact that $3,000 was spent on the former steamer in repairs -in one year was proof that she was no good. I cannot understand that reasoning at all. I understand there is $1,000 being spent now on tfiis new boat, so that, according to the hon. minister, she is very rapidly deteriorating. I would like the hon. minister to explain this line of reasoning in saying that $3,000 being spent on a boat proves that she was no good.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My reasoning is very simple and

any one would understand it except the hon. gentleman. It depends entirely on the value of the boat. If you put $3,000 on a boat that is not worth more than $3,000 it is a waste of money, but if you put $10,000 on a boat which is worth $50,000 and improve her by so much it is not a waste of money if you make her suitable for the service she is required to perform. The ' Lord Stanley ' was repaired at the works at Sorel in order to tit her for the work she was intended to perform on the great lakes. There had to be special rooms provided for the engineers, a special surveying bridge, and the necessary apparatus to do the work that she was destined to do.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: How much was spent on this vessel at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think between $8,000 and $10,000.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not understand the reasoning of the hon. minister. It seems to me that if the argument which he has advanced in regard to expending $3,000 on the ' Bayfield ' holds good, we have a serious charge against him for purchasing this vessel called the ' Lord Stanley.' He tells us that the boat cost $45,000 and that they expended $8,000 in repairing this vessel at Sorel. I find in the Auditor General's Report that the Poison Company received $3,200 for further repairs to the ' Lord Stanley,' which makes over $11,000 expended on the ' Lord Stanley.' This vessel cannot have been in very good repair. Now, we are not complaining about the purchase of the ' Lord Stanley,' but when the hon. minister declares that he sold the ' Bayfield ' in the public interest we claim that he did not, because, if he had sold it in the public interest he would have sold it by tender and not by private sale. A dollar would have paid for an advertisement in the Owen Sound newspapers, it would have brought a number of people interested in the sale together and the result would have been that the vessel would probably have brought three times the amount he received. I do not consider that the hon. minister was acting in the public interest in disposing of that vessel by private sale. I would ask the hon. minister why he purchased the 'Lord Stanley' if what he says about the ' Bayfield ' is right and why it was neeessary to spend $11,000 in repairing that vessel before he could put her into commission.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The same officers who recommended that we should offer for sale the steamer that was perfectly useless, recommended that thp ' Lord Stanley ' should be repaired. As regards the repairs made at the Poison Company, it is very easy for an hon. gentleman to pick out an item and make a great fuss about it. These repairs were purely and simply the result of an accident
by which the boat broke her propeller. She had to be repaired and we paid the market price for these repairs. She also injured her stern post.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Does the hon. minister say that it would cost $3,200 to buy a new propeller ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And a stern post.


Samuel Hughes: I understand the hon. minister is prepared to bring down some data to-morrow, I should like to have the report of the inspector of hulls, boilers and engines.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will bring down all the papers I have. If I knew what papers were in the records of the department I would say at once what they are. I know there are reports in the department on this question and I will bring them down.


Samuel Hughes: There should be reports in the department for every year during which this steamer has been in commission. The reports of the inspector of hulls and boilers and the history of the vessel should be in the hon. gentleman's department in black and white, and I want them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: You shall have them.


Samuel Hughes: And I want more than that. I understand that there is the old ' Bayfield ' that has been sold and there is a new ' Bayfield II.' Was ' Bayfield II ' formerly the * Lord Stanley ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I want the history of the ' Lord Stanley ' also.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: I want the reports of the engineers which are in the department, showing the condition of this vessel each year for four or five years back.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot give it for four or five years because we only bought the ' Lord Stanley ' last year.


Samuel Hughes: No matter when the hon. minister bought her. The hon. minister did not buy her on the American side. If she has been in commission in Canada, her record is in the department.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have the record of the boat in the department, but as regards any history of the boat I cannot undertake to give the history of a boat that was not the property of the department.


Samuel Hughes: Every one horse tug boat in the country has a history in the department.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What history does the hon. gentleman want ?


Samuel Hughes: The nature of the ship, her dimensions, tonnage, and the condition of her hull and boilers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is published in the public documents.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to have brought down here the history of these two vessels for five years back.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The history of these vessels is all in the reports of the department.


Samuel Hughes: We want it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It was put before the House at the beginning of the session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister said that to expend $3,000 on a vessel like the ' Bayfield ' was practically a waste of public money. Am I repeating correctly what the hon. minister said ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Considering her value.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the hon. minister that the officers who recommended the expenditure of that $3,000 which, according to the hon. minister was a waste of public money, were the same officers who recommended her sale after the money had been expended on her for $3,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I told the committee, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) had been here, that the officers of the department in the year 1901 recommended that this boat should be put in commission in the following year and that she needed to be repaired. They considered that in wasting $3,000, if I may so term it, in repairing the boat they were doing right because they had no other boat at their disposal. If they had chartered another boat it would have cost them $6,000 or $8,000 according to size and suitability of the steamer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were these the same gentlemen who recommended the purchase of the * Lord Stanley ' !


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman if they were the same persons. We have in the department many officers and they are not all consulted at the same time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not rather a serious situation that a vessel like the ' Lord Stanley,' purchased for $40,000 or $45,000, should Hon. Mr. PREFONT AINE.
immediately require an expenditure of $12,000 or $15,000 upon her to fit her for the services that she was to be engaged in ? We want information as to her tonnage, her engine power, the condition of the boilers and so on. If the minister admits that we wasted money on the ' Bayfield ' last year then we have the right to scrutinize most closely the expenditure which the minister is about to make on other vessels.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The ' Lord Stanley ' was built in England or Scotland as a very strong tow boat. We bought her from Davie at Point Levis for $45,000, and I think she cost over $80,000. She was in perfect order as regards engines and hull, and everything connected with her, but we had to fit her out for the special work of the hydrographic service adding an upper deck and chart house.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is she larger than the [DOT] Bayfield ?'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that she is about double the size.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the ' Lord Stanley ' 220 feet ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed she is twice the strength and about twice the size of the ' Bayfield.'


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was there any particular reason why the name should be changed V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, except that we wanted to retain the name of ' Bayfield,' who first started the hydrographic survey in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister be good enough to give us the report recommending the repairs- to the ' Bayfield.' He told us that information was laid on the Table at the beginning of the session. In what was the information contained.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The report of the department was laid on the Table of the House which contains reports of steamboat inspectors. The inspection of Dominion steamers of the department is made by an officer specially appointed for that purpose. It is not deemed necessary to publish his reports but they are on record in the department.
Mi-. HUGHES (Victoria). It shows nothing of the kind. The minister must understand that his smirking anchsmiling will not get his estimates through. The people of this country may submit to being robbed and skinned and fleeced for a time, but the opposition will let the minister know

about it. I must say in all kindness to tile minister that I do not like the manner in which he tries to smile the matter off. The people of this country are supposed to run this little show and if the minister does not understand it we will teach him. He is there only temporarily.


An hon. MEMBER.: Permanently.


Samuel Hughes: No. We will be over there in a little while and then the business of the country will be run properly. I want the report recommending the $3,000 expenditure on this ship within the last year. Will the minister bring that down.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I said so ten times.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is the minister going to lay down the policy that he will dispose of a vessel belonging to the government for the amount she cost in the previous year to repair. If that is his policy be should sell the ' Lord Stanley ' for $11,-
000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is that to be the policy of the minister ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no policy in the matter.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What policy did the minister adopt when he sold the ' Bayfield ' for $3,000, just what she cost to repair the previous year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Public interest.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: And sold it by private sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Public interest, as I have stated.


Samuel Hughes: Under what item is the minister going to give to-morrow all this information that we have asked to-night. It is not that we suspect him of being slippery in trying to evade his promises, but I would like to know under what item he will give the explanation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I never said I would give an explanation. I said I would file the documents as soon as they were copied. They will be put on the Table of the House.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will have to give the information from his place in the House and his estimates will not go through until he does.


George Taylor: The minister told us a moment ago that he would find Mr. Hurley's report on page 41 of the annual report of the department and the other night he told us that Mr. Hurley only made verbal reports. At page 41 there is the deputy minister's report in which he relates some information that I presume Mr. Hurley furnished him, but there is no report from Mr. Hurley. Mr. Hurley lives in Belleville and he knows the Americans caught bass and he told the deputy minister so, and the deputy reported it, but that is not a report from Mr. Hurley. We want to see Mr. Hurley's written reports to the department. I want the minister to explain why he made that statement to the House, that in his report we would find the report made by Mr. Hurley.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I made no such statement. I said that Mr. Hurley's report was contained in tlie report of the deputy minister.


Samuel Hughes: I find in the report the deputy minister says :


Inspector J.   M.@: Hurley, of Belleville, reports that sporting fish were very plentiful this year, especially so in the Bay of Quinte, Trent and other large rivers.
What are sporting fish ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Surely the hon. gentleman is not going to expect me to give him a description of every fish. I will not do it, because I do not know it.


Samuel Hughes: He says further :
Bass, trout and maskinonge were extremely abundant in the bay and lakes and on the rivers inland, where the coarse heads, viz., pike, pickerel, bull-fish, suckers, &c., do not go. On Trent and Moira rivers, pike, pickerel, &c., are numerous at the mouth and a few miles up the rivers until stopped by the dams. There are neither bass nor maskinonge there, hut up the rivers the sporting fish are plentiful.
I think the minister should explain what all this means, because it is nonsense to me. The report goes on :
I think the fishways would be disastrous to sporting fish in these rivers, as they would allow rough fish

Another term, I do not know what it means

-to go up, and they would infest the spawning grounds of the game fish.
What are game fish ? Then he says :
There is not enough supervision in the district. as oue overseer has over two hundred miles to look after. There should be a steam yacht for that section to enable the local officers to do their work.
Has the minister provided a steam yacht for the gentlemen to cruise around Lake Ontario V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Samuel Hughes: I hope the minister will endeavour to find out what game fish, sporting fish, rough fish, and coarse fish are ?


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister the date of the report of the engineer condemning the ' Bayfield'V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If I knew the date, 1 would give the report.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was there a report made last fall t>y any person condemning the ' Bayfield ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There must have been. I will bring all the papers.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find in the minister's report, dated December, 1902, on page 18, the following reference to the 'Bayfield':
The * Bayfield ' is a wooden steamer 110 feet long. 18 feet wide, and 9 feet deep. The steamer was engaged in the hydrographic survey on Lake Superior during the season of 1902. Mr. W. J. Stewart is in charge of this work. Captain A. M. McGregor is the sailing master of the ' Bayfield,' and the crew consists of nineteen men in addition.
There is not a single word in this report about the vessel being unseaworthy, but it states that she had been all summer, with a crew of over twenty men, on the exposed waters of Lake Superior. The minister had better admit the corn, that the clamps were put on him pretty hard, and that he was made to give this boat to John Harrison & Son, of Owen Sound, for $3,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman does not mean to convey to the committee that there is anything in the report stating that the vessel was seaworthy. The report only gives the list of the different boats in the possession of the department without stating in what condition they were.


William Humphrey Bennett: But if the boat had been in such a bad condition, why did the minister not state it in his report ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is not the place to mention it at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: That was probably the minister's view of what a report should be -to mention nothing.


George Taylor: The minister stated a moment ago that he had not Mr. Hurley's report. If he turns to page 5127 of ' Hansard,' he will find that he stated the other night :
I have here Mr. Hurley's report on page xli of the Blue-book.
There is nothing of the kind there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman is playing on words, just as lie plays on figures from the Auditor General's Report. What I stated was correct, that the report of Mr. Hurley is contained in the report of the deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Samuel Hughes: Further amount required for the Canadian Fishery Exhibit, $1,800.


George Taylor: Will the minister explain this V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This sum is required to make necessary repairs to the fishery exhibit in Ottawa. For many years there had been no repairs, and the specimens were being destroyed and some new ones were necessary.


George Taylor: This money is to be spent between now and the 30th of June. It must have been expended already, and the minister ought to have the details.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are fixing up everything. I would invite the hon. gentleman to visit the exhibit.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman ought to be able to tell us how he spent the money.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have stated how it was spent. It was spent in securing specimens, installing them, overhauling and papering the room, electric light and all that was necessary.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman must have a detailed statement.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no detailed statement.


George Taylor: Surely the hon. gentleman is not asking for $1,800 without being able to furnish the particulars.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman desires such a statement, I shall produce it, but I will have to give a statement of a lot of small sums spent on repairs and overhauling generally.


George Taylor: It is not usual for heads of departments to ask for money without having the details.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not got them.


George Taylor: Then let the item stand.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed by the officers of the department that the installing of the electric light, the painting and the rearranging of the fittings in the laboratory take up nearly the whole of the sum.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is surely not a business like proposition to ask the committee to vote $1,800 on such an explanation as the hon. minister has given. He says that the installation of the electric lights and the fitting up of the laboratory have cost nearly the total sum asked for. It is not unreasonable that we should require more information.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I ain informed by my officers that there is such a statement and it will be produced at once. We will let the item stand in the mean time.
Item allowed to stand.
To pay collectors of customs for services in connection with the issuing of fishing licenses to the United States vessels in 1902, $505.72.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The officers are allowed 5 per cent, and the collection amounted to $10,114.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have not had a statement yet as to how this business is conducted. I understand that the Dominion regulates the size of the meshes and appoints a number of inspectors to see that the law is enforced and that no fish are caught out of the proper season. Who gets the revenue, and if it is divided, what proportion goes to the Dominion and what to the provinces ? I understood a year or two ago that it was to be paid into a common fund, and that was to be afterwards divided in some way.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The revenue for 1901-2 was as follows : Ontario, $373 ; Quebec, $3,498 ; Nova Scotia, $6,062 ; New Brunswick, $11,658 ; Prince Edward Island, $1,829 ; Manitoba, $2,279 ; North-west Territories, $946 ; British Columbia, $41,178 ; Yukon, $1,110. License to United States fishing vessels, $11,000. Total, $79,169.58.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From what source do you receive that revenue ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. From licenses and fines.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We get no revenue from licenses in Ontario at all ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No.


George Taylor: You get only $300 revenue in Ontario and you are paying nearly $4,000 for salaries to the overseers.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. We are obliged, under the law to pay it.


George Taylor: You are not obliged to keep Mr. Hurley and Mr. Shepherd.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Hurley is a very dis-agreable person to the hon. gentleman, but he is doing good work.


Samuel Hughes: If he is doing such good work, would the hon. minister bring down a report of his good work 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think the hon. gentleman is unreasonable. It may take five or six weeks to prepare such a report.


Samuel Hughes: Has he got the report in his department ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, and as soon as possible I will have it copied.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman can bring down the original paper ? I venture to say that Mr. Hurley has not spent five weeks in visiting the lakes, and it could not have taken him very long to make a report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not complaining of the smallness of the revenue, nor that the work was not properly done, but was urging that at as early a date as possible we should reach some understanding with the provinces as to our rights and duties in connection' with the fisheries, and whether we are not entitled to more revenue than we are receiving. The government ought to direct its attention towards a settlement as early as possible, so that we may know what our duties are and what revenue we are likely to derive in the future.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is perfectly right, but he should not blame the present government or the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The question was pending before the courts for nearly three years before it was finally decided by the Privy Council In 1897 ,or 1898-I do not know exactly the date. But the judgment has left the Dominion government and the governments of the provinces in much the same position as before as regards certain questions. There are certain points still in dispute, because there is a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of the judgment. So, as I explained, we are face to face with another case before the courts. We are trying to arrange amicably to submit a case to the Supreme Court, but that has not been decided yet. There has been conference after conference, and, as I said, there are piles of documents on the subject in my department and in the Department of Justice. Many opinions have been asked and given, but we have not yet been able to come to an understanding with the provinces. I hope that within a few days after the end of the session, we shall be in a position to submit to the Supreme Court a case upon the points in dispute. Until that Is settled, we are obliged to have a modus vivendi, and this we are carrying out in good faith* The department is most anxious that the question should be settled as soon ns possible- it is in the interest of all parties. For instance, British Columbia is making a claim upon the Dominion for a large amount. There is, no doubt, a sum of money due to that province, but to ascertain the amount, you must know what the judgment means in certain points. Meantime we are acting

as administrators for the province of British Columbia, with their consent. The question cannot be allowed to remain in the present position, for it is not fair either to the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister seems not to be able to draw a distinction between complaining and asking for information. I respectfully submit that I have not made a complaint to-night, but I have endeavoured in a most courteous way to elicit information. And I was the more justified in asking for information to-night because practically the same statement was made last year as the hon. minister has just given to the committee, that, in a few days it was hoped by conference to have all these matters arranged. If my memory is not at fault, the decision of the Privy Council was given in 1898 or 1899. Now, is it too much to expect that between 1S99 and 1903 some understanding should be reached with the provinces with regard to this important question ? Particularly in view of the fact that we have a Supreme Court that was established for the settlement of these very questions between the provinces and the Dominion ? The government have a right at any time to state a case and submit it to the Supreme Court and ask an opinion with regard to it. This can be done at any time. Therefore, I think that there has been unnecessary delay in this matter. But in saying that, I do not want the hon. minister to say that I am unnecessarily criticising what has been done, but only endeavouring to find in what state the negotiations are for the time and when we may hope to have them finally completed.


Mr. HACKETT.: Would the hon. minister state the points still at issue between the provinces and the Dominion on this fishery question ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Different provinces have sent memoranda of their cases, and the Department of Justice would have to choose between the different points and claims made so as to find a common ground of discussion before the Supreme Court. I cannot give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett), on the spur of the moment, the information he desires.


Edward Hackett: Is it not true that the government of the Privy Council gave the inland fisheries exclusively to the provinces? I understand that the provinces are now claiming territorial rights-that is, the maritime provinces are claiming all within the three-mile limit around the coast. That is the point, I think to be decided. Has the government of Prince Edward Island made a claim for refund of moneys collected by the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I know that there is such a


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: question pending between the Dominion government and the provincial government of Prince Edward Island.


George Taylor: One item is allowed to stand for information that the minister has promised to bring down to-morrow. I think that, having voted so much money this evening, and having worked last night till two o'clock, we might now adjourn.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentlemen were courteous and obliging last evening and I appreciate that. I would suggest that there are just one or two items left in the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which might be taken up, and, if any information is desired with regard to them, the hon. minister will be ready to bring it down. I think we would make so much more progress if we proceed in that way. It is not late yet. '


Mr TAYLOR.: I do not think the hon. minister will make greater progress in that way.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is an item in the supplementary estimates of $1,800. I am willing to leave that there. But there is another item in the main estimates, at page Gl, item 715-construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation $322,000.


George Taylor: But that is only one of a number of items making up item 175, and the whole are discussable upon this particular vote.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is no objection to that.


George Taylor: The same is true with reference to this item No. 93 of the supple-mentaries, of which this vote of $1,800 stands.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. .: If I remember well, when this item of $322,000 was left in the main estimates, the other items had been all adopted. and this item was left because the committee wanted the detailed information with regard to the works that were intended to be carried out during next season. I procured a statement of these different works in detail. I think the item is not one that can be very much discussed-simply whether these aids to navigation are necessary or unnecessary. They have all been undertaken on the advice of the chief engineer of the department, and most of them have been asked for by the people interested in navigation. I think there can be very little room for discussion under this item.


George Taylor: The hon. minister does not seem to understand my statement. Though all except this one vote were passed, it was understood that all voted in item 175 were discussable when the item came up. I know there are several members who want

to speak upon tills item 175, and some of them are not here to-night. I ask that this item stand, and also the one concerning which my hon. friend from Victoria is promised information to-morrow. We will allow the $1,800 in the supplementaries to pass, with the understanding that it will be discussable later on.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The Minister of Inland Revenue has a few items which he would like to get passed. They are not controversial, and his officers have been here for the whole evening. Take item 229.


George Taylor: That is too heavy an item to take up to-night. There is a large increase to discuss.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I can explain it to the satisfaction of the committee. I have been waiting here all the evening to get some of my items through.


George Taylor: If we take it up we shall get into trouble, I fear.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not want any trouble, but I want fair play. I would like to pass some of these items. In fact I have been so much delayed that some of my employees will have to wait a few day's to be paid.


George Taylor: We will give you money enough to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, we can say that the hon. gentlemen were very good last evening, and I wish they would go on being good. However, if they refuse, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Railways will invite the attention of the committee again to the Bill respecting railways. It is a very long Bill, and we hope to make sufficient progress to-morrow almost to complete it.


George Taylor: I would suggest that the government send that Bill to a special committee. We have lost ten or twelve days discussing it now, and if the balance of the Bill were left to a committee of three or four members on each side, they' could put it into shape while the rest of the House was doing other work. We have lost, I think, ten days on that Bill, and have made very little progress, it is but little more than half way through. Let the hon. gentlemen 167
who take an interest on that Bill thresh it out in committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps my hon. friend will be good enough to renew that suggestion when the Minister of Railways is in his place to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 24, 1903.