1904-07-26

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday :
That the report of Judge McTavish on the tobacco industry and the evidence taken by him and all documents filed, he printed forthwith, and that rule 99 be suspended for that purpose.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have no objection to this motion. I may inform my hon. friend that the order has been given to have the papers printed. My hon. friend refers to the documents tiled. I understood that he wanted yesterday to have the evidence printed also.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The motion includes the evidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: The evidence is very voluminous, and the printing will involve a good deal of expense. It would make quite a pile if placed on the table. At all events I have no objection to the motion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it is possible to appreciate the report without the evidence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
DUNDO N A LD FA it EWELL.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the government if it is their intention when the House rises at six o'clock to-night to allow it to remain adjourned until nine o'clock. I understand that a very distinguished gentleman, who occupied a prominent position in the life of the empire i,s about to leave our country and I am sure that both aides of the House -would like an opportunity to bid him farewell. I refer to Lord Dun-donald.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, We are now in the fifth month of the session and I think the best way for us to serve the country now is to attend to our business here.



PERSONAL EXPLANATION-HON. WM. ROSS-DENNIS EAGAN LETTER.

Hon. WM. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I would ask the indulgence of the House while I make a personal explanation in connection with the charge that was made against me by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). The hon. member read from the Journals of the House and he had my denial before him when he made the charge. I am not going to read the whole of that denial. I said that I was in a position to give the

strongest and most emphatic denial the English language would enable me to do. I shall not, however, trouble the House with the whole of my personal denial which I made thirty years ago in this House. The hon. gentleman had my denial before him on the same page from which he read and we know what is thought of the man who conceals the truth. The same charge was made against me in a Tory paper in the year 1878 in the island of Cape Breton and 1 replied to it, also in a Conservative paper, as follows :
X did not think that out of some self respect, the old infamous charge that I wrote the * Dennis Eagan letter ' would be repeated, particularly as the most learned of the proprietors of the ' Advocate ' stated, ' we know now that Mr. Ross did not write the Dennis Eagan letter.' A more dishonest and disgraceful accusation was never made by one man against another. I stated in my place in parliament, as I now repeat in the strongest and most emphatic language, that it is possible for me to use, that I never by pen, pencil, or by any act of mine wrote the said letter, and that I never saw it. I was promised that it should be placed in my hands, hut that written promise was never fulfilled, but thinking it would, I had copies of it lithographed in pencil and ink as if written by me, so that they could be compared with the original, and I now send you the said copies and ask the editor of the ' Advocate ' if he has any regard for honest and truthful inquiry to compare it with the real letter which he still unjustly repeats was written by me. Why was this letter never produced in parliament and shown to those who are familiar with my writing ? In Victoria Dominion officials wandered about canvassing against me, and though asked, I never would so far forget my position as to write or use anything against them, and it would be folly to imagine that I would have followed any other course in Cape Breton. When the statement was made in parliament that I wrote the said letter, I telegraphed to North Sydney for information, and received the following reply from John Vooght, Esq. : ' You are at liberty to state in your place in parliament that I can prove that you did not write the Dennis Eagan letter.' I therefore, hurl back this vile slander, to the source from which it emanated, as the most unfounded and false accusation that it was possible to be made against me. If the editor of the ' Advocate ' could be moved to that sense of honour that should characterize noble minded men, instead of reiterating this slander, he will express his regret that he was entrapped and seduced to write what he must now know, was pure and unfounded.
The editor of the paper, also then a warm Conservative, wrote the following :
In the spirit of fair-play that has always characterized our paper, we have published Hon. William Ross's letter knowing that many of his friends in Victoria are our friends and subscribers. It is also due to Mr. Ross that we state that we have full and ample proof that the ' Dennis Eagan ' letter, of which such public use was made, was not written by him. A regard for truth and justice compels us to make this fact known to Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
our readers, were it necessary we could here write the name of the author of said letter, having the pleasure of seeing him almost every day. Nothing can indeed be gained by this unfair abuse of one who has retired from public life, and who has left a record behind him in Victoria and Cape Breton, for honour, justice, and Integrity In all his public career, which it would be well that others of greater sound and pretensions would follow and imitate.
Sir Charles Tupper made the same charge against me, and I Wrote him giving an explanation. Sir Charles Tupper, acting as a man of honour and a gentleman, made this public announcement, which will be found on page 1077 of the ' Hansard ' of 1887 :
I wish to make a very brief statement to the House before the orders of the day are called. The House will remember that, on a recent occasion, when the question arose of the policy of various governments in regard to the action of subordinate officers, I read a letter to the House which was handed to me by an hon. member who sits behind me, from a printed paper published at the time, which was some time ago, and which I had no idea was not authentic. It purports to be a letter written by Mr. Wm. Ross, then a member of this House, and at one time a member of the government ; and when I read that letter to the House I had entirely forgotten when it was originally produced, its authenticity was challenged. That statement was made by an hon. gentleman opposite, and I think it is right that I should say that I have received a letter from Mr. Ross calling my attention to the fact of his having denied the authenticity of the letter, and assuring me that the letter was a forgery. I take this opportunity of stating to the House that I accept that statement. I have not the slightest doubt of the accuracy of the statement made by this gentleman, who at this moment holds a very high and important office under the government. I have very great pleasure in making the fullest amend to the hon. gentleman, and in expressing my regret that I should have forgotten, what I now remember, that at the time the letter was produced, its authenticity was denied.
There is the statement of a gentleman. When I placed the matter before him, he gave a public denial of the charge he had read. I think that that is an example which should be followed by men who would like to be called gentlemen in this House, and who should regret having brought a false accusation against another hon. member. This false accusation was publicly denied by me thirty years ago and my denial was accepted, but to-day we find an hon. gentleman who would stoop to revive this old calumny. A more disgraceful accusation was never made in this House by one member against an other. It was due to myself and my constituency, to my friends in Halifax and in this House-and I have friends on both sides ; so much so that gentlemen on the other side express to me their regret that this old disproved accusation should have been revived-it is due to all parties. I say' that I should take this occasion to again

show up the falsity of this charge, and I trust we will hear no more of it.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to say that as the hon. gentleman did not give me any notice that he would bring this matter up, I have nothing to say at present, but will answer him in the course of a few days if necessary.


William Ross: The hon. gentleman never gave me any notice when he brought that accusation against myself, and I am treating him just in the same way as he treated me.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903-AMENDMENT.

Hon.   CHAS@: FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved third reading of Bill (No. 132) to amend the Railway Act of 1903.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: According as each amendment is disposed of other amendments may be moved.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that it is the intention of my hon. friend to move several amendments to this Bill on the third reading ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but to different sections.


Wilfrid Laurier: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if he can move more than one amendment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman himself cannot move more than one amendment, but I understood him to ask whether other amendments could not be moved by other members.


William Findlay Maclean: I have amendments dealing with different principles of the Bill, and should like to have them come before the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If one hon. member can move several amendments on the third reading, we went to a great deal of unnecessary trouble on the third reading of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. We had many amendments and had to distribute them among all the available members.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I will pass the amendments round.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will appreciate the reason of the ruling that a member can speak only once on the same question. If he were allowed to move amendment after amendment there would be no end to some debates.


William Findlay Maclean: I understand.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) who has said that there is no good purpose to be served by prolonged discussion of these amendments as they come up. They were fully discussed last year when they were up in this House, and this session in the Railway Committee, to say nothing about the discussion in the committee of this House. So far as this particular amendment is concerned, I do not see why I should depart from the opinion I expressed before, when I said that it seemed to me there were doubts as to whether we had the power to deal with this amendment. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will remember that when the question was up on a former occasion, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) concurred with me in the opinion that there were these doubts. I believe that if we adopted this amendment, the Railway Act would have to be recast in many particulars to make it workable.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the House object, Mr. Speaker, to the name of my hon. friend from Peel, (Mr. Blain) being substituted for mine as the mover of this amendment ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The amendment is in the hands of the House and the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Maclean's) name cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous consent.


Robert Laird Borden: As my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) was under a slight misapprehension as to the rules of the House, I think this concession ought to be made to him without question. Before the amendment is put, I desire to say that I agree absolutely with the view expressed by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) that it is proper that express companies should be

controlled. The subject was discussed last year when the Hailway Act went through. The express business, however, it must be noticed, is somewhat different from the ordinary railway business. The goods sent by express are collected sometimes from street to street or from house to house. The work involves cartage, and it also involves arrangements with steamship lines, stage lines and so on. It is a more complicated subject, so far as dealing with the rates is concerned, than the control over railway rates exercised by the Railway Commission. I have looked carefully over the Railway Act and I find that there is no provision of special importance with regard to express companies except section 278 which reads as follows :
Every company which grants any facilities for the carriage of goods by express to any incorporated express company or person, shall grant equal facilities, on equal terms and conditions, to any other incorporated express company which demands the same.
That is designed, I suppose, for the purpose of preventing a monopoly by any company of the express business over any particular railway. It has been said in this House that that section has not fulfilled the purpose for which Jt was designed. I have been referred to litigation which was instituted for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this section before the present Railway Commission was established. So far as my opinion is concerned, I should think that that section is capable of being enforced. Our commission has power of enforcement of that section differing somewhat from the powers of similar tribunals in the United States of America. Of course, it would be some relief to establish competition, if competition be possible. I have heard it stated by those who have studied the matter somewhat that it is not very easy, upon a single line of railway to have competing express companies. If that be so, and if, as a matter of practice, the purpose of section 278 cannot be carried out, that affords all the more reason why there should be in Canada some effective control of the rates charged by express companies. I believe that the express rates in this country, in many departments of business at least, have been very materially reduced within the last eight or ten years. I have been so informed by those who are in a position to know, and I believe the statement is correct. The express companies are doing a very large and very important work. I was surprised, on making some investigations into the question to learn how large the amount of traffic carried by the express companies has become. But that is a further reason why there should be control of rates. On looking over the statute. I concur in the view expressed by the Minister of Justice that to merely insert the words ' express companies ' as proposed by the amendment of my hon. friend, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
would not only result in uncertainty and confusion, but would probably render the Act absolutely ineffective so far as any attempt to control the express companies is concerned. Therefore, my position with regard to the matter is this : I believe in the control of rates of the express companies. I recognize the fact that control must come, and that it ought to come at the earliest possible date, but I do not believe that it can be attained by the insertion of two words in this Bill. While I sympathize with the motive of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) and am absolutely in favour of some control being exercised upon the rates of express companies, I do not think that purpose can be effected in this way. I will be prepared, however, to support a bill with proper conditions, which, I hope, will be brought in for the purpose of exercising over the rates of express companies a control similar to that which at present is exercised by the board of railway commissioners upon the rates of railway companies. It is for that reason, and that alone, that I could not support the amendment of my hon. friend. I think it will be ineffective and will only end in confusion. At the same time, as I say, I absolutely sympathize with the motive which actuates him in proposing this amendment and 1 will be prepared to carry it into effect in the proper way.


William Ross: I am heartily in sympathy with the proposal to put express companies under the control of the Railway Commission. I do not see why an off-shoot from the railway companies such as express companies, doing a business probably, of $2,000,000, as near as I can find out from the report of the Minister of Railways, should not come under the control of the Raijway Commissioners. But, while I am heartily in sympathy with this idea, the matter has come up in such a way that it seems impossible for us, if we are well advised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the leader pf the opposition (Mr. R- L- Borden) to vote for the motion nowr standing in the name of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). I shall have to vote against it, considering that I am legally advised that it will be of no use. But my opinion is not changed. I am still heartily in favour of the control of express companies by the Railway Commission, and I hope that the government at an early day will bring in a measure to effect that change.


Richard Blain: As my name has been substituted for that of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) as mover of this amendment. I wish to say a few words. AVhen this question was before the Committee of the AVhole House a few days ago. I expressed myself as in accord with the principle of the amendment. I have not since changed my opinion ; I am still in favour

of the motion that I propose to ask the House to vote upon. I am of opinion that the people of this country believe that the express companies should be controlled by the Railway Commission as the freight rates of railways are controlled by this eommis-. Sion. Hon. members, of course, are aware that a considerable proportion of the goods now consumed by the Canadian people, especially in the older provinces, are carried by express. In the central part of the province of Ontario the farmers are devoting themselves to the cultivation * of such products as must find their way to the market in large centres by means of express carriage. The farmers in the immediate vicinities of the larger cities are almost compelled, these times, to send their products by express to the consumers. Indeed there are many farmers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the larger portion of whose products are carried by express to market. The House must remember that the farmers are particularly interested in this matter ; and while it has been said by ,the Minister of Justice that possibly this motion will not cover all that is required, and will not place the express companies under the control of the Railway Commission, yet the House must bear in mind that the government had distinct notice of this proposition one year ago. One year ago my hon. friend from East York brought this matter before the House, and called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that it was desired that the express companies should come under the operation of the Railway Commission. I am of the opinion that the government since last year has had ample notice, and I think the people of Canada will consider it to be the duty of the government at this session of parliament to introduce such legislation as will place the express companies under the control of the Railway Commission. I shall support this amendment. If it does not measure up to the requirements of the people on this question, then I think it is the duty of the government, who have power to legislate, to substitute for this amendment, if the House so expresses its will, such legislation at this session as will bring the express companies under the control of the Railway Commission.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER.: 
William Findlay Maclean: The division that has just taken place is rather portentous.' It may mean a new era in this country and it. shows that at the present time the people are beginning to see where they are in regard to this new and progressive question. I now beg to move the following amendment :



W. C. GOOD,

[Stage Direction]
Sec.-Treas.
I have a similar letter from the Farmers' Association of the county of Haldimand, Mr. MACLEAN.
from Algoma, from South Huron, from West Simcoe-all these name their members and trust they will support the motion ; from East Kent, from North Wentworth, from East Lambton, from South Wellington, from Lennox, another from Kent, from the Ratepayers' Association of Toronto and a number of others. They are all to this effect, that parliament is the only body that can regulate a standard passenger rate, that it ought to be defined, that it is in the interest of the public that it should be defined, and that wherever a passenger rate has been defined by parliament or by a legislature lower passenger rates have resulted. Notwithstanding all that has been said in this House about the smallness of the law in Michigan and about the smallness of the law in the state of New York, the great fact is that the majority of the travel-again I assert it in this House without fear of contradiction- the majority of the travel in the state of New York and the majority of the travel in the state of Michigan by reason of the legislation there, is for 2 cents, and less than 2 cents. 1 say this, that in a number of states where they have advertised a thousand mile' ticket for $20, which is 2 cents a mile, good results have come from it, and that the time has arrived when we must have a standard passenger rate fixed in this country. I assume to fix it by this amendment, and fix it as fairly as can be under the circumstances.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is put I desire to offer a few observations in regard to it. I thought that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was going to speak. I yield to no one in appreciating the importance of reasonable passenger rates in this country but I think it is undesirable that we should pass any legislation which might result in the postponement for an indefinite period of what we would regard as reasonable passenger rates. The motion of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) provides that :
The tolls charged in any standard passenger tariff shall not exceed the following, namely :-for all companies the gross earnings of whose passenger trains, as reported to the Minister of Railways, under the provisions of section 304 of this Act, equalled or exceeded the sum of $3,000 for each mile of road operated by the said company, two (2) cents per mile ; and for all companies, the earnings of whose passenger trains, reported as aforesaid, were over $2,000 and less than $3,000 per mile of the road operated by the said company, two and one-half (21) cents per mile ; and for all companies whose earnings, reported as aforesaid, were less than $2,000 per mile of road operated by the said company, three (3) cents per mile.
The basis of that legislation, as I understand it, is to be found in certain legislation of the state of Michigan which legislation, I am informed, does not apply to the whole state of Michigan. It applies to only

a portion of the state of Michigan. In order that we should go to the state of Michigan for the purpose of establishing the basis of our railway legislation in Canada we must first be absolutely certain that the conditions in the state of Michigan and in Canada are precisely the same. I have not heard up to the present time anything which would convince me of that. The state of Michigan contains a little less'than 7,000 miles of railway, while the Dominion of Canada, I suppose thirty times as large, contains something less than 19,000 miles of railway. The state of Michigan is populated very much more densely than the Dominion of Canada as a whole. Unless I am convinced by a better argument than that which I have heard that the conditions in the state of Michigan are exactly the same as they are in Canada, and I do not believe they are, I do not propose to go to the state of Michigan to find out what sort of legislation we should pass in regard to this subject. If we pass this statute the Railway Commission of Canada will properly consider it binding upon them and for that reason they will for all time to come govern themselves by it and thus they will be unable to give us a two-cent rate in many parts of the country where the conditions provided for by this amendment do not prevail and for many years are not likely to exist. It seems to me much more probable that this amendment will retard the establishment of reasonable railway rates in this country, as a whole, than that it will improve our opportunities in that regard.
I do not know whether those who promote this legislation have investigated all the conditions in the state of Michigan. Has any hon. member of this House, for example, investigated the remuneration of railways in Canada as compared with the remuneration of railways in the state of Michigan for the carriage of the mails ? I suppose that is a fairly important subject to consider. In the state of Michigan with less than 7,000 miles of railway more than $1,000,000 are paid every year for the carriage of the mails. In the Dominion of Canada with railways extending over an enormous area and totalling 19,000 miles, we pay only $400,000 more for the carriage of the mails, namely, $1,413,835. These are matters which are proper to be considered before we undertake to apply the Michigan legislation to the Dominion of Canada.
But, the most important objection I have to this amendment is that within six months after we have appointed a tribunal for the purpose of dealing with this very subject and before we have had the slightest experience of the public benefit which would result from the work of that tribunal we propose to take out of the hands of the tribunal the very work that parliament has entrusted to it.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: Infanticide.
240i


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: Yes. I do not think that is good legislation. I should thiuk that parliament, after having committed this whole subject, to the Railway Commission by legislation, after having conferred upon that commission as large powers as were ever conferred on any similar body, should, within six months and before any opportunity has been given to ascertain the benefits to be derived from the commission, proceed to take from that commission the very work which was entrusted to it. If we propose to deal with passenger rates why not deal with freight rates in this way ? Freight rates are more important to the people of this country than passenger rates. Any farmer in this country who spends $20 in the course of the year in passenger rates will perhaps pay $200 in freight rates so that the all important question is rather freight rates than passenger rates. Besides, as has been pointed out in this House and I think in the committee, passenger rates are to a large extent ameliorated by the fact that we have excursions from time to time, cheap rates, which are taken advantage of by the people of the country, whereas there are no cheap excursion freight rates in this country. I think that if parliament were to proceed to deal with this question of passenger rates in this way it would be stultifying itself unless it proceeded at the same time to abolish the whole Railway Commission and to deal also with the subject of freight rates. If this motion means anything it means that the legislation which we passed last year was of no avail.
Now, what effect would this legislation have if applied in Canada at the present time ? The Canadian Northern Railway has earnings of $315 per mile. How long will it be before we get a passenger rate of two cents on the Canadian Northern ? The earnings of that railway must increase from $315 per mile to $3,000 per mile before we shall get a two-cent rate on the Canadian Northern.


William Findlay Maclean: We have a three-cent rate on it now by the legislation of last year.


Robert Laird Borden: The object is to get a two-cent rate upon it and this legislation will produce a two-cent rate on the Canadian Northern when the passenger earnings have increased ten times what they are at the present time.


William Findlay Maclean: I grant you that ; but it will get you a two-cent passenger rate on the Grand Trunk Railway to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: The Canada Atlantic Railway earns $670 per mile. We will get a two-cent rate on the Canada Atlantic when its earnings have increased to five times what they are at present. That does not seem to promise any very early relief on that railway. The Canadian Pacific Rail-

way earns SI.400 per mile. We will get a two-cent rate by tliis legislation wlien tlie passenger earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway have something more than doubled. Is that very likely to occur within the next ten years ? It does not seem to me that the legislation suggested by my hon. friend, and I appreciate and sympathize with the motives which have led him to propose it, is likely to result in a very great amelioration of passenger rates in the early future.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the Grand Trunk ?


Robert Laird Borden: The Grand Trunk earns $2,200 per mile and under that the Grand Trunk would be entitled to charge two and a half cents per mile.


William Findlay Maclean: To-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: To-morrow, and we have legislation at the present time on the statute-book which obliges the Grand Trunk to charge only two cents per mile and I have heard my hon. friend argue that in- this House.


William Findlay Maclean: For third-class passengers.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, for third-class passengers, but inasmuch as third-class passenger traffic is abolished in this country, and that practically there is very little distinction between first-class and second-class, it would not seem that the legislation existing on the statute-book has had very much influence upon the Grand Trunk.
I can see what this legislation would result in if applied to a great railway system like the Grand Trunk. It would simply result in the Grand Trunk Railway putting under separate corporations a number of branches which are now included in its general system and it would impose on the people in remote and sparsely settled portions of the country a higher railway tariff than they are subjected to at the present time. That seems to be the propable result. At the present time you have a great system. you have eight or ten or twelve roads which were formerly operated by eight or ten or twelve companies, operated by one company, and under the management of one company-the Grand Trunk Railway system. But if legislation of this kind were put on the statute-books, the Grand Trunk Railway would naturally retain under the management of the parent company only those main lines whose earnings would bring them under the terms of this statute, and it no doubt would seek to place under separate corporate management the subsidiary companies running through sparsely settled portions of the country, because the earnings on these portions of the road would not come within the operation of this statute. It seems to me that this would be the result of legislation of this kind. Thus sparsely Mr. R. L. BORDER.
settled districts would pay higher railway rates.
But why should we seek in this parliament to deal with this matter in this way when we have in the Railway Commission of Canada the most ample powers that any tribunal ever possessed for dealing with it. Let us look at some of those powers and inquire if there is any reason why we should pass by the Railway Commission. Let me say that the Railway Commission of Canada differs in important respects from many similar tribunals. I supported the idea of a Railway Commission before a measure for its creation was ever submitted to parliament:; I supported it for what I thought were good reasons. The Act we have passed confers on the Railway Commission power not only to fix rates, but to enforce them, and in that very important respect it differs from the Interstate Commerce Commission, and from other tribunals in the United States, very few of which have any power of enforcement. For instance, the question of rates is fought out before the Interstate Commerce Commission, but you have to go to the courts to enforce the decision and there the decision of the Interstate Commission is found not to be binding. A railway corporation is able to fight out the whole question again in the courts, and it is only by obtaining the judgment of the courts that eventually you obtain a declaration against the rates disallowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In section 251 of our Railway Act there is this provision :
The company may from time to time prepare and issue tariffs of the tolls to be charged as hereinafter provided, for all traffic carried by the company upon the railway.
The word ' traffic ' includes passengers as well as freight.
Section 251, clause 2 says :
All such by-laws shall be submitted to and approved by the board.
' These tariffs can thus have no effect whatever until approved of by the board. Section 252 says :
Such tolls may be either for the whole or for any particular portions of the railway ; but all such tolls shall always under substantially similar circumstances and conditions be charged equally to all persons, and at the same rate.
Section 252, subsection 3 says :
No tolls shall be charged which unjustly discriminate between different localities.
Section 257 says :
The board may disallow any tariff, or any portion thereof which it considers to be unjust or unreasonable, or contrary to any of the provisions of this Act, and may require the company, within a prescribed time, to substitute a tariff satisfactory to the board in Peu then of, or may prescribe other tolls in lie i of the tolls so disallowed, and may designate the date at which any tariff shall come into force.

Section 263 says :
The tariff of tolls which tlie company shall be authorized to issue under this Act for the carriage of passengers between points on the railway shall be divided into two cases, namely :
The maximum mileage tariff, herein referred to as standard passenger tariff ;
An 1 reduced passenger tariffs, herein referred to as special passenger tariffs.
2.	The standard passenger tariff shall specify the maximum mileage tolls to be charged for passengers for all distances covered by the company's railway ; such distances may be expressed in like manner as provided herein in respect of standard freight tariffs.
3.	Special passenger tariffs shall specify the toll or tolls to be charged by the company for passengers in every case where such tolls are lower than the tolls specified in the company's standard passenger tariff.
Section 264 says :
A standard passenger tariff shall be filed, approved and published in the same manner as required by this Act in the case of a freight standard tariff.
Section 265 says :
All special passenger tariffs shall be filed by the company with the board, and published as required by section 274, three days before any such tariff is intended to take effect.
Section 274 provides that the company shall at each station deposit and keep on file at a convenient place for the inspection of the public its standard and special passenger tariffs and freight tariffs of both classes. It shall also, in some public place in its stations give notice as to where Its tariffs can be inspected.
Therefore you have under this statute complete and ample provisions for dealing not only with freight rates, but with passenger rates. You have a commission appointed for that purpose. You have a commission which has powers of investigation which are not possessed by this parliament, and I cannot at the present time see any good reason why that duty which parliament in its wisdom has committed to the Railway Commission only last year, should be taken away from it, and that we should proceed to deal with a subject which certainly we cannot investigate as fully or as carefully as can that tribunal. If we are to accept this amendment, then it seems to me that it was very unwise to undertake an annual expenditure of $100,000 or $150,000 for the purpose of maintaining this commission. We have thought it wise to entrust to the commission these duties, and if now we are able to take them upon ourselves, this expenditure of public money would be useless. I say that if you pass legislation such as is suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) it would in the first place give the railway companies an opportunity of demanding higher rates on freight; in the second place it would give them an excuse for abolishing all excursion rates, and it might eventually
result in a poorer service in districts where there is no competition. Moreover, it adopts the principle that rates shall be graded according to earnings, and therefore it must result in higher rates for sparsely settled districts where the earnings are smaller. Further, it might cause them to carry on their branch lines under separate corporate entities, so as to avoid bringing these branch lines under the terms of the proposed, statute.
I believe in giving the railway commission an opportunity to demonstrate its usefulness. If it does not justify its existence by establishing reasonable passenger and freight rates in this country, it is because the personnel of the commission is not suitable, or because the powers which have been conferred upon it are not sufficient. I am prepared to support the administration in dealing with either of these defects should they become apparent. I do not understand that any such difficulty has arisen up to this time. Let us therefore give the Railway Commission an opportunity to know what it can do, and if from either of these causes, of which I have spoken, it does not do the necessary work, then let us reorganize the commission or amend the legislation.
in conclusion, it seems to me that the legislation to which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has directed the attention of the House might eventually result in comparatively low fares in thickly settled portions of the country, and in much higher fai'es in x'emote districts. That would be the natural tendency, if the principle of this legislation were insisted upon. In saying what I do, I trust I do not fail to appreciate the efforts which my hon. friend from Bast York (Mr. Maclean) is making in the public interest. I sympathize in the objects which he has in view. The only difference between us is. that I think, considering the legislation of last year, his objects can be best accomplished by the Railway Commission which we have appointed for that purpose. He thinks on the contrary, that it is wise, within certain limitations to take that work out of the hands of the Railway Commission and to establish a standard according to earnings, which, in his opinion, would have excellent results, but which does not present itself to me in that view. For these reasons which I have very briefly stated, I cannot support the amendment of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I supported the principle of this amendment some years ago in this House. I have had discussions with the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) regarding it. and I reached an understanding with him as to what principle i would support, and this amendment being in harmony with that principle I believe it my duty to support it. I wish for a few moments to refer to an argument made by the leader of the opposition that it would ! result in higher freight rates. Of course it

might, there is no question about that. If the railroads did not find it paying, they might charge higher freight rates, but I am told, although I am not prepared to vouch for the correctness of the statement, that in Southern Michigan where the law applies, it has not resulted in higher freight rates and therefore, I would assume that that is not likely to happen here.
Then it was said that if this law is passed we might not have excursions. 1 again turn to Michigan for an example. I find that excursions there are as numerous as in Canada and yet, this law applies to the Southern part of Michigan, so I do not think that any fear is to be apprehended from that.
It is also said that it might result in portions of the railway system being put under a different management. I think that is not at all likely to happen. Because this only applies to a company whose passenger earnings reach $3,000 a mile, and in the remote portions of the country this amount would not be reached so that the law could not apply to them and there would be no necessity for putting such a section under a new management.
The next argument was that we should not copy Michigan in this unless everything there is on all fours with the conditions in Canada. We who live in Ontario adjoin the state of Michigan, and are back and forth among Michigan people very frequently and know the state well, always regard Michigan as being the same type of country as Ontario. We do not see much difference when we cross the border between the pursuits of the people and the conditions of life. The railroad operations are much the same and therefore 1 could not see any serious objection to following the example of Michigan.
One objection raised was that this measure applied only to a certain locality. In my judgment this provision was made simply for this reason, that the southern portion of Michigan is thickly settled, while the northern portion is still a comparatively new country and not thickly settled. To make it apply to the northern peninsula, a new section of country, was deemed improper owing to the comparatively light travel on the railways there. But X think it might well be left to apply to the whole country because when the earnings reach $3,000 a mile, it would be regarded as fair that the company should reduce its passenger rate to 2 cents a mile.
A word with regard to the question of whether we should introduce this law in view of the fact that the Railway Act was passed last session. To my mind that is a very strong argument against it, the strongest we have heard advanced, because the clauses of the Act which the leader of the opposition has cited seem to very amply cover the ground, and our Railway Commission has the substantial advantage over the Mr. SPROULE.	.
Railway Commissions in the United States that whereas they must depend on public sentiment to compel the legislature or federal authority to enforce the law, in our Act we have embodied the authority to enforce the law. There is one difficulty in connection with the administration of the new Railway Act and that is that it applies only to railways under federal authority. It does not for instance, apply to government or provincial railways, but only to those under federal control. It may be said that if we * pass such a law here, we could only enforce il upon the railways under our control. That of course is true, but if we enforce the law on railways under federal control I feel satisfied that under the principle of competition we would at a very early date induce other railways to adopt the same rate, and therefore, the principle would soon be of general application. The fact that by this law the principle would apply to [DOT]government as well as to other railways might be some justification for the introduction of this measure now, but perhaps the main aim was to have the passenger rate under a fixed and determined law


William Findlay Maclean: As they have in England.
Mr. SPROULE

so that it would operate almost by an automatic process. We would know what the principle was and all we would have to do would be to look up the government returns and see if the earnings of a railway justified the reducing of the rate and when the earnings reached that amount the railways would be compelled to reduce the rate and the people would clamour for such a reduction. What we rather fear is that the Railway Commission is another court for the purpose of determining anld deciding disputes between railway companies and individuals, corporations, localities, and other railway companies, and that it would be slow in its operation and difficult to move to bring about what the people desire, that is a speedy relief from the grievances under which they are labouring.


Mr. NAT. BOYD.: I may say, Sir, that in Manitoba, as is very well known to the members of this House, the provincial government have control of the freight and passenger rates of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. They have that control, subject to an arrangement that until the rates are reduced to a certain figure if there should be any loss in the operation of the railway the province is not to bear that loss but when the freight rates come down to, 1 think, 10 cents a hundred, then. If the company should lose on the, operation of the road the province is to bear any such loss. The provincial government have control of the passenger and freight rates and if this measure which is proposed by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) was to pass

it would take away that control which we believe is essential and which now gives to the province the power of regulating the rates and at the same time protecting the people from having to meet any deficiency. On the other hand if this-resolution was to come into force and any loss should accrue in the operation of the Canadian Northern the people of the province would suffer. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) has remarked, the matter of freight rates is of a great deal more importance, so far as the farmers in Manitoba are concerned, than are the passenger rates, because the farmers are not the people who travel a great deal. It is the other people of the country who do the travelling and pay out' the greater portion of the passenger receipts of the railways. But the farmers of Manitoba pay possibly an average of $150 to $200 in freight rates, which is of a great deal more im-Ijortance to them than the question of passenger rates. I think that the same would apply to the whole farming community of Canada. If the farmers would stop to think about it, they would find that the legislation proposed is not in their interests but rather in the interests of the people of the cities and the commercial people.


William Findlay Maclean: I have fifty letters here from farmers in favour of it.


Nathaniel Boyd: The farmers at times are misled, and I do not know any one better qualified sometimes to lead them astray than my hon. friend. I represent a farming community and am always ready to discuss anything with them and prepared to show them why I take any line, and I would be quite prepared to discuss this question with them. I say that the passenger traffic is a great deal more important to the commercial interests, and this resolution would be of greater benefit to the commercial people than to the farming communities. If the hon. gentleman would introduce something which would lower the rates of freight on the 2,000 or 3,000 bushels of wheat which the average farmer raises in Manitoba, he would be doing something more beneficial to them than he could possibly do by this proposition, which I would call ' a catch vote ' if introduced by some people. The Canadian Pacific Railway, I understand, have an average passenger rate to-day under two cents a mile, so that I do not see of what benefit my hon. friend's resolution, if adopted, could be to anybody. As shown by the leader of the opposition, it would not apply to the Canadian Northern, the Canada Atlantic, the Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway. What then is the use of it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman say it will not apply to the Grand Trunk Railway ? It would give a two and a half cents per mile rate and on the Michigan
Central would give a two-cent rate to-morrow.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am speaking of the roads I am more familiar with. As far as the people of Canada as a whole are concerned, this would not be of any particular benefit to them. I am in favour of low passenger rates. I believe that if the railway companies would consult their own interests, it might be better for them to charge a lower rate and increase their traffic, but they seem to understand that question and they so regulate their rates that on the Canadian Pacific Railway the average is under two cents a mile. The hon. gentleman's resolution, if adopted, would interfere with the arrangements which the Manitoba government have made with the Canadian Northern and impose a burden on the people of that province which we ought not to do, and I am going to vote against the amendment.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Maclean.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Armstrong,	Maclean,
Bennett,	McGowan,
Blain,	Monk,
Clancy,	Robinson (Elgin),
Cochrane,	Sproule,
Halliday,	Thomson (Grey),
Ingram,	Ward,
Kidd, Lennox,	Wilson.-17.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Barker,	Lavergne,
Bazinet,	(Drum. & Artha.),
Beith,	LeBlanc,
Blanchet,	Loy,
Borden (Halifax),	Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren (Huntingdon)	
Bourbonnais,	McCarthy,
Boyd,	McColl,
Broder,	McCool,
Brodeur,	McGugan,
Brown,	Mclsaac,
Bruce,	McLennan,
Bruneau,	Marcil (Bagot),
Bureau,	Matheson,
Calvert,	Mignault,
Carbonneau,	Morin,
Champagne,	Morrison,
Christie,	Oliver,
Copp,	Paterson,
Costigan,	Porter,
Cowan,	Prefontaine,
Delisle,	Pringle,
Demers (Levis),	Puttee,
Erb,	Reid (Grenville)
Fielding,	Richardson,
Fitzpatrick,	Riley,
Fortier,	Rivet,
Gallery,	Roche Halifax),
Ganong,	Rosamond,
Gauvreau,	Ross (Ontario),
Gervais,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gibson,	Ross (Yukon),
Gilmour.	Russell,
Girard,	Schell,

Harty,	Scott,
Henderson,	Smith (Vancouver),
Heyd,	Stephens,
Holmes,	Stewart,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) Talbot,	,
Hyman,	Taylor,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Thompson Johnston (Lambton), (Haldm'd & Monck), Kaulbach,	Tobin,
Kendall,	Tolton,
Lancaster,	Tucker,
Lang,	Turgeon,
Lapointe,	Wade,
Latrier (Sir Wilfrid), Wright.-94. Amendment negatived.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT.: I move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that
Section 193 of the said Act is amended by adding the following words :-' And such compensation shall be limited to the direct and immediate local damages actually suffered by reason of such construction, operation and maintenance by the railway company at such station or premises, and not from any cause, matter or business extending beyond the same.'
^ Reference to the Act will show that it is rather vague as it is. It provides that the compensation shall be such as the board deems just and expedient. Now, the words added here to the so-called telephone clause would make this plain and distinct. So much has already been said on the subject that I need not speak at length upon it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Shall the amendment be adopted ?


Mr. OLIVER.: I have not yet heard what the amendment is about.


William Findlay Maclean: I might explain that this amendment deals with the telephone question. The Bell Telephone Company has made contracts with the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, whereby independent telephones or municipal telephones are prohibited from entering the railway station. The law was amended last session so as to provide, according to the solemn pledge of the Minister of Railways of that time, that these railway companies should be compelled to give access to their stations to independent telephones on payment of actual damage. The Railway Commission has since held that in considering the damages caused by the admission of these independent telephones the destruction of the monopoly must be considered. The sum and substance of this amendment is that an independent telephone company may have access to railway stations at the actual cost of the intrusion regardless of any damages that may be sustained by the breaking of a monopoly or anything of that kind. The amendment is simply to make clear what the government promised last session, and therefore the government are bound to accept the amendment and incorporate it in the Act.


Nathaniel Boyd: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Though I think I am not in order, the question having been put, perhaps l may be pardoned if I take the same chance that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) did. I cannot do better than repeat the undertaking I gave when the matter was under consideration in Committee of the Whole. I said I thought the amendment was premature, because the question whether the exclusive contract said to exist between the railway companies and the Bell Telephone Company is void as being in restraint of trade has not been formally decided by the Railway Commission ; ' and I think that, so far as they have decided it, perhaps the subject is one that requires further consideration by the Supreme Court. The government has decided that, so far as we are concerned, the matter must go before the Supreme 'Court in order to have a final decision, so that we may know whether this' contract is binding or not. When this is decided we shall be in a better position to know what steps are to be taken in order to give what was undoubtedly the intention of parliament-equal facilities to telephone companies in the use of railway stations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What means have the government taken to get that decision ? They leave it to private parties.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I said the government would take that means.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, the government will take the responsibility of getting a decision on the subject ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost on the same division.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, Mr. Speaker ; I object to it being lost on the same division. I was in favour of the previous amendment, but I am not prepared to vote for the present one.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the required number of members demand the yeas and nays, the record will be made ; otherwise, I will declare it lost.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bennett).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Armstrong,	Oliver,
Beith,	Porter,
Bennett,	Puttee,
Blain,	Reid (Grenville),
Ceehrane,	Robinson (Elgin),
Halliday,	Ross (Ontario),
Heyd,	Scott,
Ingram,	Smith (Vancouver),
Kidd.	Sproule,
Lang,	Tolton,
Lennox,	Ward,
Maclean, McGowan,	Wilson.-25.

NATS :
Messieurs
Barker,	Lavergne
Bazinet,	(Drum. & Artha.)
Blanchet,	Lavergne (Montmagny)
Borden (Sir Frederick),	LeBlanc,
Bourbonnais,	Loy,
Brodeur,	Macdonald,
Brown,	MaeLaren
Bruce,	(Huntingdon),
Bruneau,	McCarthy,
Bureau,	McColl,
Calvert,	McCool,
Carbonneau,	McGugan,
Champagne,	Mclsaac,
Christie,	McLennan,
Clancy,	Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,	Matheson,
Costigan,	Mignault,
Cowan,	Monk,
Delisle,	Morin,
Demers (Levis),	Morrison,
Erb,	Paterson,
Ethier,	Prefontaine,
Fielding,	Riley,
Fitzpatrick,	Rivet,
Fortier, .	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Gallery,	Ross (Yukon),
Ganong,	Russell,
Gauvreau,	Schell,
Gervais,	Stephens,
Gibson,	Stewart,
Girard,	Talbot,
Harty,	Thompson [DOT]
Henderson,	(Haldim'd & Monck),
Holmes,	Tobin. ,
Hyman,	Tucker,
Johnston. (Cape Breton) Turgeon,	
Johnston (Lambton),	Wade,
Kaulbach,	Wright.-74.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	
Amendment negatived.


Mr. SHERRITT.: I was paired with the hon. member for Soutli Huron (Mr. Mc-Ewen) ; otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.
At One o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at Three o'clock.


Mr. SAM. BARKER.: I wish to say a few words upon one or two of the clauses of Bill No. 132, and to repept what I said on a former occasion with regard to the first section. The Minister of Justice will recollect that on a previous occasion I objected to the words in the fifth line giving the Privy Council power to rescind old orders made by the Railway Committee, and stating that in my opinion it would be proper, under the circumstances, to give the Privy Council power to validate orders that had been left in suspense, hung up between the two general railway Acts, but that I thought there was an objection to continuing in the Privy Council the power of varying and rescinding those old orders. The hon. gentleman said that the government had considered that question, and for some special reason they desired to continue in the Privy Council the power to deal with the old orders.
Well, I could understand that there might be some reason perhaps why, under a particular order such as he referred to-I think that one relating to Yonge street in Toronto-they might want to deal with it. But it does seem to me that they are likely to create a dual jurisdiction which might cause confusion by taking power to vary or rescind old orders, in the Privy Council, because section 33 of the Bill of last year gives to the Railway Commissioners power to deal with such matters. I think this should be reconsidered by the government before the Bill passes the Senate.
Now with regard to what may be called the Sunday observance clauses, I do not want to discuss here the merits of Sunday observance, or whether it is right to prohibit the use of street cars or electric railways in the cities of Canada on the Lord's day. But I think I am justified in calling the attention of the Minister of Justice to the very peculiar methods that have been adopted here in dealing with the question. This section 6a professes to validate laws existing in the various provinces, and parliament is asked to endorse those laws. Well, I think the Minister of Justice will have great difficulty indeed in telling the House precisely what those laws are that he has asked us to validate. I think there have been many attempts made to find out what they are, and I am not sure but that the question is now before the Supreme Court. It does seem to me rather peculiar that parliament should be asked to validate laws the provisions of which it is impossible at present for us to know. Now I would like the hon. the minister to consider that question. The whole subject is one of very great difficulty, and I would point out to him the peculiar position this parliament will be placed in after it validates the laws of the provinces. Parliament might hereafter change its mind and wish to alter, or extend, or in some way change those laws after having confirmed them, and I presume we will have no power here even to repeal what we have done, we will have settled the question once for all. As I said before, I do not want to deal with the question of Sunday observance, because I do not think this Bill brings up sufficiently the merits of that question. But it seems to' me that we are merely shuffling with the question, and we are putting both parties to the controversy, on the one hand those who are advoctes of the strictest observance of the Lord's Day, and on the other hand those who think there ought to be a little laxity for the convenience and accommodation of the people-we are putting them both, it appears to me, into a sea of litigation. After this Act is passed I doubt whether anybody will be one whit further advanced in his knowledge of what the law really is. I am told, I do not know whether it is true or not, that the question is now before the Supreme

Court, or is about to be submitted there. It occurs to me that it is in the interest of both parties that the law should first be settled, and that legislation should then pass in this parliament, if need be, to supplement or improve the legislation of the provinces. In any case the course proposed to be pursued here is a most extraordinary one, especially as regards subclause 2, whereby apparently we give to the government of the day power by Order in Council to validate laws that may hereafter be passed. I think it is a very grave question whether that is a proper form of legislation. We have a duty to perform as representatives of the people. To say that we now shall give what I called on a previous occasion a power of attorney to the gentlemen who happen to be ministers at a given moment, to approve laws that may hereafter be passed by another legislative body, does seem to me a very extraordinary course. I call attention to this, as I said before, without entering into the merits of the question, but merely to ask whether it is a proper thing for this parliament to do, or whether it can do it with any regard at all to its own obligations and its duties. With regard to the other two clauses concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific matter, the hon. gentleman accepted two amendments I offered the other day ; the third amendment that I proposed, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company having control of the Grand Trunk Pacific ought to be made to make good whatever loss the Grand Trunk Pacific might sustain by an improper apportionment of the rates, I think was a proper clause under the circumstances ; but I do not think there is any use occupying the time of the House in discussing a section that has already been voted down by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that before legislation such as this contemplated in section 2 is placed before the House, the provincial enactments which are referred to should be scheduled as part of the Act. I am not dealing with the question of Sunday observance. I do not know what the Acts are which we are validating. They may be very wise Acts, They may be Acts to which I would not object if they were presented to the House. They may be Acts that I would thoroughly approve of, but it does seem to me that they should be scheduled and that we ought to know what we are dealing with. The subject that it dealt with is a very important subject. It is one, no doubt, upon which this parliament may be called upon to act, but it seems to me that the proper way to act is by legislation of our own. If we do not see fit to adopt that course, but rather to act in relation to the legislation of the provinces I am unhesitatingly of opinion that that legislation should be scheduled as part of the Act.
Subsection 2 of section 2 raises a ques-Mr. BARKER.
tion from the constitutional standpoint. It is a question which is not free from difficulty. It seems to be conclusively established by the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Privy Council that a legislature, or parliament, can delegate only a matter over which it has jurisdiction, but I would think that under the constitution there must be some limit to that. For example, I do not think that the parliament of Canada can alter the constitution which has been conferred upon us by saying that in respect to nineteen or twenty subjects which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament they shall be dealt with by the provincial legislatures in the respective provinces and that any legislation in respect to these subjects enacted by the provincial legislatures shall have the same force and effect as if enacted by this parliament. We cannot go that far ; we cannot destroy the constitution. Short of going that far it is a very serious question as to how far we can go. Under this legislation we seem to be going very far because we are authorizing the Governor in Council to ratify, as if passed by this parliament, legislation to be passed in the future by the different provinces of Canada. We are doing that in respect to a matter which has been held*to be one of criminal jurisdiction. If we can do this why can we not say that the whole criminal law of Canada shall in future be delegated to the different provinces, shall be administered under laws to be passed by each of the legislatures within the respective provinces over which the legislatures have control ? I do not see at present that the principle of the legislation which we have before us would be extended under an Act of that kind. We are taking one branch of what is held to be criminal law and we are saying that any law which is in the future passed by any of the provincial legislatures in regard to this subject shall be a good law upon one condition, namely, that it is ratified by the Governor in Council. It is a matter of some interest as to how far we can go and also a matter of considerable interest as to how far we should go in respect to a matter of that kind.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The point which was made by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) when he addressed the House before, did not strike me as clearly as it does now ; that is as to the right to rescind old orders. I did not catch this point at the time he put it before the House as clearly as I do now, but it is a question that deserves immediate attention on the part of the government in order to meet the difficulty which he has stated and which is a real difficulty I admit. The question in respect to Sunday legislation is not free from difficulty. I do not pretend for a moment that it is but I would like to put the question as it ap-

pears to me, as I think it may be fairly put before the House, and in a light in which I think it will meet with the approval of the House. We have taken out of the control of the provinces railways and works of that description which of their nature are merely local works and which, if they had remained, as they were intended to be, local in their character, would have been subject to provincial legislation in respect to the observance of Sunday. By virtue of the power which is conferred upon us by the Bi'itish North America Act we have declared these works, which are of their essence local works, to be works for the general advantage of Canada and as a result of that declaration they have passed from out the jurisdiction of the provinces to the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, so that while two railways may be in existence in a province operating side by side, both originally authorized under provincial charters, because one of them happens to have been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada it passes from out the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and the other one that has been created by the same authority continues on under the jurisdiction of the province. It seems to me that there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in our declaring that while we are taking a work over for the general purposes of its administration and making it subject to our laws we desire that that work, in so far as its local operations are concerned and in so far as Sunday observance is concerned, shall remain under the jurisdiction of the legislature which created it. I do not think that there is anything in that which is improper. I would like to say that this legislation is not at all novel in its character. It is the same legislation that we have adopted in respect to our Franchise Act. We take the Act of the local legislature in respect to the franchise. We allow the legislature to determine the conditions under which the lists shall be made and we declare that those lists shall avail in so far as we are concerned, to that extent adopting the legislation of the provinces. It may be said very properly that this is legislation for which this government are responsible and that therefore we cannot appeal to a precedent created by ourselves. But, that was a precedent created immediately after confederation, because, up to 1885 when the Franchise Bill was passed, we adopted the provincial laws in respect to the making of the provincial lists and which provincial lists we made federal lists for the purposes of our federal parliament ; not only the lists as they stood at the time but we practically gave what my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) described as a blanket power of attorney to alter, change, and make the provincial lists and we contented *ourselves with adopting anything that the legislatures of the provinces did in that respect. So this legislation proceeds upon
the principle that was laid down at the time the Franchise Act was adopted.


Samuel Barker: Were the conditions not different in the case to which the hon. gentleman refers ? There we found ourselves in regard to our own franchises while here the hon. gentleman is binding the citizens of the provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The members of a corporation.


Samuel Barker: The members of the corporation as citizens.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As citizens of the provinces, but it seems to me that in respect of the Franchise Act by allowing each province to prepare the lists in the manner described we bound all those who were to avail themselves of those lists. We bound *the voters of this Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was only a tentative matter to provide for an emergency until we adopted some other principle, or ' until such time as the parliament of Canada otherwise decides.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Well, parliament held to that principle a long time or until the change was made in 1885. In respect to subsection 2 of section 2 to which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition refers it is constantly the case that this parliament delegates to the Governor in Council power to make regulations and in connection with these regulations to enact penal legislation for the violation of these regulations. There has not been a session probably since confederation during which it has not been left open to the Governor in Council to make regulations which were more far reaching in their results than the action which would be taken by the Governor in Council on provincial laws with respect to Sunday observance. My hon. friends seem to be somewhat in error when they speak of Sunday observance as being a matter of criminal legislation. It is not a matter of criminal legislation. It is quite true that the Privy Council held that the Ontario Act was invalid because it affected to create a criminal offence, but the Privy Council did not decide that that Act was bad in toto. The Privy Council did not decide that the Act is bad in toto ; what they held was that the Act was bad in so far as it pretended to deal with criminal legislation. The questions to be referred to the Supreme Court are settled on, and I think it Will be found that the judgment of the Privy Council is susceptible of an entirely different construction from that which has been put upon it up to the present time. That judgment has been construed as taking from the provinces, powers which they are undoubtedly endowed with. I do not think the judgment ever was intended to take these powers from

tlie provinces and confer them on the Dominion parliament. When the judgment is carefully examined, it will be fount! I think, that all the Privy Council decided was, that with respect to these offences which are criminal in their nature, the provinces have no power to alter or amend the law with regard to them, nor have the provinces power to create an offence criminal in its nature. The Privy Council has not said that the provinces have not the right to determine the character of Sunday observance ; they have not determined that the provinces have not the right to say that a man shall work or shall not work on Sunday.


Robert Laird Borden: If the provinces have that right ; how is their right affected by the fact that certain property within the province is subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The impression exists that in so far as works of a federal character are concerned, these works fall under the operation of Dominion legislation, and that the province has not the power to deal with them except in relation to contracts made within the province. But with respect to the control of these works which are of their nature provincial, it seems to me it is quite proper that while we take them over for federal purposes and declare them to be works for the general advantage of Canada, yet in so far as Sunday observance is concerned, they remain within the control of the provinces. 1 see no reason why they should not.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose this parliament should incorporate a company to carry on a great industry in all the provinces, would the mere fact that we incorporated that company prevent the provincial laws from affecting persons employed by that company ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It has been well settled that the imoviuces have practically no control over the operation of railways, and the Sunday observance law is almost exclusively applicable to the operation of railways. If a railway becomes a federal railway under the operation of the federal law, it takes it from the control of the provinces. It is in that view' that this legislation is introduced.


Robert Laird Borden: If you incorporate a great smelting company or something of that kind, the fact that we incorporated it would not prevent the provincial law's affecting it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: And it is on the ground that the operation of a railw'ay is under the jurisdiction of this parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.
Motion agreed to ; Bill read the third time and passed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements for fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $85,000.
['The Minister of Justice will proceed with the Bills which stand in his name, and then we will go into supply and continue with the Minister of Public Works.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is an opportune time for the minister to explain in what condition the question is with regard to the division of authority between the Dominion and the provinces with respect to the fisheries.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: No progress has yet been made except with regard to negotiations as to the basis of the submission of a case to the Supreme Court. I have already explained the matter this session. We have discussed the question w'ith the representatives of British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The offer was that the federal government would take possession of the fisheries of the different provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, under certain conditions. These conditions were discussed informally and the result as I stated at the time was that we agreed that if wre did not come to any agreement a ease w'ould be submitted to the Supreme Court. Mr. Pugsley and the premier of Prince Edward Island had to leave for England to be present at the argument of a case before the Privy Council a few days ago as regards the representation of these two provinces.


Mr. CLARKE.: Would the minister give us some information about the contemplated establishment of a naval militia ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the supplementary estimates for 1901-5 there is a special, item for that and in addition it will be considered when the Bill now on the order paper is submitted for second reading.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister will make a statement then in respect to the establishment.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Within a few days I presume.


Mr. OSLER.: In connection with the large amount of money which is being appropriated for the protection of the fisheries and for fish hatcheries, I think that any one who goes to the rivers in Quebec and New Brunswick will find a general complaint that the regulations as to the taking up of nets for certain periods are not carried out and that the fishing in these rivers is decreasing in volume and extent each year. The money that is expended on fish hatcheries is a mere bagatelle compared to the damage done because the regulations are not properly carried out. I speak as an inland man, but as one having gone for many years down to the fishing sections and I believe that there are

very few people who have any idea of the value of these fisheries and of the importance of preserving the streams. In years to come this is going to be one of the most valuable assets of the province, and I can show the minister from my own experience and the experience of all those who fish on the rivers, both the Restigouche and other rivers, that three out of four of the fish caught in these rivers in many years are net marked, showing that they had had to struggle through the nets. Because the regulations as to taking up the nets are not enforced, the fishing on these streams as I have said, is decreasing in value year by year. I am not saying that the government are not doing as well as has been done in the past, but I think there should be some new regulation and some more stringent enforcement of the present laws or in a few years the salmon fishing will be destroyed. Americans go there and spend a large amount of money and the different districts of these rivers are enormously enriched.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can tell my hon. friend that this question is not at all new to the department and is not new to me, as Minister of Fisheries. Last year I was somewhat of a novice in the question and had to get the necessary information, and I discovered that there was a good deal of friction between those who hold leases in these rivers and those who engage in the pursuit of fishing for a living. I tried to apply the rules and regulations. I knew that there was some complaint by some clubs that we were not severe and strict enough towards the fishermen and license holders. This year we took all the necessary precaution's in advance and I think there is no ground whatever for complaint. We have done all that was necessary to be done without going too far in order to protect these provincial rights, because, after all, they are provincial rights and do not interest us in such a degree as the rights of fishermen themselves, or those who have engaged in the industry. Of course we know perfectly well our obligations and know that we are obliged to have rules to protect these people who have leased these privileges from the different provinces for which some of them have paid very heavily, having considered that they were of great value. I know ror instance of a special case, the case of Mu Hill, who has rented a river and who had reasons to believe that at the estuary of the river there was more fishing than was necessary. In order to protect his rights-for he had paid for the property .$50,000 and I think is paying about $10,000 a year rental to the provincial government-and in order to give him all the advantages to which he was entitled instead of renewing the licenses at the estuary of the River St. John to the people who had enjoyed them for 50 years we put them up by tender, and I may say
to the committee that we had a good deal of difficulty in renewing the licenses at a satisfactory rental. I had a great deal of complaint from those especially interested in the fishing for the last fifty years but we succeeded in selling that license at such a price as was advantageous to the department and would satisfy those interested in the fishing of the St. John river so that there can be no complaint this year. As regards the Restigouche, we have a special launch patrolling the estuary to protect the rights of those wiho have rented that river. Of course 1 realize that at the beginning of the1 season the people interested in the lease were rather nervous and I received complaints that the launch had not arrived. As every one is aware the season was late this year, and the launch had not only to look after the fishermen and those with licenses along the estuary, but also those with licenses in the neighbouring waters. The launch took a few days more than usual to reach the river Restigouche, but as soon as she did reach the Restigouche all doubt, I think, disappeared and there has been no neglect whatever. As soon as she did reach it, all grounds of complaint disappeared. It was not due at all to the neglect of the department.


Mr. GANONG.: Did that refer to Mr. Hill's privilege ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is paying $10, * 000 a year.
Mr. OSLEiR. I am not speaking in the interests of Mr. Hill, but in the general interest of preserving the fishery. It is being destroyed every year steadily I speak from my own experience, when I say that five out of six of the fish caught in certain seasons show that they have come through the net and were scarred by it. I was at Matane a day or two this year. The men I employed told me without hesitation that the nets are not taken up according to regulations on Saturday night at six o'clock and kept up until Monday morning, but are left a long time in the water beyond the regulations. That is stated by the river men, and evidently there is too much netting, or there would be more free fish coming to the river than there have been the last two years. There is hardly a fish sometimes in the season not marked, which shows that the nets are not taken up.


Nathaniel Boyd: I would like to draw attention to a question which I had on the paper three or four days regarding fishing licenses given to fish in the Lake Winnipeg and tributaries of the Nelson river. My information is that the exclusive rights to fish in the water of all the lakes north of Lake Winnipeg and tributary to the Nelson river have been given for a very small sum.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This question was answered the other day when first called,

but by error the answer was not entered in the proceedings. The answer is that no exclusive privilege was given. I can bring down the lease. It is an ordinary lease.


Nathaniel Boyd: What is the lease ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would rather bring it down, because that would be more satisfactory than speaking from recollection, and I will bring it down to-morrow. Some privilege for fishing In a special way has been granted, but no exclusive privilege.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the lease for the fishing on James' bay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is there yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not that lease give the company exclusive rights ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Nothing has been done whatever under the lease given Mr. McNee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the lease been cancelled, or is it the intention of the government to cancel it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has not been cancelled, and no demand has been made to cancel it. The lease is yet in existence, but no fishing is going on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister think that giving fishing leases in that way is the proper thing ? In my opinion, it is very improper and unwise. We are giving a lease for many years of what belongs to the public, and are giving it, through political influence, for practically no consideration whatever. Surely the government must have by this time made up their mind whether they intend to cancel the lease or allow it to remain, and let the company take advantage of the privileges.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will look into the lease and see whether it is possible to cancel it. I must state that all leases passed since I have been Minister of Marine and Fisheries contain the provision that if the privileges are not taken advantage of within a certain delay the lease becomes null and void.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am informed that certain friends of the government have received the rights of exclusive fishing in the rivers I have mentioned for the sum of $10 per year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not remember the figure, but if it be $10, they must have obliged themselves to spend a certain amount of money within a certain delay. Sometimes the lease is given at $400 or $1,000 per year without any special condition attached as to the amount of money to be spent, but in other cases leases are granted on condition that a certain amount shall be spent within a certain delay. A sum as high as $50,000 has been stipulated in some cases as the amount to be spent by the company which undertakes to exploit the fishing. In this case I do not know exactly the amount.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Nathaniel Boyd: Would it not be better to let the item stand until the lease is brought down ? I understand that the right to fish has been also leased to another friend of the government on Lake Winnipegosis. That lease should be brought down at the same time. The hon. gentleman should explain the policy of the department, so that the public may understand what it really is. The public should know if it is the policy of the government to favour its friends by giving leases of that kind for the paltry sum of $10 a year, and then allowing them to sell their privilege to a fishing company. If the hon. minister will look into the matter, he will find that what I am telling him comes pretty near the mark. In ail these leases the men who get them have no intention of doing any fishing, but intend disposing of their rights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As regards the two leases which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, I shall have them put on the table as soon as possible.	.


Nathaniel Boyd: What benefit are those leases to the fishing interests of the district ? Are they in the interests of the fisheries or of the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, the leases will explain themselves. For myself I must say that I have never considered any other interest than that of the department and the public interest in granting these licenses and leases. Of course, I have always considered the fostering and development of the industry as important. If parties come to the government and say : We are ready to develop the fishery industry in such and such a section, and will bind ourselves to such and such conditions, then we eon-sider whether the conditions are favourable in the public interest and on that basis the lease is granted or refused. There is a fixed regulation with regard to licenses issued every year, but when it comes to granting licenses for a longer period than one year, the conditions vary ; the questions are settled on their merits, we using our best judgment in the interests of the industry.


Nathaniel Boyd: I have no desire to press this matter now, so long as it is understood that an opportunity will be afforded for its discussion at a later time. Meantime I would like the leases of Mr. Arch. McNee, of .James' Bay, Mr. Merritt, of Lake Winnipegosis, and the other lessee whose name I do not know to the north end of lake Winnipeg, to be brought down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I promised the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) that he will have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the papers on the table.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before this subject is dropped, I wish to say one word on the principle. It seems to me it is a bad principle to give leases to foreigners to take all the fish they like.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have not granted leases to foreigners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whatever the form may be, these are practically leases to foreigners. The law happens to be that an American who catches fish in Canada can take them in to his own country free of duty, a privilege that is denied to a Canadian. But, on the other hand the American cannot get the fish here unless he associates himself with Canadians. The result is that the Canadians catch the fish, but when the fish go across the line they belong to the Buffalo Fish Company or some other concern who say they have the right to take them across the line free of duty, because they were caught by themselves. And so they'can get a better market than Canadians can get. That should not be allowed. If they were giving a good consideration for it, it would not matter so much. The minister says : But we develop the industry. But, what use is the development of the industry if there is no royalty ? And the royalty now is a mere nothing. We keep up the Fishery Department and establish fish hatcheries, and these Americans use our fisheries for their own purpose, giving us very little for the privilege. In connection with this fishery question we ought to have a general statement as to the policy of the government, and a statement as to whether they intend to give exclusive rights in any part of Canada which are practically monopolized by foreigners.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) must be under a false impression. There is only one company at all in the position he refers to. The fact is. this privilege granted to some Americans on the Pacific Coast was granted under very peculiar circumstances. It is not a license from the department, but simply an Order in Council authorizing an American Company-I think it is the New England Fish Company-to buy supplies and land their fish on the coast of British Columbia, and to ship fish in bond to their destination. The fish are caught in American waters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister is not directing attention to the lease I refer to-the lease on James' Bay.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: That has not been exploited.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But what I contend is that the principle of granting such leases is an unsound one. And we want him to bring down the lease so that we may see the provisions of it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I promise to do that. I was going to explain the privileges given to the New England Fish Company on the Pacific Coast. I believe that the granting of these privileges of buying provisions and landing and shipping fish is a good move. The halibut fishery had not
been developed at all. There were large quantities of these fish in international waters, but they were not used because they were too far from American waters. Under the present arrangement this fishery can be developed. The advantage to Canadians is obvious. The company employ Canadian labour, buy their provisions from Canadian merchants, and pay large amounts in freight.
I understand that the first year the company paid over $100,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway for freights. The second year, they paid $200,000, and last year no less than $300,000. All this trade would have been lost to Canada if we had not consented to the arrangement. If Canadians would be as enterprising as to do the same thing, though they could not have the privilege of the American jnarkicjt as the citizens of that country have, they might be able to develop a market on our own side.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the minister say whether there is any fishery or other patrol belonging to the government now in the waters of Hudson Bay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None, except the ' Neptune,' which has been cruising there for the last year looking after Canadian interests and visiting the different posts so as to report to the Department of the Interior what means should be adopted to protect Canadian rights.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has this government control over the fishery in Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: These are entirely controlled by American companies. When you go to Winnipeg, you find considerable apprehension expressed among the public that these lakes will be overfished-in fact that ah the fish are being taken away.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is not the information we have in the department. I think the business is not decreasing at all, but is maintaining itself.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The leases are entirely controlled by American companies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some of these companies, both Canadian and American are not fishing at all, but are buying from Canadian fishermen in the locality who hold licenses. This fact was brought to my attention by some members from the Northwest Territories.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the minister is mistaken. To my own knowledge American companies fish there largely, they have a supply of boats and a supply of men to an enormous extent, and have a large capital engaged.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The licenses are given to British subjects or Canadians,

57S0
sometimes organized into joint stock companies. It sometimes happens that American capitalists put their money into these companies and, obtaining control of the stock, they become American companies. But I do not see how we can help that by legislation or by regulations.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is not so much that 1 complain of, but in some places the fishing has practically ceased now, the whole industry has gone. When I was in Winnipeg I heard the subject discussed and heard it stated several times that the wholesale catch of fish was practically destroying the fishing in those lakes, just as the sturgeon fisheries have been destroyed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Whether these fish are caught by Canadians or Americans does not make much difference. If they had been caught by Canadians the depletion of which the hon. gentleman complains would have resulted in the same way. But that is not ' the case. The information of the department is that these lakes are not being depleted. Of course we can understand that in lakes with shallow water where a good deal of fishing is going on, the fish are driven away into more remote places. The same thing has happened in the St. Lawrence. I remember when, twenty or twenty-five years ago, a good deal of fish of all sorts was caught around the island of Montreal, but now you can scarcely catch fish there of any consequence. It is the same everywhere. As settlements are established about the lakes, especially those with shallow water, the fish seek new haunts where they are less disturbed. But the regulations are duly followed, and all precautions are taken in order to preserve the fisheries.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How many inspectors are there on these two lakes to protect the fisheries V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think there are four in the west. They are Henry McKay, Cedar Lake ; A. J. McPherson, Dauphin, Man.; James Silverthorne, Lumsden, Assa., and J. F. Healson, Prince Albert.


Edmund Boyd Osler: One at Dawson and one at Cedar Lake have all this enormous stretch of waters to look after north of Lake Win-nipegosis.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am asking this year for more money to have a better inspection made. Early this spring I sent one of my officers to report hoW| many are required and what methods are adopted.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: What is the object of having a fishery officer at Cedar Lake or within two hundred miles of it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were put there before I came into the department


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: because, I suppose, that was the proper place to put them.


Gilbert White Ganong: The minister says it is immaterial whether .these fish are caught by Americans or by Canadians. Is that a fact ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: So far as the depletion goes.


Gilbert White Ganong: But does it not make some difference with regard to getting the fish into the American market ? If Americans catch the fish they take them into the American market free of duty.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not s^e why they should go Into the American market free of duty.
Mr1. GANONG. Americans of easy conscience are fishing along the eastern seaboard who carry their fish into the United States market free of duty, and I thought perhaps there were some up west afflicted in the same way. I can correct the minister in regard to one thing ; I think Mr. Hill's fishing territory is not on the river St. John, it is oh some of the northern waters.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is in the seigniory of Mingan. _


Samuel Hughes: What are the duties of the fishery overseer at Lumsden, and what fish does he look after there 7 There is but very little fish there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a fact, whether the minister knows it or not, that fish caught by Americans are going into the United States market free. I know that the Buffalo Fish Company was organized for the purpose of fishing in Georgian bay, and they have been getting their fish into the American market free of duty. If Americans fish in Candian waters the catch can be taken into the American market free of duty, but if Canadians catch the fish and endeavour to get them in United States they have to pay duty on them. Therefore, though Canadians may supply the boats, if the fish are caught under the name of an American firm, they go into the American market free of duty. I think that is a wrong to Canadians because there are many Canadians fishing in the Georgian bay who have to compete with Americans, and they cannot send their product over the line without paying duty. They are denied that right, while Americans fishing alongside of them get the benefit of the United States market. The same principle I am told is being exercised by this American company that is fishing in Hudsons bay and several other places. The same question arose in Newfoundland a short time ago where a firm of Americans are storing ice, or are about to establish ,an industry there, and it appears that there is a provision in the American customs law which allows them

access to the United States market free of duty. I have no doubt that the Americans who are fishing in Lake Winnipegosis are doing the same thing, and their fish are going free to Minneapolis and St. Paul, while Canadians fishing in the same waters are denied that right.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I know that American fishing companies operating on the north shore of Lake Superior get their fish free into the American Sault.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On page 197 of the fisheries report of 1903, you will find the report of Mr. Young, inspector of fisheries for that district.


Samuel Hughes: Have you reports from your officers in different districts ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, from different places where there is fishing going on.


Samuel Hughes: In the Northwest Territories ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the Northwest Territories. The fisheries in the Northwest are covered by the report of Mr. Miller.


Samuel Hughes: These are officers for the whole country ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have the reports of these officers and we have reports from their sub-officers. The reports from the Northwest Territories commence at page 202 of the Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Beginning at that page will be found a synopsis of reports received from the different districts.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the report from the Lumsden man ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Miller the inspector reports as follows :
In Long lake the fishing was about the same as in former years. Overseer Silverthorne reports that large catches of whitefish were made just before the commencement of the close season, the fish seeming to come into the shallow waters rather early. It may become necessary to close this portion of the lake to prevent the destruction of spawning fish. This lake too has gained during the year though still much below its one time level.
In the Qu'Appelle river and the smaller streams the long continued high water afforded small opportunity for the illegal trapping of fish during the spring close season and though some fish weirs were discovered and destroyed by guardians, as a rule they are now only met with in the vicinity of new foreign settlers unacquainted with the law.


Mr. HAGGART.: If I understood the hon. minister correctly he stated that fish caught on the Pacific coast could be entered in Victoria and shipped in bond to the United States. Am I correct ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am afriad I have not made myself understood. I did not state anything of the sort. I stated that fish caught in international waters, on the high sea, by this New England Fish Company, to whom the privilege was granted of buying their provisions and landing on Canadian soil could, according to certain arrangements made with the American government, be shipped in bond and delivered in Boston. The fish are not Canadian fish. They are caught in international waters.


John Graham Haggart: That is still more extraordinary. This American company can come into British waters on the Pacific coast, catch all the fish they like, ship them over a British railway to the United States and sell them there. I knew the law was against them if the fish were caught in American waters or in waters other than British waters, because then they would have no right to come into the port of Victoria or ship the fish over a British railway to the United States. If they had that right what would be the use of our fisheries on the Atlantic coast ? American fishermen could go on the banks off the coast of Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, catch fish, ship them by the same means as those employed by our own fishermen and send them free of duty to the United States when our own fishermen would have to pay duty going into the United States ? It would transfer our whole fishing trade from Canadian fishermen to United States fishermen. But, they get around it on the Pacific coast. You can form a company of Americans and they can come and fish in our own waters.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


John Graham Haggart: Well, I did not clearly understand the minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know how it is that I have not made myself understood because I have repeated it twice. I said that the fish are not caught in Canadian waters at all. They are caught outside of the three-mile limit in international waters.


John Graham Haggart: I understand perfectly now. They are caught in waters which are not Canadian waters. Then, the fisherman of Nova Scotia, when he catches fish outside of the three-mile limit, can come into Halifax and ship them into the United States ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He has not applied for that privilege yet.	.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No fisherman in Nova Scotia has applied for that privilege yet probably because the fishermen in Nova Scotia have not to back them such a large company as the Canadian Pacific Railway.


John Graham Haggart: I have listened to the debates in this House long enough to know that the Nova Scotia fisherman has no right to do it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Everybody knows that.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps it is because of some denseness on my part that I do not understand the hon. minister. He says that these iish are caught outside of Canadian waters, that they are caught in waters in which the fishermen of the whole world can fish and that these fish are then brought into Victoria. Why does not the same principle apply to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island ? We have only controlover three miles from the coast line. If flsb are caught outside of the coast line why cannot they be brought into Halifax or Sydney, shipped over the railway and entered at a United States port free of duty ?


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I do not wish to keep the committee back but I would like to say a word or two in connection with the New England Fish Company operating on the Pacific coast. Prior to their coming into our waters there was no halibut caught and there was no halibut industry. I he New England Fish Company which control about 300 retail stores throughout the New England states came into the Pacific waters and asked to have the privilege of shipping through a Canadian port, the port of Vancouver, to their market in Boston and the New England states. They received that privilege upon one consideration and that consideration was that they were to employ entirely Canadian workmen, they were to buv entirely Canadian goods, and to operate the industry as far as the catching of the fish was concerned entirely in our interest.


John Graham Haggart: Who had the authority to make any such arrangement with them ?


Robert George Macpherson: Why, our government'.


John Graham Haggart: They have no power to do that.


Robert George Macpherson: Well, they are doing it.


John Graham Haggart: That is what we want to find out.


Robert George Macpherson: They are doing it and it is a proper thing to do.


John Graham Haggart: That is another question.


Robert George Macpherson: I am not speaking of the authority, under the law'. It is the fact that I am speaking of.


John Graham Haggart: I have heard of this arrangement for the first time this evening.


Robert George Macpherson: If these Americans had not come in we would not have had the halibut fishery developed as we have. I want to give an illustration to show how government interference can do a great deal of harm. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) spoke of the sturgeon fisheries of the northern lakes. In 1892 an American company came over to the Fraser river and prepared to develop the sturgeon fisheries. They had a large market for these fish in the city of Chicago, they employed two steamers, they had forty or fifty men working for them, and they employed entirely white labour. They were catching sturgeon and shipping them out. The industry had never been started before in our waters. They were taking the sturgeon from the mud banks of the Fraser. In one night a breath came from Ottawa that they must stop fishing sturgeon because they would deplete the fish. The result is that there has been no sturgeon industry in those waters from that time to this so that this important industry was knocked on the head. It does not matter whether it is an American company or Canadian firms who are doing the fishing. We want the fishing industry developed and if Americans choose to take advantage of the opportunities by engaging in the industry and if they take the fish that are caught by our fishermen and which are hauled over our railway, I do not see why we should object. There must be two sides to every question and the Americans must have some advantage. I would like to see our own money invested in this industry but our people do not seem to be alive to the fact that we have such an immense industry in Canada and that there is a possibility of making a lot of money out of the fisheries. Our people do not seem to be so thoroughly alive to the fact as the Americans are. I am strongly of the impression that the government acted wisely and well when they gave to the New England Fish Company these advantages.


William Findlay Maclean: It follows that the whole Canadian fishing industry could pass from Canadian into American hands.


Robert George Macpherson: Not at all.


Robert George Macpherson: Does the hon. gentleman object to the industry which is being conducted upon our coast ? I do not think he does.
* Mr. HAGGART. I do not know anything about it but I do not know where the government get the authority under the law to do it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, because if you can do it on the Pacific coast you can do the same thing on the Atlantic coast.


Robert George Macpherson: Canadians are getting the benefit.


William Findlay Maclean: The net result is that the whole of our fishing industry will pass

into American liands, and their fish can go into the United States free of duty while ours will have to pay duty.


Gilbert White Ganong: Has the fish commissioner made any report in regard to licenses along the eastern sea-board ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Their work is not yet finished and they have not made a final report.


Gilbert White Ganong: It is remarkable that one lawyer, one colonel of militia, one editor, and, I think one fisherman, should be appointed by this government to inquire into the fishing industry worth $15,000,000 a year. It is also remarkable that when an election was expected the commission should be sent out hurriedly, and that when the Grand Trunk Pacific failed to put up the money they were called off again. In the east this fishery commission is looked upon as nothing but a farce.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister bring us down the Order in Council permitting this American company to land and cure their fish in Canada ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is a special arrangement with the New England Fish Company renewable yearly by an Order in Council on the report of the Minister of Customs allowing the fish to pass through Canada in bond. The order has always been issued with the approval of the Department of Fisheries. I never saw the American company or their representative in connection with the matter, but those who asked for a renewal were Canadians, and the authorities of the Canadian Pacific Railway who were specially interested. I believed it was in the public interest to continue this privilege as long as they were the only ones in the field.


William Findlay Maclean: Did you consult the Minister of Justice as to your power to pass this Order in Council ; when was it first passed ? 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In 1890 when Sir Louis Davies was minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are doing by Order in Council what you are only empowered to do by treaty.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think the Minister of Customs will have any objection to bring down the Order in Council.


William Findlay Maclean: I ask the Minister of Justice whether this government has power to pass such an Order in Council ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not seen the Order in Council and I cannot answer as to its validity.


William Findlay Maclean: This thing is illegal, and I believe it is contrary to the national interest.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is nothing contrary to the national interest in allowing fish to be landed on our shore, and carried through to the United States in bond.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is not a Canadian industry in the first .place. If Canadians went outside the three-mile limit and caught halibut they would do so in Canadian bottoms ; _and the Americans would take good care that fish so caught would have to pay duty. The Americans catch these fish on the high seas in American bottoms, and so they escape the American duty, but they employ Canadian labour and buy their supplies in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: That could be done on the Atlantic coast.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It could, but only under modus vivendi licenses.


Mr. PATERSON.: I will not set myself up as a constitutional authority, but I* do not think the order would have passed Council if it were illegal. Canadians could not engage in this business under equal conditions. By permitting this Order in Council to be renewed from year to year we give away none of our rights, and this fishing company trades with the merchants of Vancouver and ships their freight over the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Order in Council is passed in the interests of Canada and Canada alone. We could repeal the Order in Council any day, but we would lose a great deal of business in consequence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are giving these people a right which otherwise they would not enjoy, and by doing the same thing on the Atlantic coast you could give the Atlantic fisheries over to the Americans.


William Paterson: That is regulated by treaty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have never attempted to give away such rights unless by treaty, and I believe this Order in Council is passed without authority.


William Paterson: I have never heard any objection from a Canadian source. If this Order in Council were not renewed, Canadians would not be employed; the merchants of Vancouver would not be traded with, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not receive the earnings it does. I am sure that there will be no objection to placing the Order in Council upon the table and 'that when the subject is fully considered, no hon. gentleman opposite would take the responsibility of saying that we should not do what we have done.
Building and maintenance of fish-breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries, including the salary of F. H. Cunningham, $2,000, superintendent of fish culture, whose transfer from inside division without prejudice to his status under the Civil Service Superannuation Act is hereby ratified, $110,000.

Hr. SPROULiE. I understood the minister to say last year that he had decided to establish a fish hatchery on the Beaver river, close to the Georgian Bay. That is in every way a suitable location, and I would ask the minister if anything has been done or will he done in this matter ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The department intended to establish a hatchery somewhere around the Beaver river, but last year the session was so long and there were such diverse interests as regards the site of this hatchery that the matter was suspended for further consideration. I intended either going myself or having some of my officials go to visit these localities and decide what would be the best place for this and many other hatcheries.. I intend to adopt this course in regard to the maritime provinces, and I shall leave next week for British Columbia for a similar purpose. In this case, I think we will be in a position to decide within a few weeks.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is it intended to establish a lobster hatchery on the Bay of Fundy coast of New Brunswick '!


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The matter has been represented to the department, and New Brunswick will certainly be considered.


Gilbert White Ganong: It should certainly receive the attention of the minister. There is no location in Canada that is so well situated, in relation to the live lobster market, as the west coast of the Bay of Fundy. It is contiguous to the American market, and I believe that a hatchery there would add 50 per cent more to the value of the fisheries than in any other locality of the maritime provinces, on account of the convenience of the American market for the shipping of live lobsters. Besides that, these waters in days gone by teemed with lobsters, giving ample evidence of the suitability of the ground for lobsters.


Mr. KAT.: 'LBACH. How many fish breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries are there in the maritime provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hatcheries there are :
Hatchery.	Number of Fry distributed.	Species.Bedford, N.S	710,000	Atlantic salmon.Bay View, N.S	164,000,000	Lobsters.Margaree, N.S..	600,000	Atlantic salmon.St. John River, N.B.	648,000	II IIMiramichi, N.B	1,000,000	II MRestigouc.he, N.B....	1,935,000	11 II117,000	Salmon trout.Shemogue, N.B	17,000,000	Lobsters.


Mr. KAULBACH.: The fishing industry in the county which I have the honour to represent is very large and important. A great number of persons are employed in it, and I would ask how it is that the Minister of Marine has overlooked that important county and given us no fish hatcheries at all ? I think we are entitled to one at least. We represent the largest amount of capital of any county in the way of exports, and I think we are entitled certainly to some recognition. I would ask the minister to carefully consider that. I am not asking for favours ; I am asking for rights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I have explained in relation to the establishment of hatcheries in western Ontario, as well as in other parts of the Dominion, the reason for the delay is the fact that the session last year was so late that the only little trip I could take to the maritime provinces was one to Prince Edward Island in older to settle if possible the difficult question of the ferry to the mainland. I had no time at my disposal to go into the sites for hatcheries. I intend to do so as soon as the time is available for me, and I promise the hon. gentleman that I shall not fail to visit his locality.
Mi'. KAULBACH. I think if the minister will carry out his promise and visit my county, my statement will be fully verified, and he will have a very favourable impression of the county. I hope that in the future it will receive the benefits it so richly deserves.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is this extra $30,000 in the supplementary estimates to be expended on the hatcheries already established, or is it proposed to open new fish hatcheries during the year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is to provide for new ones.


James Clancy: Where ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When the item of $30,000 is up I shall be in a position to give the information.


Gilbert White Ganong: What proportion of this $110,000 goes to the new ones ?
Fisheries-oyster culture, $7,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Would the hon minister give us a little explanation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The annual report for 1903 gives much better explanation than I possibly could.


Gilbert White Ganong: In what location is this money to be expended ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In Caraquet Bay, N.B., at Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, at the Shediac oyster reserve.
Mi-. GANONG. Is any of this money to be devoted towards planting new beds in any other locality ?


William Paterson: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are waiting for a report from Mr. Kent, who is in charge of this culture, before deciding at what other places we will plant.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Is oyster culture encouraged'on the Bay of Fundy shore and the Atlantic shore ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have no oyster beds there. There are some in Annapolis, but they are small.
Fisheries-to assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait for deep sea fishermen, under conditions to be fixed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, $25,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would move to have this item amended so that it may read as follows :
To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for deep sea fishermen, including assistance in the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries, under conditions to be fixed by the department.
The idea is not only to contribute a sum of money for the establishment of cold storage for bait for the deep-sea fishermen, but also to assist in preparing the fish by providing driers. The said amount of fj>25,000 has never been entirely spent in aiding cold storage for bait, and the department has ccme to the conclusion that by giving driers for fish at certain places, where there is a good market, that would help the deep-sea fishermen very materially. The driers would cost about $1,800. We are installing one at Souris in Prince Edward Island.


Gilbert White Ganong: What class of drier is the bon. gentleman putting in ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is the drier manufactured by Collas, Whitman & Company. They hold the patent.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any acetylene gas used in this cold storage ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think so.


John Graham Haggart: Is there an item on which we could discuss that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, the increased vote for lighthouses.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Is the system carried on and receiving aid from the government under a chemical process or the ordinary ice storage ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Real ice is employed.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Has the minister recognized and thought favourably of the method of Eaton, which I detailed the other evening at some length ? The party is now in the city, and if the government would interview him, they would be able to receive
very much useful information which may lead up to an improvement in the present system.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no objection at all. If the hon. gentleman will present to me the person in question, he will be well received and I will .listen to any explanation he can give.


James Clancy: How much of the $25,000 voted for cold storage for bait for deep sea fishermen is to be diverted to the new service of building the drier ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $1,800 per drier.


James Clancy: How many driers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will have them at places where we think they will be required. The first place where a drier will be installed is Souris, P.E.I.


James Clancy: Is that intended to take the place of the $25,000 the hon. minister has voted ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; as I have explained this $25,000 though available on certain conditions has not been spent year after year. Only about half of it has been spent-$12,000 or $13,000. The boards of trade and the representatives of the fishermen have made representations that a certain amount of this vote could be diverted to the building of fish driers. It is somewhat in the same line and is intended to help the deep sea fishermen. After considering the matter we came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea, so we decided that at certain places where they bring their fish to be cured we would establish driers. These driers provide a mechanical means of effecting the curing of the fish which was formerly done by the sun and wind.


James Clancy: In fact, the hon. minister has been exercising his ingenuity to find means of spending this $25,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Exactly-in the interests of the fishermen.


William Ross: The experience has been that fish driers, if used . to dry fish as they come out of the pickle or out of the pile ready to be put on the flake, have not been successful, but that driers used to dry fish that are already partially dried by the sun. are most successful. They have been tried in Halifax both ways by drying what we call green fish-which has not proven a success-and by drying fish already partially dried in the sun, which has been very successful.


Gilbert White Ganong: Some hon. members present may not understand the conditions of the fish market. While I am not a fisherman, I know something about the matter.

It is solely in the interest of the export trade and these fish driers are built to prepare fish properly to go to the West India market, where the atmospheric conditions are very trying. From time to time, fish that are sun-dried and sent to that market turn out badly from sweating and mildewing. But, as I understand, the process suggested by the minister, by the use of what is known as the Whitman drier, has been an immense success, and a large business has been built up with the West Indies in fish cured by this process.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am sure the minister will recognize the fact that my county, Lunenburg, has the largest fishing industry in the export trade, not excepting Halifax, Halifax exports fish, but the greater portion of it is fish from outside counties, particularly from Lunenburg. If there is any aid given to fish driers, evidently the county of Lunenburg is entitled to some of that aid. As the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. William Ross) has just explained, this is simply a process to carry the drying of fish further than it can be carried by means of the wind and sun. To take the fish green, as we call it, and put them through the drier would be rather to injure them for the market, because it would deprive them to a certain extent of their flavour. But when fish already partly dried in the sun are put through the mechanical drier, they can be sent in marketable shape to any part of the world. I think that, under the circumstances, the hon. minister will see that what I say is reasonable, and is in the interest of the fishermen as a whole, and that, as my county exports more largely than any other, he should recognize that fact and act accordingly.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: In conversation with Mr. Whitman, who was here some few weeks ago, I got from him some information which does not accord with the statements made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) who has just taken his seat. Mr. Whitman gave me to understand that it was possible to take the fish green, take them just as they come out of the water, and cure them completely by his method ; and that you could very successfully cure them by taking them out [DOT] of kench and putting them into the drier. Of course, the better way would be to partially cure them in the sun and wind and then complete the work in the drier. But, if the conditions would not allow that to be done, it was possible, as he had proven by practical experience. to cure them completely by putting them in the drier on taking'them out of kench-the conditions to which my hon. friend from Victoria refers-or even by taking them green altogether. All along the coast of the maritime provinces, particularly, I know so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, we can get fish in the I Mr. GANONG.
fall of the year, even in October and November when it it not possible to dry them outside, the weather conditions not being suitable for curing them. It is then that the drier would be very useful. The fish caught at that season of the year can be cured by this means. But the drier would be useful also at other seasons when the fishermen are so busy, particularly if the catches were so good that they would not have time to complete the cure of thd fish on the flakes. They could then be placed in the drier and finished. And as the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) has said, this method has proven very successful for curing fish for the West Indian market where the climatic conditions are very trying. The curing of fish intended for that market has to be carried further than can be done under natural conditions of sun and wind. The fish have to be made harder, firmer, to stand the West Indiafi climate. In preparing fish for that market the driers have been very successful and as my hon. friend (Mr. Ganong) has stated a very successful trade has been built up by the Whitmans in curing their fish in this way. So far as I can obtain information on the subject, the driers, wherever they have been used, are very successful, and their operation will be a great assistance in the development of the fisheries.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I understand that the information given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) was received from Mr. Whitman. While that statement might have be made to my hon. friend, at the same time Mr. Whitman is wrong. There have been cases in which the fish have been taken right from the catch after being salted and pressed, and put through this drying process and shipped. But it has been shown that they have to be put under such pressure-in order to get the moisture out of them and fit them for the drier-that a large portion of the nutritive properties of the fish is extracted, and it deteriorates the value of the fish, and lessens its price in the foreign market. I make this statement on the authority of shippers, and believe it to be true. Mr. Whitman, the originator and owner of the patent, would naturally be inclined to place all the advantages of his patent before the public. I am advised that the fish lose their virtue to a certain extent in the patent process of drying, if they are put under pressure sufficient to prevent the elimination of the moisture.


William Ross: A large drying establishment based on the Whitman process was put up in Halifax, and they had to abandon the drying of green fish altogether. There is no green fish dried in that drier now. The drier is used to harden fish that have already been dried by the sun, in that case the system is successful. Thlis' process may be used in drying fish for the-

West Indies or for South American trade when they are received by the merchants partially dried. But there is no process in the world equal to the sun drying to make good fish, and my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) will bear out that testimony.
Fisheries-to provide for the maintenance of the Georgian Bay laboratory, $1,500.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is a station for a commission devoted to the study of the fishing industry. It is no invention of mine.


Mr. SP ROUTE.: Has this commission a headquarters or station where they meet to discuss matters, or is it a kind of roving commission ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They meet twice a year to study and discuss these matters in the interests of fishermen, and they publish every two years a report of their work. In the summer they are stationed on the Georgian Bay. This money is to pay their expenses, to provide a boat house in which they live on the Georgian Bay. Their station is on the Richmond Bay, above Midland. There is also a station in Prince Edward Island.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I observe an item here for the fishing bounty.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is by statute.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I referred to that item the other day, and I would like to ask the minister now if he is prepared to give an increased amount of fishing bounties this vear I think it would be reasonable to do so in view of the fact that the number of fishermen is considerably larger than it was when this amount was first granted. I think they are entitled to a larger amount for general distribution.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This amount is fixed by statute, and when the government considered this matter they came to the conclusion that without more consideration it was not opportune to increase this year the amount for bounties by statute.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. gentleman will see that the amount at first was $150,000, and it was increased to $160,000. The additional amount being also made a statutory allowance. I think in view of the increased number of men engaged in fisheries the minister might well provide an additional amount this year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have not seen our way clear to make an increase.
Ocean and river service-further amount reQuired for Dominion steamers, owing to repairs to the ' Lady L&urier,' $30,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Could not the minister succeed in getting the steamer ' Alert ' on
his list ? It is a good steamer for that service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The suggestion is worth consideration. Instead of leasing a boat as we have been in the habit of doing to supply the lighthousees in the upper St. Lawrence we might use that boat for the purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: The boat is a large one, and suitable for the purpose. Now that all the other works have been completed and the hon. minister has taken over some of the vessels that are used by the Department of Railways and Canals, there is no reason *why lie should not take over the ' Alert.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have taken over those that were employed in the hydrographic surveys, the ' Scout ' and some scows.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I know ; but it was connected with the same department, the Department of Railways and Canals.
Ocean and river service-to pay amount of damages awarded merchants and shippers for losses sustained on perishable goods, owing to the detention of the ' Minto ' and Stanley by ice, $9,562.18,


John Dowsley Reid: Where was that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That happened during the winter of 1902-3.


John Dowsley Reid: Between the mainland and Prince Edward Island ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. The two boats were caught in the ice. Although we did not consider the claimants entitled in law to the amounts which have been allotted to them, we thought that these were fair and reasonable claims for the actual losses suffered by reason of the fact that these boats were caught in the ice. We sent a special officer to examine into these claims and he has reported. We were disposed to pay the amount without coming before parliament, but after due consideration we thought it would be better to lay the whole matter before the House, so that any explanation that might be required could be given.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister, of course, knows that when you ship goods the dangers of navigation are accepted, so that in that case the government are not liable.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In law we are not liable, but this is a moral claim.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case the government can see then- way clear to paying these claims, but the right hon. Prime Minister is not able to see his way clear to paying the claim of the clergyman which I brought to his attention the other evening.


Wilfrid Laurier: The clergyman 1 did not apply to me ; he applied to the

court. If lie had applied to me, it would have been different.


John Dowsley Reid: He did apply to the Exchequer Court, and he got judgment. In this case had the parties applied to the court the court would not have given judgment in their favour, but in the case to which I refer the Exchequer Court has given judgment, and yet the right hon. Prime Minister cannot see his way clear to asking the House to vote a sum sufficient to cover this amount, $1,200. If it were put in the estimates, there is no question about it that it would pass, and I think the Prime Minister should adopt that course.
iSir WILFRID LAURIER. I am quite willing to consider it favourably, but I must say that the cases are not the same. The reverend gentleman went to the Exchequer Court and got judgment, but the judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court. We are asked to pay a claim which the court has told us we should not pay. The circumstances are different.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I would like to ask the hon. minister how these damages were arrived at ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When the claims had all been put in we sent a special officer from the department to investigate every case. Although this was done last winter, we have not up to the present moment received any complaints in respect to the settlement of the claims, except that we have received a few claims that were not put in at the time.


Mr. BE  A IN@: What proportion of the value was paid ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The claims were reduced in such proportion as the facts investigated by our officer warranted. I may state, for the information of the hon. gentleman, that hon. members on both sides of the House from Prince Edward Island arc perfectly satisfied.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I am not objecting. Did the hon. gentleman pay the invoice price of the goods ?
Mr. PREiFONTAINE. No ; we paid the actual loss on perishable goods only.
Mr. j. D. REID. This, I suppose, establishes the precedent that in all similar cases claims for damages will be paid. I am not objecting to the amount.


Wilfrid Laurier: IVe will do justice.
Ocean and river service-further amount required for investigations into wrecks, $2,000.
Mr. PREFONTAINE moved that the item be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ocean and river service-Further amount required for examination of masters and mates $1,000.
['IVe will do justice.\nOcean and river service-further amount required for investigations into wrecks, $2,000.\nMr. PREFONTAINE moved that the item be struck out.']
Wilfrid Laurier: 


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Mr. Chairman, I desire to draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that in the county I have the honour to represent there is a larger number of young men than in any other part of the province engaged in the merchant marine service, and whilst a number of these young men are employed in the summer time in the prosecution of the industry of fishing, they are employed in the later autumn and winter in foreign service. There is a large amount of material that can be utilized were there a school established in the county, and I would ask the hon. minister if he would kindly look into that matter seriously. I spoke of it before, and I think it is a reasonable request that a school bo opened in the town of Lunenburg, where there are experienced ship masters who would be a credit to the service, and who would give valuable aid in advancing these young men to the positions of masters and mates, but who are now kept in the background for the want of a local school. I would ask the hon. minister in all seriousness to give his careful attention to the subject and to have a school opened in the county. There is another matter to which I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister. For some years the coast service was extended down to the West Indies, while now it has its limit at Cape Hatteras. Although these young men have not the authority to sail foreign as well as coastwise, they go out boldly as well as those who are possessed of the natural qualities of seamen and who are authorized to cross the Atlantic. In a measure they have the experience, because thev have been sailing to the West Indies. Their calling is to the West Indies, because a large portion of the fish caught in the summer time are carried in the winter time to the West Indies for a market. I feel satisfied that if the hon. minister would extend the limit of the coast service to the West Indies, as it was in the past, it would be an advantage.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That question is receiving the special attention of the chairman of the Board of Masters and Mates, and we hope to be able to remedy the existing state of affairs. As regards an examiner at Lunenburg, I may state that there is one at Yarmouth and one at Halifax. The distance is not very great, but, all. the same,
I will have a report made upon the subject.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: These men desirous of qualifying are of a class who are hardly able to bear the expense of going to Yarmouth, which is a long way off, or even going to Halifax in the adjoining county.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In certain cases, where there are three or four together, we send the examiner to the place so that they many be examined.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am aware of the fact that they are examined at the present time, but still there is no school. Were

there a school they would be able to acquire knowledge of the details to an extent which would advance them much more rapidly than by adopting the rude process that they have at the present time ; that is, going up for examination before the parties who are appointed by the board.
Lighthouse and coast service - further amount required for the construction and completion of the Lurcher and East Point Anticosti lightships, $15,000.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Explain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This will settle the account for the construction of these two light ships. They were contracted for by my predecessor, built by the Poison Iron works and are the most modern lightships in the world.
Lighthouse and coast service-maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $35,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year's vote of $345,000 was exhausted on the first of June. A great number of these lighthouses were bdilt before confederation and needed extensive repairs. A large number received new apparatus ; the severe winter entailed extra expense at the request of the shipping interests of Montreal the buoys were left in the channel later than usual and some of them were lost, and had to be replaced ; this spring a number of the buoys were carried away.


John Dowsley Reid: Will acetylene be put in all the lighthouses between Montreal and Kingston and the lighthouse-keepers done away with.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This vote is to supplement the expenditure between Montreal and Quebec.


John Graham Haggart: I will require the reports of your officers as to the use of acetylene gas in these lighthouses. I refer especially to the reports of Mr. Anderson.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will bring all the documents down on the supplementary estimates.
Lighthouse and coast	service-further
amount required for construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, $50,000.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been some statements made regarding the purchase of the property for the establishment of a lighthouse depot at Prescott, and I wish to say that I consider that property was bought very reasonably and cheaply, and the purchase of it was all right. There is another lot adjoining that property and if the government do not purchase it the whole look of the property they have will be spoiled. I hope the minister will see his way to purchase that lot and make the property square. I hope he will secure the adjoining lot.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This matter is under consideration. I have never been to
Prescott, but I hope to visit it soon, and 1 will look into this matter. I think $1,000 was asked for the adjoining lot, and I offered $500 and the owner is ready to sell for $750.


John Dowsley Reid: I think myself the lot is worth $1,000, and the government is not paying any too much for it even at that price. It is a corner lot and it will help to make the government lot more uniform, and the minister should not hesitate to buy it and make their lot complete.
Lighthouse and coast service-to provide for the purchase of a wharf for steamers and lighthouse service at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, $13,000.


James Clancy: Explain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When I visited Charlottetown last fall, I found that the ferry boats and government steamers had no proper wharf accommodation. The wharfs which our steamers used were really a disgrace. It was pointed out that we might buy the Poole property, and I was told that the price would be $16,000 or $18,000, I said we were not disposed to pay so high a price, and after a good deal of bargaining $13,000 was settled on, which is considered by everyone as reasonable and fair. It is without exception the best wharf in Charlottetown and besides we save $500 a year.


James Clancy: Did the government steamers land at that wharf before 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; it was private property.


James Clancy: Has the government the exclusive right now ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Fisheries-further amount required for salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $20,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The actual expenditure of the department is $105,000, and we have always overlapped to the extent of $20,000. To cover this deficiency we have to vote this $20,000.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand that system of bookkeeping. Here is $20,000 additional required for salaries and disbursements. How has the minister made the mistake ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not made a mistake. I found when I came into the department that the expenditure for the year previous had exceeded the estimate and the appropriation, so last year I asked for $20,000 to cover the expenditure of 1902-3. This year I am asking for the same amount of $20,000 to cover the amount which I am short for 1903-4.


John Graham Haggart: Some one must have expended $20,000 more than he had a right to. Who was the minister who did that ?

7 GOO


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can give the hon. gentleman the information as to how far back it was done.


James Clancy: Does it mean that the hon. gentleman had $85,000 voted and expended $20,000 more ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We expended $20,000 more than was voted last year or the year before.


James Clancy: Where did the hon. gentleman get the money ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We did not get it, we are trying to get it now.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says he expended it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The obligation is contracted.	*


John Graham Haggart: Have you provided for the $20,000 this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, I have not provided for it.


John Graham Haggart: That is an extraordinary state of affairs.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not explained why it was necessary to expend $20,000 more than was expended in the former year. I see that the vote for the year prior to that was $85,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In years gone by the expenditure of the department for this service has always exceeded by $20,000 the expenditure of the year previous and it was always voted on the supplementary estimates for the year which had passed. I am doing exactly the same thing as was done last year and as my predecessors did years before.	[DOT]
River St. Lawrence ship channel, $588,000.


John Graham Haggart: We want an explanation of all this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In order to explain this matter fully, I shall read the Order in Council which was adopted 11th of March, 1904:
On a report dated 7th February, 1904, from the Right Honourable the President of the Privy Council, submitting that an Act passed at the last session of parliament, respecting the management and control of public and other works (3 Edward VII., c. 53) provides for the transfer by the Governor in Council of the management, charge and direction of any public works or any power, duty or function with respect to any work or class of works, -whether public or private which is assigned to or vested by statute in any minister or department to any other minister or department.
The minister recommends as follows :-
1.	With a view to systematizing and facilitating the work in connection with hydrographic surveys, the administration of which branch of the public service is assigned to the Mr. HAGGART.
Department of Marine and Fisheries under the provisions of 55-56 Vic., c. 17, and the1 work whereof has been continuously performed by that department for many years past, that all hydrographic work of the Department of Public Works and of Railways and Canals be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and that that department alone be charged in future with the management and control of such surveys.
I may state that there appears in _ the supplementary estimates of 1904-5 an item of $10,500 which was formerly in the estimate of the Department of Railways and Canals. That item the Department of Railways and Canals dropped and it has been transferred to the supplementaries of the Department of Marine for 1905.
That from and after the first of July next (1904) the management and control of the St. Lawrence ship channel, together with the dredging and sweeping plant, steamers and all other appliances now used by the Department of Public Works in connection wj}th that work, be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, so as to place the supervision of the improvements to navigation on the St. Lawrence route under tha jurisdiction of the department which is directly responsible for the aids to navigation, on that route.
3.	That all the duties, powers and funcJ
tions with respect to any work or class of works conferred upon the Minister of Public Works by any of the Acts relating to harbour, commissioners, be transferred to and hereafter exercised by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.	-
4.	That any records and plans in the possession of the Department of Public Works or of Railways and Canals, which refer to any of the above-mentioned works and which may be required by the Department of Marine, and Fisheries for its information and guidance upon assuming control of the said works be transferred to the last named department, upon its making application therefor.
5.	That all moneys voted by parliament to either the Department of Public Works or that of Railways and Canals for the purpose of , carrying out any of -the works under the control of either department and now' transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, be placed to the credit of the last named department.
6.	That the changes as recommended above take effect from this date except as hereinabove otherwise provided.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has that been laid on the table already ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. This amount of $588,000 is the ordinary amount which has been voted from year to year since 1890 for the work proper of the ship channel and basin, and of course all work of construction and repairs of the fleet necessary to carry on the dredging of the channel. This vote provides :
1.	For the working expenses of six elevator dredges and one hydraulic or suction dredge, with their accessory plants, which it

is proposed to keep at work at various points on the St. Lawrence helow Montreal, deepening and otherwise improving the ship channel.
2.	Maintenance of Sorel ship establishment, inclusive of supplies, charges of management and superintendence of dredging operations, &c.
3.	Towards construction of additional dredging plant at Sorel, improvement of shipyard facilities, including wharf and dock accommodation.
4.	Carrying on the hydrographic survey of the River St. Lawrence, now in progress, and the operations of sweeping and supervision of the dredge channel.
The following is a detailed estimate of requirements for 1904-5 :	[DOT]
1.	Dredging operations-
Working expenses of six elevators dredges, operating day and night, with their accessory plants of tugs, scows, &c., including fuel, wages, board, stores, repairs and supervision and office expenses ; for a season of about eight months-six elevator dredges at $40,000 each. .$240,000
Last year and the year previous the expenditure was from $30,000 to $37,000 per dredge :
Working expenses of one hydraulic dredge, operating day and night [DOT] including plant and superintendence ; for a season of about six
months	
Working expenses of 2 stone lifters
2.	Shipyard, supplies and new plant-
Coal for shipyard, 2,000 tons
a* $4.50	$ 9,900
Smith's coal, 500 tons at $6... 3,000 Drying kiln and- other new
buildings	5,000
New blacksmith shop and brass
foundry	10,000
Removing wreck of old railway wharf	 2,000
Rebuilding old railway wharf. 12,000 Rebuilding wharf, upper end
of shipyard	 5,000
New electric plant	 25,000
New plant and machinery.. .. 10,000
3.	New dredging plat, yard facilities and improvements-
New dredging plant and completion of two spare scows,
200 yards each	  ..$20,000
Reconstruction of upper part of hull of dredge ' Laurier.'. 12,000 Winch scow with boiler and
winch	 8,000
Flat scow with derrick ..	.. 6,000
New set powerful buckets for
dredge ' Lafontaine '	10,000
Additional upper works ' Cartier ' and other tugs	 8,000
Purchase of tug 'Carmelia'.. 13,000
4.	Hydrographic surveys, sweeping and supervision, including commencement of sweeping tug-
For the continuation of the hydrographic surveys of the River St. Lawrence, now in progress	$ 40,000
60,000
10,000
81,900
77,000
For the sweeping and supervision of the dredged channel	 19,100
On account of the construction of a new, powerful ice-breaking and sweeping tug, designed for prolonging navigation, sweeping above and helow Quebec, and general towing of dredging plant, especially for Cap k la
Roche	 60,000

 119,100,
Total	$588,000
Now, I am ready to give information in detail about the work.


John Graham Haggart: What depth does this give you in both places-in lake St. Peter and below ? And what remains to be completed ? and when do you expect to have it completed ?
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the committee rose at six o'clock the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) had just read the Order in Council, which, under the statute passed last session, attributes certain of the duties of the Department of Railways and Canals and of the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It reminds me of the campaign of the hon. minister in the division of Maisonneuve, when he presented himself for re-election after his acceptance of his present portfolio. I merely wish to call my hon. friend's attention to this and to ask for a word or two of explanation which, no doubt, he will give. At that time, my hon. friend will remember, it was charged by those opposed to his re-election that the important Department of Public Works had been taken away from the province of Quebec to which it had been allotted at the time of the distribution of portfolios in 1896, and that the department given to the province as represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Prefontaine) was a department of minor importance. I think that was a legitimate objection to raise in an election when all questions of public interest can he discussed, particularly an election which took place after a ministerial reconstruction. My hon. friend made a very good defence-so good that he was elected by a large majority. Amongst other things, he stated as he will remember, that the department which he was called upon to preside over, if he were elected, will undergo a very large development. That department, he said, would be entrusted with the superintendence of all navigation of every kind-[DOT] to use his own language-from the Yukon to the Atlantic ocean. What was understood by that was that there was going to be introduced a very important modifica-

tion of the system that had obtained since confederation in the organization of the administrative work of the Dominion. We understood that the Department of Marine and Fisheries was going to take from the Department of Public Works everything which concerned navigation, the construction of wharfs, the deepening of rivers, canal navigation-I believe that was specified at the time by my hon. friend and by his organs,-everything that concerned navigation, including the construction, repairs and labour of every kind. That was a new principle, that is, a new principle here, though not new as applied to other nations. The system which prevails here as hon. members of the committee know, is that the Department of Public Works is entrusted with all work of material construction throughout the Dominion, with whatever department it may be concerned. If the Department of Militia desires to have a drill hall erected, it is the work of the Public Works Department to construct it ; if a post office is to be erected, or a customs house built, or a building provided in connection with the Department of Justice or the Department of Trade and Commerce, -any building of whatever kind-it is supposed to be the work of the Public Works Department which is manned by a minister and a sufficient number of officials to carry out all the public works of the Dominion. And that it was which made that department in the eyes of the electors of Maison-neuve such an important department ; and that was why they, or at least a certain number of them, could not see why that department should be taken from the province of Quebec.
But the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is this : After my hon. friend had become a minister, he endeavoured to carry out the pledges he had made to his electors, I will give him credit for that. He made a noble effort to draw into his department everything that he said he would include in it. That he failed to realize his promises there is no doubt, and that is the point upon which I would like an explanation from him. There has evidently been a struggle, there has evidently been a conflict, and the Order in Council which my hon. friend read to us a short time ago is the outcome of that conflict. By the terms of the Order in Council the Department of Marine and Fisheries is charged with the St. Lawrence ship channel, it has charge of the localities that are under the control of harbour boards. Why is the attribution so restricted ? That is what I would like my hon. friend to explain. Take for instance, the navigation between Montreal and Quebec. My hon. friend, under the terms of this Order in Council, has charge of the ship channel from Montreal to Quebec where important works are going on ; he has charge of the construction of Mr. MONK.
piers and of public works to be executed within the harbour of Montreal, in that particularly restricted locality where the Harbour Commissioners have jurisdiction ; he has also charge of works to be executed at Three Rivers, if there is a harbour board there, and I think there is. There is a harbour board at Quebec, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners his department has charge of the public expenditure. But if wharfs are to be built between Quebec and Montreal outside the very limited jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners, they are not to be attributed to my hon. friend's department, but they fall under the Department of Public Works. Lighthouses to be constructed above Montreal-and there is no subject which it seems to me comes more properly under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries-those lighthouses, so far as their construction is concerned, belong to the Department of Public Works. The canal navigation remains where it was under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals. All wharfs or improvements to be constructed above Montreal, although intimately connected with navigation, unless they are to be constructed within the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners, are completely outside the attribution of the department of my hon. friend We are, I believe this year, to execute very important and commendable improvements at Port Colborne which are very important: to the inland navigation of this country. Unless there are harbour commissioners at Port Colborne, and I am not aware that there are any, all those improvements will be constructed outside the control of the department of my hon. friend. That is the way I understand it. I do not think there are as yet harbour commissioners appointed for the ports of Port Arthur and Fort William. Any improvements we make there in the way of construction work would therefore be under the Department of Public Works and not under the department of my hon. friend. In other words, there has been a creation to the department of my bon. friend, but it is limited as indicated in the Order in Council read by him.
What 1 would like to ask my hon. friend is this :	Upon what principle did the government proceed in that division, in that attribution to his department of works which previously were under the control of the Department of Public Works ? What was the guiding principle ? Was it, as everything leads us to believe, a mere compromise between my hon. friend and the head of the Department of Public Works by which the latter relinquished some of his patronage, if I may use such an expression, a certain part of the subject previously attributed to it, in order to satisfy my hon. friend ? Was it that, or

*was there some principle which guided the government in making that attribution ? Ol course once we depart from the principle that all works of construction performed by the government, in whatever department they may belong, belong of right to the Department of Public Works, the moment, 1 say, we depart from the principle as we have upon the present occasion I do not see why that department, which used to be the most important, should not gradually be shorn of all its attributes. In England undoubtedly, in France, I believe, and in the United States there is no Department of Fublie Works. In those countries I understand, the departments have to construct themselves the works that they need; there is no special department of state to which the work of public construction is confided as has been the case in this country since confederation. That is also, I think, the system adopted in several provinces of the Dominion. I say once we depart from that principle I see no reason in reality why each, department should not have charge of its own construction, and why the Department of Public Works snould not be replaced by some new department which might supply all the many wants of a rapidly growing country like our own. I would like to know from my hon. friend what is the principle which guided the government in the division of the public works, and the attribution to his own department of those specially indicated in the Order in Council ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Order in Council explains itself very well, and is easy to understand. The government of this country .thought proper to delegate to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries certain functions which before had been performed by the Minister of Public Works. These are duly set forth in the Order in Council. Take for instance, the business of hydrographic surveys, which constituted an extraordinary anomaly in the administration of that branch of the public service. Part of those surveys were made by the Department of Railways and Canals, a part by the Department of Public Works, and still another part by the Department of Marine and Fisheries,t although by statute constituting the Department of Marine and Fisheries, all the hydrographic surveys should have been conducted by it and were attributed to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The Order in Council has settled that point and this work is now entirely confided to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Certain works which belonged entirely, according to the opinion of the government, to the control and supervision of the Department of Public Works were attributed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. These include the most important national works of this country, the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec, and the equipment of the St. Lawrence. The ship channel between Montreal and Quebec is an essential part of our national highway. It is a work of the greatest importance and there would be really no national highway if the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec were not equipped and put in such a condition as to offer all the security and facilities that the trade and commerce of this country require. If I understand well my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier he would have liked if the whole of the work connected with minor improvements upon the route of the St. Lawrence, the construction of wharfs on the River Richelieu or on Lake St. Louis in his own county or in remote places in Canada, had been confided to me. There are thousands of small wharfs, some of them important, which are not really connected with what is known as the national route of the St. Lawrence and which are not therefore confided to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. In our judgment we thought that everything that was constructed in the general sense of the word should remain properly under the control of the Department of Public Works. What is the difference after all ? I would have liked probably, if I had consulted my own ambition, that everything should have been placed under my control, but after considering my capacity and realizing my position I came to the conclusion that my department could not embrace the construction of all these different works. I ask what is the difference after all whether these wharfs are constructed by the Department of Public Works or by the Department of Marine and Fisheries because after being constructed they are handed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to look after and administer. It makes no difference after-all. It does not make very much difference whether the Department of Marine and Fisheries or the Department of Public Works controls the expenditure of the money. There is a higher and more important question than that. My hon. friend seems to be under a misapprehension when he says that the wharfs and piers remain under the control of the Department of Public Works. That is not the case according to the law. The law provides that after these wharfs and piers are constructed they shall be handed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to administer. My hon. friend is also under a misapprehension about the construction of lighthouses. The construction of lighthouses, the establishment of aids to navigation, and the furnishing of whatever is necessary for the safe navigation of the St. Lawrence route have been since 1872 under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and they continue to be under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend say that the construction of lighthouses belongs to his department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
James Clancy: And all were satisfied to administer the department as they found it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, of course every one has his own tastes. I do not reproach them for not having thought well to improve the national route of the St. Lawrence, but I will point out that this government has taken the matter in hand, and it is going to show the people of Canada and the people of the United States, as well, that the St. Lawrence route is the great national highway for this part of the North American continent, and that it can compete with any other route in the United States. As I said, I do [DOT] not reproach the Conservative Ministers of Marine and Fisheries for not having dealt with the St. Lawrence route, but I point out to the people of Canada that the improvements are now going on. and I do not think they will bo disposed to blame the government for having made certain departmental changes. The question for us to consider is : is this work well carried on ; are the plans well matured ; is the execution of the work in the best interests of the country ? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then the people of Canada will take very little stock in minor considerations as to what minister is in charge of the execution of the policy of the government in this regard. My hon. friend seems much concerned that I have not the administration of the canals. Well, I am a new minister and have quite a good deal to look after now. and I am not ashamed to confess, a good deal to learn. I do not pretend to be perfect, but at the same time I am doing my best to administer the affairs which I have under my control at the present time. I may say that I am perhaps not as well posted as I would like to be in the fishery branch of my department, because I have not had the advantage of visiting the different parts of the Dominion to ascertain for myself the requirements of the people. I can say, however, without fear of contradiction, that as regards the port of Montreal and the channel between Montreal and Quebec, I have some knowledge of the needs of the situation, and I trust I may be able to apply that knowledge to the best advantage of the people of Canada. As to the lighting of the Sf. Lawrence route, we are trying to do the best we can. We are adopting the most modern apparatus so that we may give satisfaction, not only to the shipping trade entering Montreal from the east, but also to the transportation business coming to that port from the west. I think our efforts are directed in the proper way. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with what has been done, I must tell him I am perfectly satisfied. My friends are perfectly satisfied also and he is welcome as he was in 1902 in my division of Maisonneuve, to come and preach the same doctrine as he has preached tonight. I am perfectly willing to have my friends judge me by my acts and what I am doing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has display ed a great deal of irritation unnecessarily. I do not know that there is any electricity in the atmosphere that would contribute to irritate my hon. friend, but he has given us a political harangue unnecessarily and has refrained from answering a very plain question. What I asked my hon. friend was this : There has been a redistribution of the work of the departments. I mildly, gently, mellifluously asked what principle had guided the government in that work of division, and the minister gets up and says he has made great improvements in the St. Lawrence, that this government is responsible for those improvements, and that people threw insults at him in his election. 1 never did anything of that kind myself, and I do not know that anybody else did. I never met my hon. friend during tliat election. I thought we had a right in that election to say that the 'Department of Public Works had been, in our opinion, unnecessarily taken from our province. We may have been wrong, but I think that was a legitimate question to discuss, and my hon. friend thought it so important that he said that the department of which he was taking charge was to be a new department altogether, and that everything that concerned navigation throughout the country, to use his own words, from the extreme west to the east, from the coast of the Pa oific down to Nova Scotia, on the coast of the Atlantic, any construction work with reference to piers, lighthouses, or any work of construction in connection with navigation, which belong to the Department of Public Works, would be transferred to him. He was elected upon that new programme which he defined in that election. I stated a moment ago that the system which has prevailed in Canada has been that all con struction of this and every kind whatever, for post offices, for military use, for any

department, was performed in this country by the Department of Public Works. In England, where there are forty-five minis ters, every minister controls the construction work of his own department. We have a different principle. My hon. friend preached through his election that that principle was going to be changed. He has changed it in part. He has taken a part out of the Public Works Department. A man cannot get up in this House and ask my hon. friend the principle and the line of conduct laid down in that division without getting from him a refusal to answer and an appeal to popular passion. I find that strange, and I repeat that I am sorry the minister refused to explain to me and to this committee why it is that if a wharf is to be built at St. Lambert, opposite Montreal, he has nothing to do with that construction, and if it is to be built at Hochelaga, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners, it beiongs to him entirely. My hon. friend will not answer that question, and I will let it rest there. This is a very important item, and I wish to ask my hon. friend to give the committee a general idea as to how he proposes to spend this large sum. What are specifically the improvements that are going to be carried out this year in that ship channel, which interests the business and trading community of this country in such a large degree ? There is a very good report by Mr. Lafleur, acting Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, in the report of the Minister of Public Works last year, which gives a great deal of information. X find, amongst other things, not quite a justification of the proud boast which is made by the minister that he had inaugurated, and his government had carried out, under him, very important, improvements. I find that what has been done for the past ten years in the ship channel is but the carrying out of a plan laid down in 1844, I think before my hon. friend was born, certainly before I was born. We are carrying out that programme of deepening and improving the channel between Quebec and Montreal, and no doubt my hon. friend will contribute his part, as other ministers have done, to the carrying out of that plan first enunciated by the Hon. John Young, and which we have been carrying out ever since. The channel between Montreal and Quebec is 160 miles long. Sixty-five per cent of that channel requires no improvements, it is deep enough and wide enough to admit of the passage of vessels. The only improvement to be made there is the proper lighting of the channel. I find in Mr. Lafleur's report that the plan is to give the channel a depth of 30 feet from Montreal to Quebec, a width of at least 450 feet, which is the least that is safe, and where there are curves a width of at least 050 or 700 feet, or even more. No doubt it would be desirable that that channel should be wider, a depth of 30 feet and a width of 450 feet is barely enough, and the object we Mr. MONK.
have in view is to give it a width which would avoid some of the accidents that have occurred and which have damaged the reputation of the channel. We have excavated over 36,000,000 cubic yards. We have expended for plant, shops, surveys, Ac., $2,331,527.23, and we have expended for dredging $4,910,155.62. We have seven dredges. My hon. friend told the committee before six o'clock that we are going to have an eighth dredge. I would like to know whether it is contemplated continuing the work of improvement during the present season, what parts of the channel he is going to dredge, and what other improvements he is going to make, besides dredging, in the way of lighting, and generally in the way of carrying out the suggestions so ably made to the government two years ago by the shipping interests of Montreal, who carried on an Investigation at their own expense and laid the result of that investigation before the government, from whom they obtained the promise that their suggestions would be carried out. Where are we going to increase the depth and the width of the channel, and what improvements are we going to carry out in the way of lighting the channel ? Are any new buoys going to be added in order to secure safe navigation ? Can any hon. friend give us any valid reason for the unfortunate number of accidents which have occurred in that channel sincj the beginning of the season ? I find in Mr. Lafleur's report that last year we had eight accidents in the River St. Lawrence. The accidents which have occurred this year appear to be due in a large proportion to negligence on the part of somebody ; but whatever may be the cause, they have inflicted serious injury on our channel and make people skeptical as regards the accomplishment of the very excellent object which my hon. friend has in view, namely, of having the navigation of the St. Lawrence just as safe and free from risk as is the ocean navigation to the great American ports. My hon. friend has stated that under his administration, and that of the past few years, the insurance rates have greatly diminished. Is that the case, and what is the-diminution ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My hon. friend is mistaken. What I said was that we had in sight the diminution of the rates ef insurance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then I misunderstood my hon. friend. But as I understand it-and I see my hon. friend from St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) is in his seat, who is conversant with this subject-we are handicapped in the way of rates. The St. Lawrence route is mulcted in heavier rates than the American ports. That is a very serious disability for which I am told is no cause. There is no reason for it except the ipse dixit of the English underwriters, and it is most desirable that that

inequality should disappear. My hon. friend has a large sum at his disposal. He contemplates important improvements, and he states to the committee that he is certain that after those improvements have been carried out, the disability I refer to will either disappear or be seriously diminished. What guarantee can my hon. friend offer as to that V 1 would be prepared to vote an additional sum if my hon. friend can state to this committee, that he has conferred with the underwriters and that the improvements he contemplates will result in a removal of. that grave disability from which we suffer of being burdened with heavier rates of insurance than the American ports. Since my hon. friend, in a moment of irritation, which I cannot very well explain, has judged fit not to answer my hrst question, this one I beg him to believe is in no way connected with politics. The ship channel is to me a question apart from politics. It is a business matter which interests the whole Dominion and the city of Montreal in particular, and if my hon. friend will give me a little enlightenment on the points I have mentioned, I shall be very much obliged to him.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. Because 1 thought proper to explain as clearly as my control of the English language would permit, a few of the points which he thought proper to charge against the government, he feels that there was electricity in the air. My hon. friend may have felt it, but I did not and there was no cause for it. Now he says that the plan we are executing is one which was begun in 1844. Sir, the plan now being carried out was never begun in 1844. What was begun in 1844 was an attempt to dredge the channel through the Lake St. Peter flats, and whatever information the hon. gentleman has taken upon himself to give to the committee, he has taken from the reports of the Public Works Department for 1903 under the heading ' History of the ship channel.'
The actual improvements were commenced in 1844, and continued by the government as a public work until 1846, and abandoned the following year owing to opposition to the location of the channel.
Legislation was passed in 1850 transferring the plant and authorizing the Montreal Harbour Commissioners to borrow money and proceed with the works as they should deem bestk
From 1851 to 1888 all operations for the improvement of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec were carried on by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners, the interest on the cost of the work being defrayed by a tonnage tax on all vessels drawing 10 feet and upwards.
In 1888 the channel from Montreal to Cap h la Roche was completed to 27J feet at or-242
dinary low water, and from there to Quebec 27i feet at half tide. ,
The government decided in 1888 to re-adopt the River St. Lawrence ship channel as a public work.
Under the Public Works Department, from 1888 to 1898, the work begun by the Harbour Commissioners was continued.
The difficult rock work at Cap a. la Roche and Cap Charles was completed, as designed.
Almost all of the dredged portions of the river, except the channel in Lake St. Peter, were cleaned up or deepened, and many, curves and narrow places were widened.
Surveys were made, and between Cap Charles and Quebec, to avoid the necessity of waiting for the tide, channels were dredged, through several shoals.
The extraordinary low water * of 1895 and 1897, and the increase in the size of vessels* urgently called for a wider and deeper channel. '
In 1897 it was decided to construct new plant consisting of large and powerful dredges, tugs, barges, &c., suitable for channel improvement on a large scale.
It was only in 1899 that the present plans were fairly started and the new plant acquired. My hon. friend asked me what was going to be done, and before six o'clock I gave him the details of what we expected to accomplish with this sum of $588,000. We propose to complete the channel as planned in 1899 and to make it a thirty feet channel the whole length between Montreal and Quebec and from 450 feet to '750 feet wide as required. From the report I have from the engineer in charge of the channel, I take the following :
In view of the improvements already com-, pleted, and those expected to be completed! in the near future, I have to-day forwarded to you a report recommending for the consideration of the lighthouse board, a number of improvements and additions to the lighting and buoy -service on the River St. Lawrence-ship channel, between Longue Pointe and Batiscan.
The list calls for some 20 new piers, most of them ice-breaking concrete structures, 27 new lighthouses, and some 12 to 15 gas buoys.
These piers and permanent lights will be necessary in view of the proposal to prolong, navigation in the autumn and spring, and toi operate ice-breaking steamers.
During these operations buoys will not be available, and shore marks must be relied upon exclusively. The number and character of the lights therein suggested, would give a system of lighting equal in type and protection to the [DOT] general design of the improved thirty foot channel which is being dredged. With the exception of the widening in Lake St. Peter the dredging throughout the three divisions will be completed some time in 1905. The depth will also be completed in Lake St. Peter with the bends all enlarged, so that between Batiscan anchorage and Longue Pointe, the eastern limit of Montreal harbour, thirty foot navigation will be available at extreme low water. From Batiscan anchorage to Quebec, by taking advantage of the tide, vessels of the same draught may pass. The lighting from Quebec up to Batiscan is for the present channel about sufficient, as it is



.not advised that deep draught vessels should pass Cap a la Roche at night. The completion [DOT]of the improvement by dredging and the placing of the lights as suggested will mark a further important step in the perfecting of navigation iby the St. Lawrence route.
With the details that I gave before six o'clock I think there is sufficient information to enable the committee to form the opinion that the work which is proposed to be carried out under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries is purely and simply the execution of the plan which was adopted in 1899 and the carrying out of a system of lighting in such a perfect manner [DOT]that the navigation between Montreal and Quebec will be made just as safe as it is in the best waters in the world. But, the department does not intend to stop there There are other improvements as regards aids to navigation in the Lower St. Lawrence which are being considered by the department, and as this work is in the same hands I think it will help in having it executed more rapidly and in a better condition than it was carried on before.


James Clancy: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was affecting indignation or not when he made a rather heated reply to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The hon. gentleman sat down without giving a single reason why a portion of the Department of Public Works and a small portion of the Department of Railways and Canals should have been taken away from these departments or why he should have attempted, merely upon an election pledge, to dismantle other departments. I would like to ask him if it means a vote of want of confidence in the gentleman who presided over the Department of Public Works. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say by his action that the present hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) was unable to perform the duties which were assigned to him ? Was that the reason or was it because the hon. gentleman wanted more patronage ? The hon. gentleman did not take the pains to tell the committee. He tells the committee very frankly that he has much to learn in respect to his own department. I am pretty well persuaded that this committee will conclude that the first thing that the hon. gentleman ought to do Is to master every detail in his own department before he undertakes work belonging to other departments. He is a new minister, he has only been a short time in his department and yet after entering it, in fact before he had been fairly seated in his department, the first thing he did when he went to his constituents was to make the promise that he would make a raid upon other departments. I was expecting the hon member for London (Mr. Hyman) to pronounce a eulogium upon the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for his having pirated largely other departments and taken over other work. Was it Mr. PREFONTAINE.
essential to his election that he should have made a pledge in the city of Montreal that he would take over portions of other departments ? That was a part of the hon. gentleman's election pledge and he has been strong enough to redeem it. He has been strong enough to take other men _ by the throat, men who have retired from this House in consequence of it, men who are to-day absent from the House largely on the ground that the hon. genfleman took a portion of other departments in fulfilment of an election pledge and he is now pluming himself upon what he has done. I will leave it to the country to judge whether the hon. gentleman is discharging these duties better than they were discharged before. I have very grave doubts as to that part of it. I do not believe he is doing so. I believe they were as well discharged before as the hon. gentleman discharges them, and the country will expect some explanation from the hon. gentleman as well as from the right hon. Prime Minister as to the reasons why the hon. gentleman took from the Department of Public Works portions that could have been as well administered under the old order of things. There was no pretence that they could not have been and this change was only made to satisfy the greed of the hon. gentleman and to give him greater power.


Mr. TAYLOR.: On this side of the House I do not think there sits an hon. gentleman who is not quite willing to vote $588,000 or any other sum which may be required for the purpose of improving the national highway, but I would like to inquire from the hon. gentleman why the money is frittered away as it is. 1 find in the Auditor General's Report of last year that large sums of money were expended upon articles that have nothing to do with aids to navigation. I find at page Y-30 that $719.50 was paid to Wm. Robertson & Son, Halifax and charged to the ship channel and I want the hon. minister to explain what these expenditures have to do with the improvement of the ship channel. The following articles were purchased : Dominion ensigns, Blue, 4 yards, 14 at $8.70 ; red, 3 yards, 12 at $6.10 ; 6 yards, 2 at $18 ; stars and stripes, 3 yards, at $6.50 ; 6 yards, 2 at $18 ; blank ammunition, 200 shells, $70 ; brass cannon, 1 inch bore, 4 wheel carriage, rubber tires, 2 at $100 ; French flags, 3 yards, 12 at $3.50 ; 6 yards, 2 at $9.50 ; Union .Tacks, 2 yards, 12 at $3.50 ; 6 yards, 1 at $10 ; blue pennants, 3 yards at $7 ;	4 yards, $10 ; and
6 yards, $13.50, making a total of $719.50. It appears to me that these .articles would be required more for the naval militia that the hon. gentleman is talking about starting than for the ship channel. Why should these items be charged to the JDon.treal ship channel ? I )find further down, ' A. Rosenthal, vegetable dish. $19.75.' Surely that was for a wedding present for somebody. They would not require a $19.(5

vegetable dish in connection with the St. Lawrence ship channel. We want the hon. minister to explain why he spent this large sum of money and charged it to the Montreal ship channel for a lot of bunting, brass cannon, Yankee and French flags. There was a Yankee flag and a French flag ; I think one kind of flag is enough for Canada, the Union Jack. The hon. gentleman gets this vote of money, but he does not explain what he is going to do with it. Any person reading the Auditor General's Report for last year would be tempted to vote against this item. I ask the minister to give a detailed account of what he purposes doing with the money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information I get from the officials of the department is that this expenditure was incurred for the reception of the Duke of York. It must be remembered that the ship channel fleet at that time made the best display that was made on the river. 1 am astonished at the criticism of the hon. member for Leeds who appears to think that the Duke of York was not entitled to a fitting reception by the ship channel authorities and by those who have charge of the fleet.


George Taylor: My hon. friend need not criticise the member for Leeds as not being willing to spend money to give the Duke of York or any other" notable person from England, or elsewhere, a fitting reception. The hon. gentleman has not put in the Auditor General's Report that this money was spent to receive the Duke of York ; it is simply charged as an item of expenditure to the ship channel, so many French flags, so many Yankee flags. What do we want of a French flag or of a Yankee flag for the reception of the Duke of York ? The $19.75 for a vegetable dish, was that to give the Duke of York a fitting reception by the fleet ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


George Taylor: I do not think the Duke of York ever went aboard one of the dredges.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Everything that was proper was done for his reception. The ' Frontenac ' was equipped especially to take him up from Quebec to Montreal.


George Taylor: Then why did not the government ask for a special vote to pay for these things, and we would vote all the money that was needed for the reception of the Duke of York, or of Lord Dundonald. To present the accounts in this underhand way is misleading the public and misleading the House. When the hon. gentleman wants a sum of money for a specific purpose he should mention that purpose.
Northwest Mounted Police-required to complete the service of the year, $40,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Last year we asked for an appropriation of $400,000, but we find it was not possible to complete the year for that sum, and we ask for a further sum of $40,000 to complete the service' of the year which has just lapsed. The reason for this increased expenditure is largely to be found in the enormous immigration, and the increased demand for police supervision from new settlements, and the extension of the police force north of the Mackenzie river.


Mr. INGRAM.: Does that mean the additional one hundred men ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the one hundred men are provided for in the estimates for next year. This is for current expenditure.
Northwest Mounted Police-to provide for gratuity and pension to the widow and children of the late Arthur Frederick Montford Brooke, staff-sergeant in the Northwest Mounted Police, who was drowned while on duty, $1,204.25.
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Sergeant Brooke was drowned in crossing a river while on duty. I think he was out arresting a prisoner. There had been a freshet, which washed away the ford, and as a consequence the horses lost their footing and Sergeant Brooke was drowned. We give his family the same gratuity that we would have given if he had been killed in action. In 1885, we gave a pension to the families of those mounted policemen who had been killed in action, and this is calculated in exactly the same way, according to rules which have been in force for many years.
Northwest Mounted Police-to provide for a gratuity for the widow of the late J. A.. Beauprd, interpreter in the Northwest Mounted Police, who was drowned while on duty, $420.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Beaupre was an interpreter who accompanied Sergeant Brooke on that occasion. He did not belong to the regular staff of the mounted police, but was employed from time to time, as occasion required; and we give his widow the sum that we have been giving others under similar circumstances.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have no objection to this item. But it seems to me some similar provision should be made for men employed by the government on harbour works, for instance, who lose their lives by accident and through no fault of their own. As a rule these are poor men, and I think that something should be done for the families of those who lose their lives in the employment of the government. I am sorry the government draws the line so close.


Wilfrid Laurier: At this moment I will answer only for the department for which I am responsible, the Mounted

Police. I am glad the hon. gentleman takes no exception to this vote. 1 think if he will examine these estimates he will see that wherever there is a case of hardship, if a man who has been working for the government has met with a casualty and lost his life, a gratuity is paid to his widow. I think he will find several items of that kind in the estimates of the present year.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am very glad to hear that. I know instances, deserving cases where something should be done.
Northwest Mounted Police-required to complete the service of the year, $10,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: We asked for an appropriation of $500,000 and we require $10,000 more to complete the service for the year expiring 30th June.
To pay Inspector W. M. Walke for portion of loss caused by destruction by fire of Mounted Police barracks, Dalton Trail, Yukon Territory, $200.


Wilfrid Laurier: Inspector Walke was in a post that we have on the Dalton trail. I may say that we have different stations in different parts of the territory at which we have one, two or three men according to the importance of the post. If I remember well, Inspector Walke was alone or had one man with him. The cabin which he had erected and in which he lived was burned by accident. Inspector Walke lost his uniform, accoutrements, &c., for which he put in a claim of $346. We thought we should allow him $200.
Public Works^-chargeable to income-public buildings generally, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of this ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: This is the usual amount, and is used for public buildings throughout the Dominion.


Mr. EARLE.: Was the $8,000 voted last year all spent ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The expenditure for the year 1902-3 was $5,000; last fiscal year, from 1st July 1903 to 1st March 1904, the expenditure was $6,054.
Public buildings-construction of armouries, $30,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is an item that has been in the estimates for two years. The intention of this item is to provide for the smaller armouries outside of the cities and towns. Last fiscal year up to March, 1904, the expenditure has been $15,000 on different armouries constructed in such places as Baddeck, Sussex, Dundas, Kaslo, Revelstoke and so on.	1


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these constructed by contract after tenders publicly called for. ?


Charles Smith Hyman: They are all constructed by contract in the regular way after tenders being received.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are tenders invited ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Publicly. That is the case with every item in this vote,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the lowest tender accepted in every case ?
Air. HYA1AN. Yes, so long as the tender is regular.
Experimental farms;-new buildings and renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., in connection with existing buildings, fences, &c., $10,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the usual item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What new buildings are to be constructed '!


Charles Smith Hyman: Any new buildings constructed will be only small. This is principally for renewals, improvements and repairs. The amount spent under this head in 1902-3 was about $9,900.
Public works-chargeable to income-Ottawa public buildings, including repairs, ventilation, lighting and furniture," &c., $125,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this for buildings in Ottawa only ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Air. AlONK. Is there anything in this vote to improve the ventilation of this chamber ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have endeavoured to improve the ventilation. If my hon. friend (Air. Alonk) will look at the windows, he will see that a large amount of money has been spent on them.


Air. WILSON.: How much was spent on this account last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In 1902-3 the whole appropriation was expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this same vote there is an item-' Ottawa public buildings, gas and electric light,' and so on. And this item is for repairs, ventilation, lighting, &c. The item of light seems to be covered in two or three places.


Charles Smith Hyman: The difference between the items is this :	The word ' lighting ' in the
item now under discussion is intended to cover material, as gas piping, new fixtures, and so on. The other item is for the actual gas or electric light.
Air. INGRAA1. I have a suggestion to make which I have never heard made in this House before, though I have been many years a member. Hon. members on both side at times bring their wives and families

to Ottawa. Btit when the wives or daughters of members visit this building accommodation for their reception is not at all adequate. It is really a shame when you think of it, that our wives and daughters are asked to come to Ottawa and if a member is doing his duty in this chamber, his wife or his daughter must remain in the room they may have down town. It seems to me that some action should be taken towards providing proper accommodation for the wives and daughters of members of this House. Those members who are ministers of the Crown have their comfortable homes in Ottawa, but the rest of us are here at a distance from our homes. I think it high time that some action should be taken towards providing better accommodation. I hope that in making this plea for the wives and daughters of hon. members ou both sides I shall not be alone.


Charles Smith Hyman: I believe that accommodation of the character referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) should be provided in this building. I am only acting minister, but I will give the matter every consideration possible.
Mr. SritOULE. It is my experience of the library that with the present system of electric lighting it is very difficult to read a book printed in even moderately small type. You first have an electric light of 16 candle power, and then you lower it to 8 or 9 candle power by putting an opaque globe over it. I could understand it if these globes extracted certain rays that are irritating to the eye, but their only effect appears to be to reduce all the rays of light. So far as I am concerned, I cannot with any comfort read a book in the library at night time. Years ago when we had gas it was much better. There was the same trouble in the reading room, but that has been improved until the light is fairly good now. I cannot understand why you put those opaque globes over the light. It is on the same principle that some people cut great large windows in order to let the light in, and then they cover them with some kind of black cloth to keep the light out. 1 have heard many complaints about the light in the library, and I hope the defect will be remedied.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed that this is the first complaint made with regard to the library lighting, but I will look into the matter and See that an improvement is made.
Public Works,	rentals-Dominion public
buildings, $64,000.


Thomas Earle: Might I inquire what rents of public buildings you pay out of this vote?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to cover the rents paid by the Department of Public Works, but in a, great many instances the Post Office and other departments pay their own rents.


Thomas Earle: Under that system you cannot tell what departments these rents belong to.


Charles Smith Hyman: I presume the only way to get at that would be to move for a return so that the several departments could send statements.


Thomas Earle: I wish to call to the attention of the government a matter in regard to a public building which is not renter to to a public building which is not rented to government to other parties. This building was formerly used as the Post Office in Victoria, but since the new post office has been built the old building is rented out by the government. As I understand it, this building is not subject to municipal taxation. The municipality looks upon it as rather unfair that the government should be in the real estate business in competition with private real estate owners, and not be subject to municipal taxation. The government does not use this old building any longer for government purposes and they have not offered it for sale but have rented it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that at the present time this building is rented.


Thomas Earle: Yes, and the complaint of the municipality is that it is not subject to | municipal taxation although it is not used for government purposes. If it were used for the purposes of the government of course it should not be taxed.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is it used for ?


Thomas Earle: It is used for storage and offices.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the first I have heard of the matter. I believe that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Earle) is perfectly right in his contention. If the Dominion government own a building and rent it in competition with the buildings of private owners, ii: is only fair and right that some one should pay the taxation. In the present Instance,
I presume that the leases are made, but I think it is only fair that when the opportunity arises it should be assessed for municipal taxation in the regular way.


Uriah Wilson: I think it would be well for the minister to read out a list of the rents paid for all the departments.


Charles Smith Hyman: I would be glad to give the committee a list of the buildings rented that come under this item. The following is an estimate of what is required for 1904-5 [DOT]



[Stage Direction]
Halifax-
Examining warehouse.. .. $1,000	00
Savings bank building.... 1,200	00
Engineer's office	
350	00Penitentiary	
0	24

[Stage Direction]
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Charlottetown engineer's office

[Stage Direction]
Portland post office...$ 131 00
St. John custom -house (water lots)	 88 00

[Stage Direction]
Chicoutimi-
Engineer's office	$
Montreal-
Civil service examination
office	
Immigration office	
Windsor station (C. P. Ry.) part of ground floor of new addition on Osborne street for post office purposes	
Merchants Bank of Canada (corner of St. Peter and St. James streets) for Public Works Department	
Letter-carriers depot, from Mrs. M. Horton, No. 55,
Metcalf	 **
Branch post office, station * C,' No. 2465, St. Catherine street, from A. L. Pacaudi for 5 years, from 1st July, 1903-L.C. No. 4765 (after 5 years rent increased to $2,300)..	..
Montmagny-
Post office	
Quebec-
Engineer's office	
Valieyfleld-
Inland Revenue offices .. [DOT] [DOT]
50 00
150 00 500 00
1,300 00
350 00 300 00
2,200 00 240 00 180 00 300 00
St. Lin-
Post office (see Laurentides)	
St. Eustache-
Post office	
300 00 144 00
ONTARIO (outside of Ottawa).
Dundas post office	$ 500 00
Picton-
Customs offices	 175 00
Toronto-
Civil service examiners'
offices	 75 00
Grand Trunk Ry.-Union station accommodation for storing, sorting and forwarding His Majesty's mails, $2,400 to be paid " per annum after the government is reimbursed $6,000 with 4 per cent interest for improvements made, which will become the property of the railway company, say in
about 6 years from
1900-01	
A. L. Bender and A1 store,
117 King street west, for a branch post office.. ..	750	00Engineer's office	
555	00
Steamboat inspectors' office. 450 00
219 00
>,014 00
980 00
3,296 00

[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg-
Engineer's office	$ 500 00
Weights and measures offices (3 rooms)	 480	00
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES. Alameda-
Dominion lands! agency...$ 200 00
Calgary-
Engineer's office	 240	00
Edmonton-
Court-house	
600	00Immigrant building	
600	00
Leduc-
Immigrant shed	 120	00
Lacombe-
Immigrant shed	 300	00
Macleod-
Immigrant shed	
120	00Court-house	
300	00
Red Deer-
Dominion lands agency.. ..	96	00
Immigrant shed	 360 00
Yorkton-
Dominion lands agency ..	360	00

[Stage Direction]
New Westminster-
Engineer's office	$ 700 00
Vancouver-
Examining	,warehouse
Lewis Block, on Grandville street	
2,400	00Post office	
300	00Rented phones for Dominion buildings outside of Ottawa (see statement next page)	
uuTo provide for unforeseen requirements in 1904-05.'	[DOT]	927	00Total estimated expenditure for rents,	nnn	nft
&c., for the fiscal year 1904-05.. ..$64,000 00
Uriah Wilson: Did you say you rented a building in Picton for some purpose ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; for a custom-house, $175.


Uriah Wilson: I do not understand that; it is not long since a new building was erected there.


Charles Smith Hyman: That item, of course, will disappear as soon as the new building is occupied.
3,400 00


Uriah Wilson: Has it not been occupied for about two years ? The postmaster was a member of this House in the last parliament, and I am under the impression that he has had the appointment for three years, and that the building must have been finished two or three years ago.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course, the hon. gentleman will see that this is an estimate. It may be that the officers of the department made a mistake in including that $175. If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I will have it investigated.
45,601 00


William Findlay Maclean: The minister might pay some attention to the fact that, as I am


Charles Smith Hyman: told, there are quite a number of properties owned by the Dominion in various portions of the country, and even in Ottawa, that have been rented on long leases to parties at very small rentals. X believe that here in Ottawa, while we are paying exorbitant rentals for buildings for the use of the public services, there is property owned by the Dominion, but rented to different persons at very small rentals. There should be an investigation and a change in policy in that respect,


Charles Smith Hyman: Will the hon. gentleman give me any instance ?


William Findlay Maclean: I believe there are some instances in Ottawa.


Charles Smith Hyman: I could hardly look into the matter on that information.


William Findlay Maclean: There are instances down on the Rideau canal ; I cannot give the exact buildings.


Uriah Wilson: There seems to be a very large amount for the office of the Railway Commission.


Charles Smith Hyman: The item for the Railway Commission offices is $5,300.


Uriah Wilson: Is that the rent alone ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Where is it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: On Queen street.


Thomas Earle: Will they occupy the whole building ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Except some portions of the building occupied by the custom-house since the fire.


Thomas Earle: What rent is paid for that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the rent for the whole building, which is occupied by the Railway Commission, and part of which is temporarily occupied by the custom-house.


Thomas Earle: I understood a rent was paid by the Customs Department ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is all the same rent; it covers the whole building.
- Mr. SPROULE. We had this question up last year, and some were of the opinion it would be the part of wisdom on the part of the government to endeavour to acquire land and put up public buildings, because the rent we are paying, in some instances, as far as I have any information on it, is very exorbitant. The minister told us last year that he would look into it and see if ground could not be secured somewhere in convenient places and buildings erected for the use of the government. Does the minister know whether anything was done in that direction, or has he any information to give to the House ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that so far as I am personally concerned, I entirely agree
with the hon. member for East Grey, that the time has come when the question of all these rented buildings should be taken up, and accommodation provided by building for all the departmental offices. Of course, it is a very large question, and there is considerable difference of opinion as to where the site ought to be chosen. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has given the matter a considerable amount of thought, but has not been able to reach any definite conclusion up to the present. Only a short time before he left the department he discussed the matter with me, and I hope that before very long some action will be taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had that hope expressed every year for the last three or four years. We are living in hope and likely to die in despair if no greater effort be made than has been made hitherto. The minister says it is a large question. Nq doubt it is. but large men are supposed to be-capable of dealing with large questions. The hon. gentleman has at his command engineers and others, and there ought to be sufficient of them to make some kind of calculation as to what the aggregate amount is that we now pay in rents and how much capital that would represent, and then ascertain if it is not possible to secure land and erect buildings sufficient for the needs of the government which will cost a smaller sum' than the capital of the rents we are now paying.


Charles Smith Hyman: The aggregate is $64,000 a year rents which we are paying now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the city of Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are speaking of the city of Ottawa, which is the place we know more about. There may be places where it is cheaper to pay rent than to build, but in Ottawa rents are very high and rapidly increasing, and the government should ascertain whether we could not do better by buying land and erecting buildings.


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount of rent paid in Ottawa is $43,096.


Uriah Wilson: I think the rent paid for the Railway Commission office was altogether too high. How many clerks are on the staff ? We are paying $5,000 a year rent, which is out of all proportion to the size of the commission and the staff it employs.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman ought to take into consideration the size of the building and staff.


Uriah Wilson: Why do they want so much room ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is not only space to house the commission that is required, but there is also the public to be considered. The rent of the building is 51 cents per square foot for the space it occupies, which

I do not think extravagant. The floor space is 10,000 square feet.


Uriah Wilson: That is a very large amount to pay. The hon. gentleman says it is a very large building, but why should you rent more room than you require ? If the building is occupied by other departments, he should say so. If you go to the Auditor General's office, you will find Mr. Hayter there in a room about as big as four of these desks, and he is doing an immense amount of work. You are providing very elaborate accommodation for this commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister consider 51 cents per foot cheap ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I consider it a fair rent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would he be surprised to learn that a building could be pin up for about 30 cents a cubic foot ? The Lange-vin block only cost 29 cents per cubic foot, and we are paying 51 cents a square foot in rent for this building.


Uriah Wilson: What is the number of the building on Queen street, so that we may go and see it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is near the Grand Union hotel, between Elgin and Metcalfe streets.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is the building the customs are in.


Thomas Earle: The building, a portion of which is occupied by the Militia Department and the other portion by the Woods Limited, is a still worse case. We are paying $11,000 a year rental for that building. Half of it is occupied by the Militia Department and half by the Woods Company. The amount paid by the government for rental would, at the rate they borrow money, represent a capital of $400,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The rental for that building is 48J cents a square foot, whtch' iis somewhat less than the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who are these buildings rented from ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There are two buildings rented from Mr. Woods. One is used for the Railway Commission and the other for Militia and Defence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What other parties rent us buildings ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We rent a building from Rate & Company, on 12 Albert street, for the Railway Mail Service, at $000. There are the translators' offices rented from D N Ranger at $180. We rent the exhibition branch of the Agricultural Department from the Ottawa Investment Company at $1,000. on the corner of Metcalfe and Queen streets.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are those all the buildings rented in Ottawa ?


Charles Smith Hyman: These are all the new buildings rented inside the year.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to get the names of the parties from whom the buildings are rented and the amounts that are paid them.


Charles Smith Hyman: The list is as follows
Geological Museum (Sussex Street,
P. Baskerville)	$	600 00
French translator's office (Sussex St.),
D.	V. Ranger	 600	00
Government workshop, No. 1, Mrs. H.
Wright)	 600	00
Government workshop, No. 2, Slater
estate	 1,160	00
Agricultural Dept., Queen St. (Chas.
E.	Pearson estate)	 2,250	00
Central basin coal shed	(Slater estate) 360 00
Thistle Estate (Wellington St.) Gas
inspection and weights and measures 550 00 Inland Revenue-Seybold building,
Sparks and O'Connor streets	6,500	00
Methylated spirit warehouse and laboratory-Interior Dept., corner of Queen and Lyon streets, J. B. and
W. A. Lamb	
1,200	00McDougall (Sussex St.) Marine storehouse-Light	
360	00
The Ottawa Bdg. Coy. Litd. Nos. 98 and 100 Wellington St., for Customs Dept 1,500 00 Molson's Bank, Metcalfe St., 2 flats
for Labour Dept	
1,200	00New building for Surveyor General's staff, corner of Metcalfe and Slater streets, Ottawa Building	Co	
3,000	00
International Boundary Commission and Astronomical Branch of the Interior Department, ground and upper
floors of No. 26 Wellington St. (W.
R. Thistle estate!	 800 00
Interior Department, including vault
(Slater & Sherwood)	 1.140	00
Interior Dept., Imperial Bdg., Queen '	'
St., for Immigration Branch (Mrs. E.
A. Pearson)....'	 1,950	00
Mounted Police, 172 Wellington St.,
Slater & Sherwood)	 1,140	00
P. O. Dept., Sparks St. Chambers
(Slater & Sherwood)		549 00
P. O. Dept.-Railway Mail service, 12
Albert (Bate & Co., up to 1906)___ 600 00
Rooms occupied by Dept. Pub. Works
(Slater Block, Sparks St.)	 480 00
Militia and Defence Dept., J. W.
Woods Bdg., Slater St	 11,040	00
Ry. Comm., J. W. Woods Bdg., Queen
. st

,	 5,300 00
Agricultural Dept., Com. of Exhibition Branch, The Ottawa Investment Co.,
Ltd., corner of Metcalfe and Queen streets, Nos, 94 and 96	 1,000 00
Rideau Hall, allowance for fuel and light,


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the usual allowance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this cover the whole expenditure 7


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the total vote.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen $87,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the same vote as last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 take it that this includes coal. How is the coal bought ?


Charles Smith Hyman: By public tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What price is paid ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The prices paid last year were : Furnace coal, $0.90 ; egg coal, $6.94 ; stove coal, $6.90.
Ottawa public buildings-grounds, $10,000.


Uriah Wilson: There is an increase here of $2,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: There are certain small increases in salaries, and besides, the department is paying more attention to the grounds. No more will he spent on this account than is necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are the grounds kept ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a superintendent of the grounds and the men are hired under him.


Uriah Wilson: But what is the explanation of the $2,000 increase ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Besides the reasons I have given, there is the fact that the expenditure has been overrunning the appropriation for some years past, and each vote has been required to pay something on account of the previous year. This is a small item but it has been $1,000 or $1,200 short at the end of the year.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose, then, the minister does not expect any overrunning in the coming year.


Charles Smith Hyman: I hope not.
Ottawa public buildings-Major's Hill Park, $7,000.


Uriah Wilson: There is the same trouble here ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the same thing happened in this case. For the last two or three years the vote has hardly been sufficient for the purpose, and out of each year's vote we have had to pay for a month or two of the previous year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do these votes cover the whole expense of these grounds, or are we to be called on to vote another item in the supplementary estimates ?


Charles Smith Hyman: For maintenance these are the total votes.


Andrew B. Ingram: The summer house in Major's Hill park has been boarded up. What is the reason for that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the first that the officers of the department have heard of it. Mr. Ogilvie is the engineer in charge of the buildings and I will bring the fact mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) to his attention.
Ottawa public buildings-removal of snow, including Rideau Hall, $3,000.


Uriah Wilson: Why should Rideau Hall be included V The vote for Rideau Hall has been increased by $5,000, and the snow Cleaning is included in this item. Why is not that given separately ?


Mr HYMAN.: It is one of these things that have gone from year to year in the Public Works Department ; the vote taken for the removal of snow includes both these buildings and Rideau Hall.


Thomas Earle: I suppose there was an over-expenditure last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, a large one.


Uriah Wilson: But this is an increase of $500 for the coming year.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, we are expecting a hard winter.
Public Works-salaries of engineers, firemen, caretakers, &e., Dominion public buildings, $110,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The vote of $99,000 for last year is now increased to $110,(MM), the reason being that there are a number of new buildings that have come under the care of the department.
Public Works-heating >, Dominion public, buildings, fuel, &c., $75,000.


Uriah Wilson: There Is an increase of $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman will remember that the price of coal went up very largely on account of the strike two years ago. The appropriation taken that year was not sufficient, and the consequence was that several items on this account had to he paid out of the appropriation for the year following. That is the reason this vote is larger.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is for the ensuing year, and has nothing to do with that vote whatever.


Charles Smith Hyman: The shortage of last year was paid out of last year's vote, and then this year we have a shortage that we have to pay out of this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why have you a shortage on account of the strike of two years ago ? You are contracting fop the coming year. In what way can the strike of two years ago increase the price of fuel for the current year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Certain accounts which were unpaid for 1903-4 have to be paid out of this appropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you have supplementary estimates for that already, this is, for the coming year 1904-5.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman must remember that coal is not always delivered

within the year it is contracted for. A certain amount may be delivered in June and July that goes into the next year. The accounts get mixed in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That explanation could not apply to this vote, because this vote commences to run from the 30th of June of the current year. Whenever there Is a shortage we always have a vote in the supple-mentaries to meet that shortage, but here we are providing for the future. I venture to say there is not a pound of coal bought out of this money, we have not voted the money yet.


Charles Smith Hyman: Nevertheless the coal is being delivered as I have explained. I may say in addition, that in the supplementaries of this year we have to ask for an extra amount. The officials of the department tell me that we Jiave to ask for a supplementary estimate for another year.


Uriah Wilson: This cannot possibly be intended for any shortage of last year because this is for the coming year.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is an item in the supplementary estimates of the coming year to pav for the shortage of this year. This vote of $75,000 will cover the total expenditure of the present year. In the supplementaries there is an item of something like $28,000. Last year was an extremely cold year, we are not taking a vote in anticipation that, next year will be as cold.


Richard Blain: What was the total amount last year for coal in pumic buildings ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $60,000 in the main estimates and $28,000 in the supplementaries.
Public	Works-water, Dominion public
buildings, $20,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is quite a number of new buildings which are included in this item which largely accounts for the increase. The accounts coming in from the different places where these buildings are situated, come at different times in the year. Last year there was a small shortage of some $2,000 in this account.


Gilbert White Ganong: We have found accounts in two different departments for furnishing wine. Is this minister also furnishing wine?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not see anything in the estimates for it.
Public Works-electric and other power for running elevators, stamp cancelling machines, &c., Dominion public buildings, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you pay per horse-power for electric power for running these machines ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This item Is spread al'l over Canada. I have the total amounts here, but I have not the separate item the hon. gentleman speaks of.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to know what you pay in different places for your horse-power for this purpose.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will have that Information to-morrow.
Public Works-Yukon public buildings-repairs, fuel, lighting, water service and caretakers' salaries, $37,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the same amount as last year, though we have had the assurance over and over again that times will get better and this item will come down. We never seem to be able to make a reduction. We have been paying extravagant figures, as we understand values down here.


Charles Smith Hyman: The department have an officer there supposed to be a very careful man, who closely scrutinizes these accounts, and the department has to depend on that officer. That is the explanation given to me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have looked over several accounts, and some parties out there have 'informed me that there was the greatest extravagance that I ever heard of.
In fact, it seemed to me that it could not be accounted for in any other way in the world except by the fact that an election was being run and that money had to be poured out like water so as to secure the government candidate's election. I have not heard a word about it from the hon. gentleman who represents the Yukon in this House since he came in. It goes to show that there was the greatest saturnalia of corruption or at least the most profligate expenditure that one could imagine, and that this has been the order of things out there with everything that the government has done. I am not saying that it goes to the same extent in connection with the use of this money, but when we get the particulars it alwavs seems to me that we are paying a very high figure for everything w/e do out there, much more than private individuals pay and I cannot understand why that should be the case.


Richard Blain: I would like to know if the hon. minister has at hand the different amounts to be appropriated for fuel, fighting, and the services of caretakers.


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate for 1904-5 prepared for this vote is as follows : Government House, one caretaker, one charwoman. one furnace man and one gardener $5,640, lighting $3,000, fuel $2,000, repairs $3,000, water and ice $600, improvement of the grounds $3,000. Dawson post office, one janitor, one night watchman and one charwoman, $5,640 ; lighting $3,000, fuel $2,500, repairs $3,000, scavenging $120, water and ice $200. Whitehorse post office, caretaker $1,400, fuel $1,000, repairs $2,000, water $150. scavenging $120, lighting $1,330, salary and living allowance of superintendent, contingencies, &c., $6,000. The total esti-

mated amount required for 1904-5 is $43,700, of which we are asking for a vote for $37,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you ask $6,000 for the superintendent and his contingencies ?


Thomas Earle: What is the gardener occupied at ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose he is occupied with the usual gardening occupation there. There is a certain amount of gardening to be done.


Thomas Earle: I see that there is a large amount for improvement of the grounds.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is an amount for the improvement of the grounds.
department in the Yukon having charge of all government property there.


Uriah Wilson: What do you call his office ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He is superintendent of Public Works in the Yukon.


Richard Blain: Is the word ' caretaker ' as set out in this item correct ?


Charles Smith Hyman: He is not the caretaker. He is the superintendent, this item is for the salary and contingencies of the representative of the Department of Public Works in the Yukon, having charge of all government property in the Yukon.


Thomas Earle: And of public works as


Thomas Earle: I would like to ask the hon. minister if all public buildings in the Yukon are the property of the Dominion or if any of them are rented ?


Charles Smith Hyman: As far as I know I think that all the buildings we occupy are the property of the Dominion. There are no rents.


Uriah Wilson: It seems to me that $6,000 for the salary and contingencies of the superintendent is a very large amount. I do not see why it should be so much.


Charles Smith Hyman: The salary paid to the caretaker is $3,000.


Uriah Wilson: What are his living expenses and contingencies ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course the balance pf the amount is made up of the contingencies in connection with his office. There are telegrams and things of that kind in connection with his office. This gentleman who represents the Department of Public Works in the Yukon has a considerable number of duties to perform.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give the name of the gentleman, how much he is allowed for living expenses, how much for travelling expenses, and how much for contingencies ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Bertrand is his name. There is no living allowance ; $3,000 is his salary without any living allowance.


Uriah Wilson: Tell us what he spent for travelling expenses and for contingencies ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall be very glad to bring down the details of this item if the hon. gentleman will allow it to pass.


Uriah Wilson: Well, bring them down to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he is the caretaker of a public building, how could he have any travelling expenses ?
well ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, generally speaking, he is the representative of the department.


Thomas Earle: Similar to the agent of the Department of Public Works in the provinces ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Thomas Earle: Is there a caretaker as well ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There will be a caretaker of each of the buildings, of course, but he will only be the caretaker of the building.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Abram's river-wharf, SI,000.


Thomas Earle: There was $1,000 voted last year and apparently not spent.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a revote.


Thomas Earle: What is the object of putting it in year after year and not spending it ? Is it in consequence of an anticipated election this year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I do not think that is the intention at all.


Thomas Earle: It looks so.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot help how it looks. Mr. EARLE. Explain why it is.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman will possibly remember that last year the session was kept on until some time in October when it was almost impossible to get on with public works.


Thomas Earle: You could have expended $1,000 by the -first of June.


Charles Smith Hyman: There was a very large number of public works.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county is this in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yarmouth.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Bailey's


Charles Smith Hyman: He has charge of the public buildings at Dawson and at Whitehorse as well. He is the representative of the
Brook-breakwater wharf, $1,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county is that in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Pictou.
Mi1, EARLE. Does this complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a revote of last year's amount.


Thomas Earle: It was $3,000 last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: $1,000 is a revote.


Thomas Earle: Does that complete it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the estimated amount required to complete.


Edward Cochrane: That is a kind of evasive answer.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is not completed yet.


Thomas Earle: Your officers ought to be able to give you the information.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes ; the officials of the department-inform me that it will.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Bayfield, harbour works, $4,300.


Richard Blain: How much has been ex pended on this up to date ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate was $6,850, and there was expended to the 30th of June last $3,350.


Richard Blain: Is the work done by contract 1


Charles Smith Hyman: By day labour.


Richard Blain: Why not by contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Edward Cochrane: AVas the material obtained by contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It would hardly pay to advertise for these small supplies. The material was purchased at the very lowest price.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Baxter's harbour, $2,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: AVhere is this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: King's county.


Robert Laird Borden: How does it happen that no money was expended last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Owing to the lateness of the session, it was impossible to get some of these works under way.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not a satisfactory reason, because an Interim Supply Bill was taken as early as August for one-fifth of these amounts, and it was done for the express purpose of preventing excuses of this kind.


Thomas Earle: In the previous work you had no difficulty in expending $3,000.	"


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: 


Charles Smith Hyman: That work had been started, and the officers of the department tell me that it was impossible to commence this work.


Mr. LENNOX.: If the session happens to be late, do the officials remain idle until prorogation, and then remain idle for the balance of the year [DOT]?


Charles Smith Hyman: That does not follow ; the staff was very fully employed, but tbey were unable to start some of these works.


Haughton Lennox: The same thing applies with reference to all these works, and if we had the same staff as the year before, they must have remained idle.
Harbours and rivers-Big harbour (Port
Bevis), wharf, $3,700.


Mr.   I@: The same observation would apply to all these votes, that very little money was expended on the vote of last year. In the case of Big Pond, Big Harbour, Breton Cove, Bridgewater and most of the others, substantially no money has been expended. Either these works were premature last year, or else there has not been a great deal of energy displayed in prosecuting them.


Thomas Earle: I presume the demand for these improvements was very slight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They were awaiting the elections.


Charles Smith Hyman: The acting chief engineer informs me that everything possible was done to get the work under contract; but, of course, plans and specifications have to be prepared, in some instances titles acquired and, where necessary, tenders called for. There was no desire on the part of the department not to expedite these works.
Harbours and	rivers-Big Pond-wharf,


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: In what county is this?


Charles Smith Hyman: Cape Breton.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Breton Cove-boat landing, $4,600.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: In what county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Victoria.


Edward Cochrane: AVhat do you mean by 1 boat landing ' ?


William Ross: The shore is exposed there, and this wharf has to be built so as to afford shelter for boats.


Charles Smith Hyman: It might be called a ' wharfette.'


Edward Cochrane: You might call it anything.


Thomas Earle: Is it used by the public ?


William Ross: Yes. Steamers go there three times a week, and the passengers have to be landed in boats now.


JCJLY 26. 1904
Richard Blain: What is the explanation of this large increase in the vote for Big Pond ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is simply to complete the works contracted for.


Edward Cochrane: Why did not the contract provide for its completion 7


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract is $7,720.
Bridgewater-dredging, $5,000.


Thomas Earle: Is the dredging under your department now V
' " '1 ^ MAX. The general dredging, except the dredging of the. St. Lawrence channel. is under the department, all the dredging that has ever been under the Department of Public Works except the ship channel.
Cow Bay run-breakwater to protect outlet ol harbour. $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why has no work been done on that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The vote last session was $4,000, of which $2,000 was spent and $2,000 will be spent this year.


Edward Cochrane: Is that under a contract 7	.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, it is being done under day labour.


Edward Cochrane: Why ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In all these small votes the matter is entirely under the control of the engineers. The department is guided entirely by their advice. The resident engineers decide whether it is better to be done by contract or by day labour. In this case the report to the department was that there would be less delay in the execution of the work by day labour.


Edward Cochrane: I can understand where there are improvements or repairs to a wharf that it might be better to do it by day labour, but where there is a new work, .as1 I think this was, I cannot see why it should be better or more economically per' formed by day labour. We all know that in connection with such works that system is not cheaper.
Digby pier, renewals and repairs, $1,500.


Richard Blain: How much has been expended on that.


Charles Smith Hyman: The expenditure to July 30, was $513.15.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to have that item stand. The hon. member for East Simcoe is not here and he wants to speak on that.


Mr. FIELDING.: This is only for repairs. There will be some other items.


Richard Blain: When will these repairs be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: These piers are timber piers. This amount is departmental. The officers of the department have asked the department to put this amount in the estimates for the maintenance of this particular work. This year they have asked for this amount, with timber piers which are exposed to storms there is always apt to be a certain amount spent each year in the way of departmental expenditure.


Richard Blain: That is all very well so far as it goes but it does not go very far. It seems to me that where a wharf requires repairs the department should make an estimate of what the repairs would cost and that amount having been expended it seems to me that no further amount would be required for some years. Is there any revenue from this pier 7


Mr. COPP.: I think the gross revenue is about $4,000 and the net revenue $2,300 or $2,400. It is one of the best paying of them all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suggest that this item should stand.


William Stevens Fielding: As these items are grouped together, allowing one of them to stand, holds back all the rest. If it is desired to have an opportunity of discussing it on some future day we can do so on some other item, but the holding of any one holds them all. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes we shall allow it to stand.
Fort Lawrence landing pier, $10,000.


Richard Blain: We should have some information on this.


Charles Smith Hyman: The work is under contract. the amount of the contract being $14,895, to which is added superintendence and contingencies bringing the estimated cost of the work to $13,400.


Richard Blain: Who is the contractor, what is the date of the contract and when will it be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract is dated June 2, 1903, and the date at which the contractors agreed to complete is June 2, 1904.


Richard Blain: Is it expected that it will be completed then 7


Charles Smith Hyman: That date had passed and the work is not completed but they are at work.
Georgeville, N.S.-wharf, extension, {1,500.


Richard Blain: When will that extension be through ? Are you going to extend a little every year or every four or five years 7


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed by the chief engineer that they expect to have the wharf completed during the present season.


Thomas Earle: Will that make a complete job of it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Glace Bay, N.S.-harbour improvement, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There was considerable question about the title last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is exactly in the same position now. The matter is before the department.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it was behind the department. That question of title was to have been looked into.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am not entirely familiar with the matter and have not had time to follow it up. It has not been finally dealt with.


Edward Cochrane: Will this be done by contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I would not like to make a distinct promise. Regarding work of this kind the department must be governed by the advice of the engineer.


Thomas Earle: On what do you base the estimate $25,000, if you have no report from your engineer ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is a case in which the government and the company who own the harbour propose to co-operate in making the repairs. The plan proposed is that the company should undertake to perform the work and make this a public harbour, with a schedule of wharfage rates to be approved by the government. Many years ago this was quite a shipping point, but when the small mines became amalgamated with the large mines in Cape Breton, the company ceased shipping coal in Glace Bay. Since that time a large settlement, running into 20,000 people, has grown up within a radius of two or three miles, and the people are very anxious that the harbour should be opened and utilized for the shipping of coal and also for the bringing in of produce by vessel from different parts of the Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: I visited the locality since last session and saw the harbour. It is an artificial harbour and the ownership of the land is vested in a company. No doubt the work is very desirable, as there is a large community there and a great deal of business is done. We see rows of houses where only a few years ago there was a forest. The community is not only large but rapidly increasing and very progressive. The difficulty last year was as to the status of the harbour after the money of the country would be expended on it. The government were not able to state exactly what the arrangement would be in that regard, but it was the view of the Finance Minister that the harbour should be public so that all vessels would have the same right of entry Mr. HYMAN.
as if it had been a natural harbour in the first instance instead of an artificial one, subject of course to the rights of private property in the wharfs or docks which might be constructed by private enterprise. Not only is the company interested, which proposes to bear part of the expense, but the people of the community are interested in giving to this harbour the status of public navigation.


William Stevens Fielding: The company have not been seeking this change at all. It is the people of the district who are most anxious to have their supplies brought by water direct instead of having them landed at Sydney or Louisburg and then transhipped by railway. The harbour will always be useful for the shipment of coal by vessels of small class. The difficulty has been in obtaining a title and nothing is finally decided. My idea was that if we could secure an arrangement with the company to have this harbour open to all, with a scale of wharfage rates fixed, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, that would meet all the requirements of the public. It was an agreement of that character which commended itself to my judgment, and that is the form in which it is to be hoped the arrangement will be made.


Richard Blain: That is the same explanation as was given last year. When does the hon. gentleman expect the arrangement to be completed V


William Stevens Fielding: I am consistent.


Richard Blain: Yes, but not very speedy in the discharge of a public duty. The government should be a little more active in the interests of the public. Do I understand that this harbour is owned by a coal company ?


William Stevens Fielding: lres, at present.


Richard Blain: Do the government purpose purchasing the property ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not exactly a purchase but the company are to enter into an arrangement under which, in consideration of the expenditure of this public money, the harbour should be to all intents and purposes a public harbour, to which all vessels would have the right of entry, just as if the harbour had been a natural one instead of an artificial in the first instance. That was the policy suggested last year, and the policy that I myself advocated. I do not think that any money should be expended unless an arrangement of that kind is brought about.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is anticipated that the company will agree to spend a sum of money besides this. There have been negotiations between the company and the government, in fact they have been almost continuous.

1 am almost sure we shall come to an arrangement.


Richard Blain: What will the total cost be to both the government and the other side ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will depend on whether the estimates of the department are satisfactory to the company. This is really one of the matters under negotiation between the company and the department at the present time-the amount of money the company shall be called upon to spend before the department enter upon an agreement.


Richard Blain: What is the estimated cost of the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Something over $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These items are nearly ali in the same category-in nearly every instance the money is a revote. Now, either the needs of the country demanded that these expenditures should be made, or they did not. If the expenditure was necessary, and the money was voted, it ought to have been spent ; if the expenditure is not necessary, the vote should never have been asked for, because money voted and held in this way can be used for only one purpose, and that is electioneering. I have no doubt that many of the items we voted last year were voted in view of a probable election. But it happened that the election was not held. So', we have none of the money spent. I would like to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) in this case do what he has done many a time in this Houes-direct the thunderbolts of his eloquence against this voting of money which was not intended to be spent, but only to be held out as a temptation to corrupt the people. The minister, in explaining these items, gives just about the same explanation as he gave last year- or, in some cases the year before, for some of these votes are re-voted for the second or third time. It reminds one of the story of the lady of uncertain years, who was asked by the census officer her age. And when he came back some years after, this same lady gave her age at exactly the same figure. When he remonstrated, she answered, ' I want you to understand, sir, that I am not the kind of girl that would tell one story one year and a different story another year.' That seems ito be the principle upon which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works go. If we turn up ' Hansard ' we find that, concerning these works, they told almost the same story in almost the same words last year and the year before.
Green Cove-'boat harbour, $600.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county is this in ?


William Stevens Fielding: Victoria.


William Ross: This work is completed.
Hall's harbour-Improvements, $2,500.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county ?


William Stevens Fielding: King's county.
Iona-extension ol wharf, $12,000.	.


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is under contract for $10,230. Adding the usual amount for superintendence and contingencies, we get a total of about $12,000 the amount of the vote.


Thomas Earle: If you had the estimate of the engineer, how was it you asked only $5,000 last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: When a department asks for a vote of $5,000, that does not necesarily mean that that amount will complete the work for which it was voted. The sum of $5,000 was asked for because it was thought that that was all that could be spent in that season.	[DOT]
Indian Harbour-wharf, $12,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county ?


William Stevens Fielding: Halifax.
Island Point-repairs to wharf, $800.


William Stevens Fielding: This is in Victoria county.
Janvrin's Island-wharf, $800.


William Stevens Fielding: In Richmond count}'.
L'Ardoise-extension of breakwater up to shore, $14,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Is that under contract?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: WThat is the amount V


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: When will it be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract calls for the completion by the end of the present calendar year.
Larry's river'-breakwater, $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is in Guysborough.


Haughton Lennox: I noticed that last year $14,250 was voted-almost the whole amount. Is this vote necessary because the estimate is exceeded.


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract for this work is $15,840. Allowing for contingencies and so on, and you have about the total amount voted for this work.


Haughton Lennox: One would suppose that, if there was an estimate made of the cost of the work, instead of voting $14,250, and leaving $2,000 to be voted this year, the hon. minister would have asked the whole amount.


Charles Smith Hyman: As I explained in the other case, that was the amount that could be spent during that year.


Haughton Lennox: But, when the amount is so near the total, one would expect the whole sum to be voted. As a matter of fact what was the estimate ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was under contract last year.


Haughton Lennox: Was the Contract let before the vote of last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, it was let on 22nd of November, 1902.
Lingan-beach protection, $1,090.


Charles Smith Hyman: In Cape Breton county.
Livingston's Cove-repairs to breakwater,


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county is that in ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Antigonish.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
McNair's Cove breakwater-extension, $5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Antigonish county.
Main a Dieu breakwater-extension, $5,000 ; harbour, $6,500.


William Stevens Fielding: In Cape Breton county.
Malignant Cove-close piling ends and sides of channel piers with creosoted piles, $2,800.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Where is that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In Antigonish county.
Margaretsville-general repairs to harbour works and extension of eastern breakwater, $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Annapolis county.
Meteghan Cove-restoration of breakwater,


William Stevens Fielding: In Digby county.
Melbourne wharf, $900.


William Stevens Fielding: In Yarmouth county.
Middle River-shear dam, $1,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: In Victoria county.
Neil's Harbour-breakwater, $1,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Victoria county.


Richard Blain: I suppose at the close the minister will give us a summary of these counties, showing where each work is situated.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. member for Lunenburg will be able to give that.


Thomas Earle: At the same time he might supply us with a map of Nova Scotia, so that we might see if there are any of these coves that have not been supplied with a breakwater.
New Campbellton-ballast wharf in Kelly's Cove, $12,000.	.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


William Stevens Fielding: In Victoria county.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that work under contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No ; there is some question about the site, and until that is settled the work will not be put under contract.
North Gut, St. Ann's-wharf at Morrison's Point, $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Victoria county.
Ogden's Pond-to complete channel protection works, $500.


William Stevens Fielding: In Guysborough county.
Pembroke-breakwater, $8,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Hants county.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is under contract, dated 28th March, 1904. We expect it will be completed in one year.


Richard Blain: A few minutes ago the minister read a contract which called for completion more than a year ago.


Charles Smith Hyman: That was the exception rather than the rule.
Pickett's Pier-reconstruction of, $3,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In King's county.
Pleasant Bay-wharf, $6,700.


William Stevens Fielding: In Inverness county.
Port Au Pique-wharf, $2,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Colchester county.
Port Hastings-wharf, $4,000.


William Stevens Fielding: In Inverness county.
Port Hawltesbury-$10,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is under contract, and will be completed at the end of this season. It was to have been completed, on the 11th September, 1903.


Richard Blain: What is the explanation of the delay ?


William Ross: In getting the creosoted pine from Virginia.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: The work is in my county. The delay has arisen from the fact that the ruins of an old bridge and an old wharf were discovered quite a distance out in the Strait of Canso. These had to be removed by divers, which took a considerable length of time longer than the contractor expected ; in fact, he did not expect to meet such difficulties at all. The consequence was that the work took a great deal more time than was stipulated for.


Richard Blain: Since the contractor has met with these difficulties, will he complete the contract for the amount mentioned in the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was a contract made for the removal of the crib-work and ballast my hon. friend speaks of for $2,900.


Richard Blain: Was that contract made after [DOT]the original contract was made ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman representing the county says that was to be included in the original contract.


Angus McLennan: Not at all ; the hon. gentleman misunderstood me.


Richard Blain: I understand that the contractor met with these unforeseen difficulties. I suppose he was not looking for these difficulties. The fact of the new contract being made seems rather a peculiar way of doing business. Perhaps the hon. minister will give us an explanation on that point. I understand that after the original contract was let some difficulties were found that were not expected and a further contract was let.


Charles Smith Hyman: That practically is the explanation. When the contract was let, there were some changes made in the work. It was found necessary to remove this old crib-work and ballast and a contract was made for the removal at $2,900.


Richard Blain: Who was the contractor under the second contract ?


Mr. HYMAN A. W.@: Girouard.


Richard Blain: Were there two separate contractors ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Not two separate contractors but two separate contracts.


Richard Blain: Then this second contract was awarded to the same man ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister if the engineers who gave an estimate on this work did not see that it would be required V


Charles Smith Hyman: It was not foreseen at the time the original contract was let.


Thomas Earle: Have you the report of the engineers at hand ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Thomas Earle: There must be something very much at fault in regard to the engineering staff when we have so many errors of this kind occurring.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think they occur on many occasions.


Thomas Earle: This is one.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was on the report of the chief engineer that this contract was let.
Port Hood harbour-closing of northern entrance with brush and stone work, $20,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. minister the nature of the work that is being done there or which is to be 243
done and whether or not there have been doubts expressed as to its fulfilling the service which it is designed to perform ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The work that is being done is brush and stone work which is for the purpose of closing the northern entrance to the harbour. I am informed by the engineer that it is fulfilling the purpose for which it was designed. There are. 600 feet already completed.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: This is between the island and the mainland ?


Charles Smith Hyman: ' Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that work being done by contract or by day labour V


Charles Smith Hyman: By day labour.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the esti-.mated cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: _ The work that it is intended to complete now is supposed to be completed by this $20,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I have got some documents with me which give some information on the subject, but I shall take an opportunity on some other item of saying a few words in regard to it.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, upon any other item.
Port Maitland-extension of buttress on seaward side, western breakwater, shorewards, $1,500.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county V


Charles Smith Hyman: Yarmouth.
Prospect wharf, $600.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Halifax.
Sandy Cove-breakwater, $2,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Digby.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this to complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to complete the work ?
Scott's Bay-extension of breakwater, &c., $1,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 1


Charles Smith Hyman: King's.
Skinner's Cove-boat channel and protection works, $10,500.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Pietou.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that to complete the work and is it under contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is supposed to complete the work. The contract has not been let.



Spry Bay-wharf, $1,500.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Halifax.
Summerville wharf-addition, $1,600.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Hants.
Sydney quarantine station-extension and repairs to Vharf, $1,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: Cape Breton county.
Tenecape-breakwater, $7,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: Under contract.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 7


Robert Laird Borden: Hants county. Does this complete the work 7


Charles Smith Hyman: No, not quite. This amount will be spent during the year and it will require $1,700 to complete.
Victoria Beach-wharf, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: A word or two ill regard to that would be in order. This is in Annapolis county. Has anything been done there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract was let for this work on the 15th June of the present year.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the work been commenced 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the work has actually been commenced.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete the work 7


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a further sum in the supplementaries. The work will cost $93,890.


Thomas Earle: What accommodation will it afford 7


Mr. WADE.: This will afford accommodation for a great deal of shipping, but there is a railway being constructed down to this point and there will be more than one line of steamers running from this point to different places. In addition this pier will afford protection to the whole of the Annapolis basin and will be a protection for the shipping that comes into that basin.
Wedge Point-extension of breakwater, $3,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Where is Wedge Point 7


Charles Smith Hyman: In Yarmouth county.
West Bay (south side)-wharf, $2,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Richmond.
White's Cove-improvements to breakwater,

Mr. HYMAN


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Which county 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Digby.


Richard Blain: Does that complete Nova Scotia 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister to be good enough to give us a summary of these counties, the amouiit expended in each and the total amount voted for the province of Nova Scotia 7


Charles Smith Hyman: If I understand the hon. gentleman he is asking for a statement of the votes as they appear in the estimates for each county. I shall be very 'glad to bring that statement down ; that is a statement of the votes in these estimates for each county.


Richard Blain: For each county.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 have avoided asking individual questions in order to save time. I would like also a statement in all cases in which the amount now asked for will not complete the work and a further statement of the amount that will be required to complete the work in such cases.


Charles Smith Hyman: Although the return will require some time to prepare I shall be very glad to bring it down.


Robert Laird Borden: Had I asked the ^question on each item I would expect the (hon. gentleman to be able to answer it. It would save time to do it the way I suggest.


Charles Smith Hyman: As I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) desires a statement as to what each of those Nova Scotia items will take to complete, but where the vote completes the work you do not want a statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I will understand that the items not mentioned will require no further vote.


Charles Smith Hyman: You want it with reference to Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is not putting too much work on the officers of the department it would save a great deal of time if you would give that information with respect to all the other items.


Charles Smith Hyman: Shall we now take up the Prince Edward Island estimates 7


George Taylor: We have done a igood deal of work to-night and there is no member from Prince Edward Island present, but there will be to-morrow morning.


Charles Smith Hyman: The appropriations are so evenly divided and so just that I am sure there will be no criticism. I will be glad to leave one item on which any discussion may come up.


Robert Laird Borden: It is suggested that perhaps we might go on with Ontario.


George Taylor: Dr. Sproule has gone home with the idea that Ontario will not be reached.


Charles Smith Hyman: Very well. I will move that the committee rise.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice will proceed with the Bills which stand in his name, and then we will go into supply and continue with the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
*	Wednesday, July 27th, 1904.