1904-06-17

Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) presented the report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders as follows :
Friday, 17th June, 1904.
The Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders beg leave to present the following as their eighteenth report :-
Your committee have considered the petition of John F. Stairs and others, provisional directors of the Alliance Bank of Canada, for an Act to extend the time within which to obtain a certificate from the Treasury Board, as required by section 14 of the Bank' Act, and find that while no notice has, as required by the rule, been published in the ' Canada Gazette,' the committee in view of the fact that no interests are likely to be affected by the proposed legislation, recommend that the 51st rule be suspended in reference thereto.
As the time for presenting private Bills has expired, your committee recommend that that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for presenting private Bills be suspended iu reference to the foregoing Bill.
Your committee have also considered the petition of the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company, Limited, praying for leave to present their petition for an Act authorizing them to acquire, construct, &c., lines of railway, &c., outside o? the Dominion of Canada, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for receiving such petitions, and they recommend that the necessary leave be granted.
All which is respectfully Submited.
(Sgd.) PHILIPPE DEMERS, Chairman.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS moved :: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 18th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, that portion of the 49th rule of the House, which
[DOT]3997

limits the time for presenting private Bills, be suspended as regards the Bill respecting the Alliance Bank of Canada.


Mr. HAGGART.: Listening to the readin -of the report I did not understand whether it recommended the suspension of the rule
irr.=as jsss&h.- "
.ex (Mi. Oa,vert) in reference to the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The report is merely in reference to these Bills.	y ln


John Graham Haggart: That is ail right.
Motion (Mr. Demers) agreed to.



FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
ass -
PRIVATE Ell,I, Exresao, 0F TIMJ5
*IO BE JANEIRO IAOHT AND Power ^
Mr. CALVERT moved :: That that portion of thp 4qh,	. . . .
limits the time for receiving petitions for prl-vate Bills, be suspended in reference to the petition of the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company, presented this day, praying for an Act authorizing them to construct, &c., lines of railway outside of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 18th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Mr. SPROULE.: What authority have we to give power to any company to construct lines outside of Canada ?


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: This is a growing time. We are spreading over.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to know whether the government is going to take some action to stop this sort of thing, or whether we are going to have a suspension of the rules to the end of the session ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure my hon. friend would not apply the rule strictly when a Bill is brought in to allow a company to build a railway in Brazil.


Uriah Wilson: Why should it be brought in at all ?
Motion (Mr. Calvert) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Rt.   H@: That from this date to the end of the session government orders have precedence on
Mondays immediately after questions to be put by members.
He said :	I stated the other day to my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that when I moved this motion to-day, I would give him some information as to the legislation which we proposed to introduce during the (present session. , In the first place, I stated that we proposed to move some amendments to the present election law. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has that Bill ready, and it will be introduced early next week ; perhaps Monday or Tuesday, but not later than Wednesday. I hope so at all events, though I cannot speak with certainty as the Minister of Justice is not here to-day.


John Graham Haggart: Before the hon. gentleman passes froml that would he have any objection to give us an idea of what he proposes under that Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: 

of the innocents. There is another Bill to amend the Railway Act by Mr. Lancaster, and another to amend the Yukon Territory Representation Act, and still another with respect to labour union labels. These are all important public Bills, and if the government takes Monday, they are killed for this session.


Wilfrid Laurier: In view of the observations 'of tmy libn. friend; (Mr. Sproule) I will try to meet his wishes, and I will ask the consent of the House to amend my motion so that next Monday will be left to private members and the motion take effect only after next Monday.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Could the right hon. gentlman inform us if the proposed Act which the Minister of Justice is going to introduce, will have the effect of laying aside the provincial lists, that are now being prepared by the officials of the Manitoba government and that are now being revised, should an election take place within the next twelve months. Are new lists to be prepared in lieu thereof by officials appointed by the Dominion government 1


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not like to give any precise information to my hon. friend (Mr. Roche). The hon. gentleman will have all the information within a very few days; four or five days at the most, In the absence of the Minister of Justice who is in charge of that measure I do not think I would be justified in pretending to give him the particular character of the legislation which my hon. friend asks me about. I may say also that I forgot to mention that we propose to introduce a Bill to give effect to the decision of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, given in January last with regard to the railway crossing over Yonge Street in the city of Toronto. This decision was rendered by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in the month of January. It should have been rendered by the Privy Council, but through some clerical error it did not come before the Privy Council at the time, and when it did come before the Privy Council, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council had ceased to exist. We therefore have to introduce legislation simply to give effect to the decision of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I do not believe that this motion deals fairly with the private members of this House. It is true that the premier has amended the motion so as not to include next Monday, but we must remember that there are twelve Bills in the names of private members and nine or ten motions, and if these Bills do not pass next Mon-Mr. SPROULE.
day, which they cannot, as they have to go through at least two stages, then it means that these Bills are killed for this session. I do not think that there has been a session of this parliament in which private members had less time for the consideration of their business. It occurs to me that the government should take Saturday for their business and allow the Mondays to remain with the private members. In fact, I consider that so long as private members have business before the House the government should provide some portion of every week for the consideration of that business. It is very important that the government should consider that matter. We are anxious to have these Bills considered by this House and put through if possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I am to judge of what is to take place next Monday by what has taken place on other Mondays, my hon. friend will have ample opportunity to have his Bill considered on Monday next. If he does not, I will see what I can do for him later on.
Motion as amended, agreed to.



REPRESENTATION OF THE PROVINCES.

[Stage Direction]
i Hon. JO*HN HAGGART. Before Ithfii Orders of the Day are called, I would ask the right hon. gentleman when he intends to bring down the papers asked for by the leader of the opposition in reference to the submission to the Privy Council of the reference with regard to the representation of Prince Edward Island, and the other provinces, in the House of Commons. The record must be ready because, I understand the solicitor general has gone to England to argue the cases before the Privy Council. The factum should have been presented to the House before this.
Sir 1 WILFRID LAURIER. I am quite sure the papers can be brought down now, I will make a note of it.
John Graham Haggart: I would like to have them immediately, especially those relating to the Ontario case so as to see whether it has been properly presented.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will try to bring them on Monday. I forgot to mention that my hon. friend the Postmaster General will bring down a measure with respect to the Alien Labour law, which he promised some time ago.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-salaries, $77,850.
['']
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The only in-

creases are the statutory increases. The total salaries for 1903-4 were $72,700. There are forty-eight statutory increases, at $50 each, $2,400 ; and two additional junior second-class clerks at $800 each ;	$1,600 ;
and two third-class clerks, at $600 and $1550, making $1,150; making the total increase of $5,150. Mr. Archambault has been promoted from a messenger to a third-class clerkship at $650. His previous salary as messenger was $600. He has been in the service twenty-nine years. I have also made the following appointments, which are included in the estimates, namely : H. Tremblay and R. Frechette, junior second-class clerks, at $800 each ; L. F. Gorman, third-class clerk, at $600, and Ida Tetu, third-class clerk, at $550. Miss Tremblay is employed in my office as a French stenographer and typewriter. Mr. Frechette is employed in the accountant's branch, and the accountant speaks very highly of him as an official. Mr. Gorman has been in the department for some years as an extra clerk and is a stenographer and typewriter. The deputy minister recommended him strongly for this appointment. Miss Tetu is a French stenographer and typewriter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that you are providing for three additional third-class clerks and two junior second-class.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I have explained, these were employed temporarily, and I propose to put them on the permanent list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They may have been employed temporarily, but last year you had fifty-two employees, and now you have fifty-six. So that there must be four more somewhere.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just stated that there are four more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that increase necessary for the work ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may state that the work has increased about sixty per cent since I have been in the department.


John Graham Haggart: I notice that the contingent account is also greater than it was last year.


Mr. HACKETT.: Are any of these clerks employed in connection with the distribution of the fishing bounties to the fishermen of the maritime provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The clerks employed for the distribution of the fishing bounty are employed only temporarily during six or eight weeks of the year. They are then paid off.


Mr. KAULBACH.: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no question of that for the present year.


Edward Hackett: I am not speaking about dog-fish at all. I asked the following question of the hon. minister on the 13th of April last with regard to the distribution of the fishing bounty in the province of Prince Edward Island :


['I am not speaking about dog-fish at all. I asked the following question of the hon. minister on the 13th of April last with regard to the distribution of the fishing bounty in the province of Prince Edward Island :']
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Preliminary information was procured, upon which the minister came to the conclusion to suspend proceedings for further consideration.
I want to ask tbe hon. minister whether he intends to prosecute an inquiry into those alleged frauds.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year when this question was put to me, I answered it as the hon. gentleman has stated, and I thought the matter would rest there ; but on further representations made by the hon. gentleman, I promised him that an investigation would take place. Accordingly I appointed a person to investigate into these charges of fraud and I hope to have his report pretty soon.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand that a person has been appointed to prosecute an inquiry ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, I will bring down the information and give my hon. friend the name and instructions and everything.


John Graham Haggart: I think that is what the hon. minister should do, in view of the fact that those gentlemen who made those allegations are supposed to be inplicated in some personal matters in that connection and in order also to give the fishery guardian charged with these frauds an opportunity of vindicating himself before a proper representative of the government. I think the matter very important and trust the inquiry will be prosecuted without delay.


Mr. CLANCY.: I want to call tlie attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a campaign sheet issued by his department giving a review of the improvements in the lighthouse and coast service of Canada between 1896 and the 30th of December, 1903. It is a new departure that any minister should have a campaign document published in connection with his department. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but this is nothing else. I know of no greater outrage than for a minister to use his position and department and the public funds for the purpose of publishing and disseminating campaign literature. The hon. gentleman may find precedents, but po matter where he may have selected his models, what he has done is not in the public interest.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When I got an official of the department to prepare this statement, it was in order to inform people on the other side of what he was doing for the St. Lawrence route. In doing this, I simply followed the example of my predecessor who issued a similar pamphlet. The information in this pamphlet is taken from the report of the Marine Department. It is a condensation of what is contained in that report and better adapted for ready reference. The hon. gentleman would be surprised if I were to show him the numerous letters we have received from England and other European countries asking for more of these pamphlets, so as to post themselves on what is going on in the department. We at first ordered 2,000, and these were distributed only to people connected with the shipping interest and members of parliament.


James Clancy: It is very fortunate perhaps that some members of parliament got them on this side.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were sent to every member of parliament.


James Clancy: I am not questioning that statement. The pamphlet purports to be a review of the progress and development of the Department of Marine since 1896. Why was that date selected ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is after 1896 that the most important work was done. In 1894-5-6, there were great complaints against the St. Lawrence route and we had any amount of difficulty in dispelling the wrong impression that had been formed regarding it. We all know the efforts that were made by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and the shipping interests of Quebec and Montreal in 1896 to convince the government that it was a question of life or death for the St. Lawrence route that certain improvements should be made ; and it has been since that time that large sums were voted in order to improve the route and remove the bad impression which had been formed concerning it.


James Clancy: Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) is always single-Mr. HAGGART.
minded in everything. It was by the merest accident that he selected the year 1896 for comparison. The hon. gentleman devotes his whole effort to show that there was complaint in 1895 or 1896. Has he been asleep that he does not know that these complaints had been made for years before and have been made for years since ? The charge was made by one of his own supporters, the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), from his place in the House that the whole service was in the most deplorable condition. Why did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) date it from that time ? He could hardly have been ignorant of the complaints that were made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike). But, in compiling this table to show what has been done on the St. Lawrence route he, incidentally and quite accidentally, fell upon the year 1896. I do not mind giving the hon. gentleman my opinion that that is mere parish politics and looks all the worse when practised by the head of a great department. The hon. gentleman brought action against a newspaper for having stated more definitely, not than the facts warranted, probably, but than he was willing to have known, that he had established a sort of bureau in his own city through which his friends would secure places, it appears that it is a part of the outfit of the government to which he belongs. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) on one occasion when he was acting Minister of Public Works, advertised for applicants from one end of this country to the other-


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK..: That is entirely without foundation.


James Clancy: I will take occasion to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory.


William Mulock: Do so, if you can.


James Clancy: I will do so with pleasure, and probably with not a little pain to the hon. gentleman. Evidently the hon. gentleman has forgotten. It is said that reckless people never take pains to remember what they have said. I would not say that the Postmaster General was reckless, but he was new in the business and anxious to distinguish himself. So, when the back of the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Mr. Tarte) was turned, he resolved to out do that hon. gentleman and learn every place that wanted a wharf or a dodk. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries-


William Mulock: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will not omit the proof. He was going to give the proof of his statment. Will he not make good his word ?


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) will allow me a little time, I will call the witnesses-including himself. Now, returning to this pamphlet,

let me review some of its features. It purports to give a * comparative statement of total expenditure for the fiscal years 1896 and 1903. ' This includes items for ocean and river service, lighthouse and coast service, scientific institutions-was there any complaint about that ? Marine hospitals, steamboat inspection-was there a controversy about that so keen that people were crying out for information about it for the year 1896 especially ?-and civil government salaries.


Mr. INGHAM.: What has all that got to do w'ith the improvement of the St. Lawrence route ?


James Clancy: Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will tell us that. How much are the people of the old country concerned about civil government salaries ? Were they thirsting for information with regard to steamboat inspection ? Did they demand to be informed about our scientific institutions ? Then we have a comparative statement of the expenditure for lighthouse and coast service for the years 1896 and 1993. The first item is for salaries and allowances. I am sure the people abroad were anxious about that. And so it goes through with the other items. It is, no doubt, a very complete campaign document. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on the efficiency of the work from that point of view. Let me read the italics on page 5, put there, no doubt, by direction of the hon. minister himself-for I will venture to say he took great care in the preparation of this pamphlet :
Since the year 1896 one hundred and fifty-six towers and inclosed lighthouses have been built and fifty pole lights have been erected, making a total of two hundred and six new lights put in operation.
Why was that put in italics ? I will sit down and await the hon. gentleman's explanation.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To call the attention of the reader to the statement, I suppose.


James Clancy: The reader would not have taken notice of it, if it had not been put In italics, I suppose. Had they put in the name of the hon. gentleman himself, it would have been a more direct way of accomplishing his purpose. The public are not so dull as to require the italicizing of important statements by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Here is another statement in special type : Will the hon. gentleman say that the public were so much interested in this that he needed to call special attention to it ?
Lighthouses to be put in operation next spring and others for which tenders have been invited.
Was that given prominence so that people might come to the hon. gentleman and
look for contracts ? The hon. gentleman assents to that. I am glad he is so frank. Then there is a comparison of the number of lights in the Dominion of Canada for the years 1896 and 1903. I shall not trouble the committee to go more in detail through this interesting volume of thirty-two pages, including index, of campaign literature. I would advise the hon. gentleman, however, as a fitting frontispiece to put on the front of the cover his own photograph looking as wise as he now tries to look after having issued this splendid campaign sheet.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I shall carefully consider that advice.


Mr. T. I. THOMSON.: It seems strange that the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) should have any doubt concerning the motives of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in choosing the year 1896 as the year with which comparisons are to be made in this pamphlet. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) looking after the interests of the Militia Department and Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) looking after his own department go back to 1896 for comparison, and prepare campaign documents to be circulated as public reports. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) had a reputation before he came here, and this is simply what we expected from him. A dozen of these pamphlets were sent to each member of the House, and every member was invited to send for as many as he pleased for distribution. But, owing to the nature of the pamphlet, I did not send out so many as I would have been glad to do otherwise. The fact that the comparisons are made with the year 1896 shows that it was intended to be a campaign document and so I did not care to send them out.
iMr. TAYLOR. I would like to ask the minister why he requires in his department all these dictionaries that I find charged in the Auditor General's Report : Bescherelle French Dictionary, $20, Century Dictionary, $65.65, Webster's Dictionary, $8.95, totai about $100 for dictionaries.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A larger sum than that has been spent in the department for books. A certain amount is voted every year for the purchase of books.


Mr. TAYLOR.: They have always been included in the amount for printing and stationery. I would like to know why he requires three dictionaries in his department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When I took office I found the library almost depleted, and as I thought I was entitled to have a few books to consult when necessary, whether in English or French, I purchased these books.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman placed a sum in the estimates for the purchase of a dictionary, no doubt the opposi-

tlon would make no objection. But here we vote a certain amount of money and we don't know how it is expended. I find on the same page a charge for Larousse Petit Dic-tionnaire, $2.25 ; Lewes Acetylene, 3, $18.15.
I presume that is in connection with acetylene gas for lighting lighthouses over the country, and favouring some gentlemen who have an interest in manufacturing acetylene products. Then 1 find 'Men of Canada,' $15. Why is this necessary for the hon. gentleman's library ? The vote of parliament is only for printing and stationery, but this is neither printing nor stationery. Why are these books necessary for running the Marine and Fisheries Department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because I wanted them.


George Taylor: Then here is another item that I would like the minister to explain.
I find accounts for travelling expenses : Hon. J. R. F. Frefontaine, $437 ; Hon. J. Sutherland, $42.90. Then later on : cab-hire Hon. J. R. F. PrSfontaine, $53.50 ; Hon. J. Sutherland, $8.50. I want to tell my hon. friend that when his friends were on this side of the House they condemned the government for paying the cab-hire, not alone of the junior ministers and of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but of the Prime Minister himself, the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald. Because he spent a few dollars for cab-hire the opposition criticised the vote for half a day. Mr. Wilson, who is now in the Senate, opened the ball by saying :	'
Then there Is an item here which perhaps the hon. First Minister will be able to explain, as the Auditor General's Report does not explain it sastisfactorily. We find charged here, travelling expenses of Sir John A. Macdonald, $364.59. Then comes cab-hire at Ottawa-Sir John A. Macdonald, $734.50 Sir John A. Macdonald, from May to June, $214.


Sir   J@: Macdonald replied:
I am afraid the hon. gentleman will have to wait until the Committee on Public Accounts sends for the vouchers, or gets an explanation why there are no vouchers. I certainly do not come here charged with explanations for vouchers for the employment of every cabman. All I can say about that is that I cannot afford to keep a horse, I am too old to walk, and as long as I hold my position, I think the hon. gentleman will have to submit to paying my cab fare.
'Now the late Minister of Justice, the Hon. David Mills, had this to say about it :
I cannot say that I agree with the hon. gentleman that there should be no objection to cab-hire for the First Minister simply because he is the First Minister. That is wholly a new doctrine. 1 always supposed there was a sessional allowance granted to every member of this House, granted to the Prime Minister as well as to others, and he may use a portion of that sessional allowance to pay for his Mr. TAYLOR.
cab-hire precisely as he may use it for any other matter. If the House is of opinion that a different rule should be applied to the First Minister, the House ought to proceed regularly. There is no authority for the premier, any more than for any other member of this House, to come to the House in a cab and charge the cab-hire in the public accounts. He has no special position in that respect.
Mr. Mills is an authority for the doctrine that no cabinet minister has a right, any more than any private member of this House, to charge for cab-hire. This was the charge against Sir John A. Macdonald, and he was the only man of the government! against whom Mr. Mills could bring a charge of making the country pay for his cab-hire. But look at the list now. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has in this account before us, for a portion of last year, a charge for cab-hire of $53.50, and for travelling expenses of $437. Why does not the same rule apply to him that Mr. Mills laid down for Sir John A. Macdonald? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has his sessional indemnity, and he should put his hand in his own pocket and pay for his cab-hire. There is no law allowing him to charge these accounts to the country. Here is the highest authority stating that the Prime Minister, the late Sir John A. Macdonald, had no business to charge for cab-hire. In the ' Hansard ' of 1889 you will find that the opposition spent hours criticising the late Sir John A. Macdonald with having misappropriated the funds of this country in charging for cab-hire. My hon. friend who has just stepped into the government cannot go down the street without calling a cab and sending the bill to the government. I certainly think that this ought to be put a stop to some way. If each of the cabinet ministers is going to have a bill of from $400 to $600 every year for cab-hire the government should introduce a bill authorizing them to do so legally because we have the statement of the late Mr. Mills, who was the Minister of Justice in this government, that it is contrary to law, that no cabinet minister has any more right to do this than any other member of the House. I would like the hon. gentleman to show me what authority he has for placing in the public accounts cab-hire to the amount of $53.50 for a portion of the year 1903-4 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The same authority that existed in the time of Sir John Macdonald.


George Taylor: Mr. Mills says there is no authority for it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It appears that the bon. gentleman sustained the position taken by Sir John Macdonald.


George Taylor: By the First Minister only. Some hon. gentlemen say there should be

an exception in favour of the First Minister and so there should be. I will never by act or voice object to any charge made by the First Minister for cab-hire or for travelling expenses. With the exception of the hon. Minister of Customs every one of the ministers is guilty. This never was done by the late Conservative government as it is being done by this government notwithstanding the fact that the late Mr. Mills said it was contrary to law. I want the hon. gentleman to explain where he finds the authority, either by law or practice for any such charge being made except by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No doubt if it had been illegal the Auditor General would not have passed it.
Mr. TAYLOR, I submit that is an unsatisfactory explanation. I beg to move :
That the Item he reduced by the sum of $53.50, being the cab-hire charged by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as shown in the Auditor General's Report of last year.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Before the vote is taken on this question I desire to say that there is a principle involved in this extending far beyond the amount that is named by my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) who has just moved the reduction of the item. The principle is far reaching because what would apply to this department would apply to all the departments of government, and there is no doubt that this practice of charging up to the country Items of personal expense by ministers which to my mind have no connection whatever with the department is a growing evil and is becoming a somewhat cumbersome matter to the country. I think it is time we had some understanding and that if the government desire to continue this practice which in bygone years they denounced as being wrong they ought to place some law on the statute book authorizing it and making it clear that they have the right to take this money out of the public treasury and apply it for their personal benefit. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has offered, to my mind, a very flimsy excuse indeed. He savs that because it was allowed to the late Sir John Macdonald it ought to be allowed to all the ministers who have succeeded him. Sir John Macdonald said that he was old, that he could not afford to keep a horse, and that so long as the country required his services he thought they would be obliged to pay his cab-hire. I do not think the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will come down and make any such confession as that. He cannot say that he is too old to walk. I do not think that after the successful career he had in the municipal council of the city of Montreal and with the reputation he achieved, he will claim that he is too poor, and I think therefore that some better excuse should be offered
than that which the hon. gentleman has offered for the charge that is here made. It you can apply it to cab-hire of course you can apply it to street car fare. We find that this is a growing item. More than that, you can apply it to the use of private cars, which, by the way, is becoming rather a serious charge. Although it is indirectly that the country pays for them there is no doubt that all these private cars, whether they go to Mexico, or wherever they go, are all paid for by the people of this country. It is done by exchange, an exchange which this country has to make good to the American roads when they desire it so that practically we are paying for all these junketing expeditions of the government whether on street cars, in cabs, or in private cars.
I think it is time that some principle was laid down and that the people should know whether or not ministers have the right more than any other member of parliament to place their hands upon the public funds without the authority of law and appropriate them to their own personal benefit. I do not think it is a healthy state of affairs and it seems to me that it leads step by step along the line which eventually will bring about a very much more serious condition. I hope the hon. minister for his own sake will be able to offer some better justification for the taking of this money and applying it to his own private purposes than he has yet offered. I desire to say in reference to this pamphlet as it has been printed by the order of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the same courtesy should have been extended to every member of parliament and that it should have been sent to every member.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been.


David Henderson: I have not received a copy of it. I made careful inquiry in the post office and there was nothing there. I do not see why it should be given to one and not the other.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I persist in affirming that instructions were given when the pamphlet was issued in January, 1904, that copies should be sent to every member of parliament. I have no reason to doubt that the instructions were followed but I will inquire.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister send us some now ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With pleasure.


David Henderson: I would like very much if the hon. minister would send me a copy.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: time. They take particular care that the comparison shall be between the years 1895 and 1903. They point things out just the same as they do in the campaign sheets which they issue and which are numbered 1, 2 and so forth, although they do not number this. There are a great many statistics in this pamphlet regarding the lighthouse service but I would like to point out to the hon. minister that we have a lighthouse down in Summerside which is a disgrace to any department or to any government. The foundation has been falling into decay for a number of years and at the present time it will hardly support the structure. It looks dingy. There have been a number of complaints sent to the department in regard to this lighthouse, or at least the press has been filled with pleas to the department to have this lighthouse attended to. On this occasion I would beg that the hon. minister will have his officers down on the island look into this matter and have the necessary repairs made.
I want the minister to tell me why it is that the fishing bounties have fallen off considerable since 1895 and 1896? I put a question on the order paper the other day, asking why the bounty was not paid to the lobster fishermen, and in the usual manner I was put off by being referred to the law on the question. That answer was neither a sufficient nor a fair answer, when I asked for the reason why the lobster fishermen did not share in the bounties the same as other fishermen. Let the minister now tell me why the policy is followed, by which the lobster fishermen are not included in the bounty. ?


Mr. WILLIAM BOSS (Victoria).: From the Auditor General's Report of 1896 I find that the Hon. Geo. E. Foster was paid $120.75 for cab-hire. What is the use of saying that cab-hire was only paid to the Prime Min ister of the Conservative government, when we find that the other ministers drew cab-hire just the same ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: Your friends said it was wrong.


William Ross: Never mind what my friends said. Speaking about campaign literature ; gentlemen opposite had better turn their attention to the kind of campaign literature they are circulating throughout the country. It reflects no credit upon themselves or on anybody else.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a question of judgment, and I cannot commend the hon. gen tleman's judgment. I want to get from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries an explanation as to what extent his department has been enlarged by the recent changes.


William Ross: I find that one year J. Thompson drew $251.25 and C. H. Tupper $119.25 for cab-hire. This shows that the other Conservative ministers drew cab-hire as well as Sir John Macdonald.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


Andrew B. Ingram: When the Liberals were in opposition they condemned Conservatives for drawing cab-hire ; and if they are consistent, why do they themselves now draw large amounts for cab-hire ? Surely the hon. member for Victoria is not so dense that he cannot see the difference.


Mr.   WM@: ROSiS (Victoria). I am not so dense as the hon. gentleman thinks, but I have shown here that other ministers of the Conservative government, as well as the Prime Minister, drew cab-hire.


Andrew B. Ingram: No person contended anything different.


William Ross: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) stated repeatedly that only Sir John Macdonald drew cab-hire, and not the other ministers.
Mr. SPROUiLE. What the member for Leeds said was that he would have no objection to the First Minister drawing cab-hire, but as the Liberals condemned it the other ministers should not draw cab-hire. The gravamen of the charge is that the highest authority in the Reform party, the Hon. David Mills, declared in ftiis House that there was no legal authority for the First Minister or anybody else drawing money for cab-hire. The hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Ross) was a member of the Mackenzie cabinet with the Hon. David Mills, and he must know very well that if it was wrong then to draw cab-hire it fs wrong now, because the law has not been changed since. The trouble with these gentlemen over there is that what they condemn in their opponents they justify when it is done by themselves.


William Ross: The cab-hire drawn by the Minister of Marine was objected to, and the statement was made that only Sir John Macdonald drew cab-hire when the Conservatives were in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Is it right or wrong for the men now forming the cabinet to denounce this when they were in opposition and to practise it when they came to power? That is the point we are dealing with.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let our conscientious friend from Victoria (Mr. Ross) answer that question.


Mr. HE  YD@: It strikes me that it is right always for a cabinet minister to engage a cab when it will facilitate public business.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it right for your friends to denounce it when they were in opposition and to do the same thing themselves when in power ?


Mr. HEYD.: It is always right if it advances the public interest.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Rossi did not understand what I

read from ' Hansard.' I will read some more of the debate in order to enlighten him :


Mr. SOMERVILLE.: Judging from the way 'this account is made out, I should say this country, on a small scale at all events, is being humbugged by our Barnum minister-
That is the way he described the late lamented Sir John .Macdonald.
-as much as the United States people are being humbugged by their Barnum. If the hon. the First Minister can be in two places at once, the people ought to know it. That this year there has been expended $728.15 for cab-hire for persons not named in the vouchers is ta, matter that requires as much explanation as this account. Therefore I cordially agree with the hon. member for Bast pigin (Mr. Wilson) that this requires some explanation, and I can.see from the happy mood in which the First Minister appears to be that he is just in the vein to explain it. I would be glad, for my own satisfaction and that of the people, if he would be kind enough to rise in his place and tell us how it is that he can by any possibility be riding in a cab at Ottawa while travelling in the car ' Jamaica ' and making political speeches in Toronto, Welland and other places.
Then Sir John Macdonald replied and was followed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), who last year, according to the Auditor General's Report, spent $300 for travelling expenses- I suppose to Hot Springs-and $496 for cab-hire ; and yet he was one of the parties who attacked the late Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister, for having employed a cab. Every member of this government except the Minister of Customs has a bill for cab-hire ; and some day we will perhaps divide the House on that matter. My hon. friend from Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Wm. Ross) certainly did not hear what X read as the opinion of the late Minister of Justice, the Hon. David Mills, who ought to be an authority for him and an example for every hon. gentleman on that side of the House to-day. If the Prime Minister of the Conservative government did spend some money for cab-hire, certainly this government, which is pure and just and upright, should not put their hands into the people's pockets and take money for cab-hire which the late Minister of Justice (Hon. David Mills) said should come out of their own pockets. Here is his opinion of it :
I cannot say I agree with the hon. gentleman that there should be no objection to cab-hire for the First Minister simply because he is the First Minister. That is wholly a new doctrine. I always supposed there was a sessional allowance granted to every member of this House, granted to the Prime Minister as well as to others, and he may use a portion of that sessional allowance to pay for his cab-hire precisely as he may use it for any other matter. If the House is of opinion that a different rule should be applied to the First Minister, the House ought to proceed regularly. There is no authority for the premier, any more than for
any other member of this House, to come to the House in a cab and charge the cab-hire in the public accounts. He has no special position in that respect. My friend the hon. member for East York (Mr. Mackenzie) is a member of this House and was at one time the Prime Minister. He had devolving upon him the important duties now devolving upon the First Minister. In consequnce of his assiduous application to those duties, he is scarcely able to get to his seat in this House, yet I do not find that the right hon. gentleman has made any provision to bring my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie) here in a cab.
There is the opinion of the late Minister of Justice, the legal authority of the Liberal party of Canada, discussing the matter with reference only to the Prime Minister. No other minister was mentioned in the whole debate which then took place. It was an attack upon the Barnum of Canada, as they called the late-lamented Sir John A. Macdonald-that was the respect they paid to him-a man who did more to build up Canada and make it a nation than all those men frut together who sit on that side of the House. These gentlemen were not too small to attack him and charge him with having mis-appropriated the public money, because he came to the House and went from the House at midnight in a cab. Poor old man, who died at a ripe old age, without a dollar in his pocket, after having governed this country for many years 1 The poor old man said :
' I am too old to walk, and too poor to buy a horse'; and yet these gentlemen attacked him and charged him with having misappropriated the people's money. When these purists came into powrer, they said :	'We
are going to do business on business principles and in an honest way ' ; and yet every minister except the Minister of Customs charges his cab-hire to the people of this country. That is what I condemn. According to the Auditor General's Report, these hon. gentlemen spent in the year 1902-3 no less than $203,399.18 in travelling expenses, railways fares, cab-hire, tips and sundries-just for six departments. The ministers spent for travelling expenses $7,477.84, for fares $475.92, for cab-hire $1,061.10, and for sundries $45.60. The Labour Department spent for travelling expenses $3,891.55. The Justice Department spent for travelling expenses $4,658.42, and for cab-hire $116.33. The Marine and Fisheries Department spent for travelling expenses $8,473.85, and for cab-hire $58.60. The Department of Militia and Defence spent for travelling expenses $7,842.22, and for cab-hire $139.44. The Inland Revenue Department spent for travelling expenses $27.07, and for cab-hire $33.75. The Department of Indian Affairs spent for travelling expenses $827.71, for cab-hire $365.95, and for tips $39.90. The Department of Agriculture spent for travelling expenses $28,055.23.


Mr. FISHER.: How many years does that cover-fifty ?


George Taylor: It covers one year, according to the Auditor General's Report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not correct. The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will name a day when he is going into his estimates, I will give him the figures. I will give them to him now if he likes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Giye them to me now- the travelling expenses of the Minister of Agriculture.


George Taylor: I am not saying the minister. I am saying the department.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh. That is another business.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman spent for travelling expenses in connection with his department $28,055.23 and for cab-hire $854.73, for tips $2, and for sundries-I do not know what they are-peVhaps this was aii for lemonade-$562.23. The Interior Department spent for travelling expenses $52,811.49, for fares $473.95, for cab-hire $4,097.05, and for sundries $99.27. The Public Works Department spent for travelling expenses $58,238.73, and for cab-hire $512.65. I have not worked out the details for the Department of Finance, Customs, Secretary of State, Railways and Canals, Privy Council, Printing and Stationery, Post Office, Mounted Police and Trade and Commerce ; but these seven departments which I have mentioned spent $203,399.18 of the people's money for travelling expenses in order that these gentlemen and their civil servants might go around the country ; and they spent in tips and sundries nearly $1,000-I suppose for lemonade and so forth. And yet, after reading what the late Hon. David Mills said, what authority have they for doing it ? There it is, nearly a quarter of a million of money. No wonder they want the revenue to flow in to keep up this state, of affairs. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, though only a few months in office previous to the 1st of July, 1903, and though he is a young man and as able to walk as anybody, spent for cab-hire $58.60. That is the way the people's money is being wasted and then we are refused any information. The only reply we are given is that the other fellows did it and we are going to do it too.


Mr. PATERSON.: I do not wish to take any credit not due to me. If there is no cab-hire charged against me, I suppose it is because my secretary paid it and included it in his travelling expenses. When I go on official business, I frequently hire a cab in order to keep my appointments ; and if cab-hire is not charged against me, it must be because it is charged in my private secretary's bill.


George Taylor: i


George Taylor: We are talking of cab-hire here in Ottawa. Cab-hire out of Ottawa would be included in travelling expenses.


Edward Cochrane: I very well remember the late Sir John Macdonald being criticised for spending money in cab-hire, and his reply was that he was too old to walk and too poor to afford to keep a horse, and that as long as he remained in the position he had, he was afraid the country would have to pay his cab-hire ; but I am astonished that the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Wm. Ross) an old Baldwin Reformer should plead that because the late government charged up cab-hire for the premier, the present government was justified in doing the same thing for the whole crowd. But as he and his party condenmed the late government, they are not justified in making the plea they do. Will the hon. gentleman tell me that when he appears before the great judge of us all, he will venture to plead that although he condemned certain things done by the late government, the present government are justified in doing the same thing because their predecessors set them the example. Is that the kind of reform doctrine we ought to expect from an old Baldwin Liberal ? You would think that these hon. gentlemen would be ashamed to do the same thing which they condemned in their predecessors, and not only that but spend hundreds of dollars more in the same way. Why, we have ministers now who cannot go down to a summer resort without a special car. We have a minister who, when he came to Ottawa, was well known not to be very rich, but where is he to-day ? He is living in a palatial residence in this city which cost him $20,000. He bought Corby's yacht, which was too expensive for Corby to run, and all the silver plate in it, and all that could not have cost less than $20,000 more. He cannot plead, as the late Sir John Macdonald did, that he is too old to walk and too poor to keep a horse, because he does keep a horse. I am not so penurious as to object to paying cab-hire of ministers, but what I object to is ministers getting into power under false pretenses and then doing exactly the same thing as their predecessors did, and pleading that as valid excuse I say they are doubly guilty.


William Ross: I am afraid that the advice we are getting to-day was not very palatable to hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in office, because all this cab-hire and travelling expenses went on then as now. [DOT]	,	[DOT]


Edward Cochrane: Not one-half as much.


William Ross: Not only did the ministers then charge for cab-hire but in many cases their deputies were paid their cab-hire as well.


Edward Cochrane: And you said it was wrong.


Mr.   WM@: E-QSS (Victoria). I did not.


Edward Cochrane: But your party did and you are responsible.


William Ross: 1 am only responsible for what I say myself and not for what my party do. I find that the travelling expenses of Sir John Thompson amounted to $1,486.67.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is not eab-hlre. Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria). Cab-hire at Ottawa $251.25


Edward Cochrane: The Minister of Trade and Commerce spent nearly $500.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the Department of Agriculture. Well, I have just looked up the Auditor General's report and I find that that department was charged with cab-hire to the extent of $32. I take the hon. gentleman's statement that it was in Ottawa. I do not know, but I can say that on no occasion have I ever had cab-hire charged the government except when on government business, such as taking distinguished strangers out to the experimental farm.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a word about this celebrated pamphlet for which we are to pay. It is a reminder of ' Political pointers.' The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) laughs. He would not have regarded it in the same way had this been perpetrated by his political opponents when he was on this side of the House. It may be that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) has an ambition to fulfil the highest expectations of his leader the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), as set out in this celebrated Order in Council which has been laid before us. As the doctrine laid down is a new one, and as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seems to believe in it and tries to carry it out, it seems worth while to call attention to it. This Order in Council says :
In the case of members of the cabinet, while all have an equal degree of responsibility in a constitutional sense, yet, In the practical working out of responsible government in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it is found necessary to attach a special responsibility to each minister for the public affairs of the provincial district with which he has close political connection.
I take it that the district with which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has such close political connection as to justify his getting out this pamphlet is the St. Lawrence route, and so he orders the preparation of this pamphlet by one of his subordinates and calls upon us to vote the money to pay for it.
Mr. Fisher, while sharing with his colleagues that general responsibility already referred to, represents in a particular manner the eastern townships of the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries represents in a particular manner the St. Lawrence route, I suppose, and it is, of course, proper in accordance with that principle, that he should get out some special report informing the world of what has been done in that locality under his charge. I presume he justifies this pamphlet on these lines. I wish to say a word also about the item mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). That hon. gentleman takes exception to the expenditure of $90 for dictionaries for that department. As the ordinary dictionary costs about fifty cents, I suppose we may take this expenditure to mean that the department has bought 180 dictionaries. I would criticise this more severely were it not for the fact that some members of the cabinet cannot distinguish between a Scotchman and a ' foreigner.' I think dictionaries are needed by hon. gentlemen opposite in the interest of the country, and the more dictionaries they use the better. It may prevent the Minister of Marine and Fisheries falling into some such blunder, and the more he avoids such things the more it will be to his credit.
With regard to the item of travelling expenses, these expenses do not seem to end with travelling expenses. You have here cab-hire, tips, sundries, even payments for accident life insurance. We find the charge of $53 for tips for a single trip. These people are very liberal with what does not belong to them. We are told that Artemus Ward was willing to sacrifice all his wife's relations to the cause of the Union. These people seem to be quite ready to make themselves appear big men with the country's money. That reminds me of a story that is told about the great maritime province politiean, Joseph Howe. One disagreeable night he reached a cozy hotel, where he found everything very comfortable. He found excellent stabling for his horse, and, while ordering a drink in the bar he complimented the landlady upon the way in which her hotel was managed. He threw down a five dollar gold piece. When she offered change, he refused to take it, but said, 'We will talk about that in the morning.' He was given a very nice supper. On this also he complimented the landlady, and, ordering another drink threw down another five dollar gold piece, again refusing to take change-saying that he was busy and did not want to trouble about that, that they would make it all right next day. The landlady was surprised and could not make out what kind of a man this was. The following morning he again complimented the landlady, telling her that he had had a splendid night's rest and a fine breakfast, and again threw down a five dollar gold piece, but still would not hear of receiving change. The landlady said, ' Who are you, any way ? I would like to know

what kind of man you are.' ' Oh,' he said, ' We make our money easier that you do.' This does not cost me anything. I am the Honourable Joseph Howe and have access to the public treasury. Money does not cost me anything.' ' Well,' answered the landlady, ' I always knew that a Grit would steal, but I never knew before that he would give it away so liberally when he got it. Whether these gentlemen steal it or not, they seem ter be quite willing to give it away liberally. Take the case of one subordinate officer, Mr. Frank Pedley.whom I have met many a time on the platform- a very genial, good natured soul. There is a charge from him of $233.04 for travelling expenses, including $75.25 for pullmans, and $35.25 for tips. Whether he has stolen it or not, he has become possessed of it in some way and he seems to be willing to give it away as easily as Joseph Howe. Now, I object to this because it sets an exceedingly bad example to the rising generation. It is the duty of the government to deal as economically with what belongs to the country as they would with their own funds. But, as long as the government regard it as proper to hand out public money in tips, travelling expenses, cab-hire, buying trunks for themselves, paying for accident insurance, and so on, we shall not have the economy exercised anywhere in the public service that we ought to have.


Andrew B. Ingram: Hon. members on this side are not opposed to reasonable expenditure for cab-hire for the ministers. What) we do object to is the statement by these hon. gentlemen before they came into power that, if given office they would abolish these things which they complained of as abuses before 1896. So far as I am concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) for instance, has never been found fault with though he is carrying out a system that these hon. gentlemen condemned before 1896. He has been a long time in the service of the country, and has been unfortunate in the matter of health, and- I, for one, would be sorry to object to any reasonable expenditure he'may incur for cab-hire . The same would apply to the leader of the government and any other minister. If our party came into power, we would expect to spend reasonable sums in the same way, and I think the country should be willing to pay. But what we object to is that they are doing now that which they declared to be wrong and their only justification is that we, when in power did the same thing. I bave a quotation in my hands of a speech made by a present minister of the Crown previous to 1896. Speaking to the electors in a certain part of the Dominion, he said :
You have the right to hold the politician to his pledge, just as much as you would the man of business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man who obtains goods from you under false pretenses is a cheat and swindler.
What should you call the men who obtain votes by means of pledges which they never intended to keep ?
I say again, if you are prepared to overlook these things then you have no right to ask for fidelity from any man who hereafter represents you.
Sir, it was the present Minister of Finance who said that. I know hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House do not deny that they have broken their pledges. They have no principles, they do not pretend to have any principles ; they are simply opportunists, and they take advantage of the public feeling in the country at the moment, regardless of whether it is in the interest of the country or not. They have violated every principle they claimed to hold up to the present moment, and for that reason I am justified in saying that they have no principle other than the principle of remaining in power. I remember distinctly in the matter of private cars when Conservative ministers were condemned for going from place to place in private cars. I am ready to say, as a member of the opposition, that I think a minister is justified in using a private car if it is in the interest of the country that he should do so in order to transact public business more expeditiously. If the Conservative party came into power to-morrow, I should be prepared to defend the government in a reasonable use of private cars. But as I said before, we are not now finding fault so much with the hon. gentlemen opposite for using private cars as we are for doing the same thing which they condemned the previous government for doing previous to 1896, and they are now afraid to stand up and admit that they were wrong then. Now with respect to the item we are discussing,
I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to explain in what way his department has been enlarged, and what branch he has taken over from any other department.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: A few moments ago,
I put some questions to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to which I would like to get a reply, it was regarding the fishing bounty. I see in this campaign pamphlet-


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the minister declines to answer my question ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot answer two questions at the same time. I will try to answer one after the other. The hon gentleman has asked me why the amount paid for fishing bounties ha's diminished. Well, in the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1903. I find the following remarks made by the Commissioner of Fisheries :
During the year 1902 -the fishermen of the maritime provinces received the Sum of $159,853 as fisheries bounties on their respective catches

of deep sea fish for that season. The owners and crews of 795 vessels received $71,079 of the above amount, while the balance, $88,774, was distributed amongst 20,229 boat fishermen. To cover these amounts, 12,723 claims were paid ; 91 were refused payment as being fraudulent. For the last season Nova Scotia received nearly double the amount of bounty distributed to all the other provinces, amounting to $100,455 ; Quebec received $36,125 ; New Brunswick, $14,555, and Prince Edward Island, $8,716. Since its inception (1882) the sum of $3,315,966 has been distributed among ithe fishermen of the above-mentioned provinces to improve the development of their sea fisheries. The regulations governing the payment of such fishing bounties, as well as full particulars respecting their distribution, will be found in appendix number 2.
The same amount is always voted every year, but the amount distributed varies according to the catches. In 1901 the catches were the most numerous. As to the causes of the variations they depend on many circumstances. Sometimes the fishing season begins later and sometimes the weather is unusually stormy and various causes which cannot be controlled.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Would the minister tell me why this bounty is not given to the lobster fishing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because they are not included by the law. The fishing bounty is only paid to deep sea fishermen.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Would it not be well that the boat fishermen should participate in these bounties also ? The lobster fishermen are boat fishermen, and I cannot understand why they should not be paid also. I would invite the minister to bring this matter up in council and see if some relief cannot be given to these fishermen. I see no reason why they should be prevented from participating in these funds, while other boat fishermen throughout the maritime provinces do participate in them. The minister has shown a difference between the bounty paid in 1895 and that paid in 1896, saying that the catch was larger in one year. Well, I am aware of several cases where that principle has not been followed out. For instance, the lobster and oyster fisheries have been falling off simply because the service has not been sufficiently protected. 1 gave an instance the other day where the minister had departed from the Order in Council, refusing the grant of any new licenses and some new lobster canneries had got licenses in a place where the circumstances wiere absolutely at variance with the policy announced by the minister in that regard. Now, I find :
Of the many efforts made by the Dominion government to foster and promote the sea fisheries, the most recent, and in many respects, the most remarkable, is that of providing, under federal auspices, facilities for the storage and preservation of bait in refrigerators. The subject of cold storage for bait, and of fishery products generally, has for over twenty years engaged the attention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
He goes on to laud the policy of the present administration in regard to the bait grievance. Now about a month ago a newspaper was sent to me from a party down in Nova Scotia, giving some information about the bait freezers, and it would seem from this letter I find in the paper, that the bait freezers are not the unqualified success the minister would have us to understand. For the benefit of the minister, I will read this clipping, dated May 5, this year, and the committee also might like to hear it :



[Stage Direction]
They are not the success which their promoters said they would be.
Although much has been said about what the Canadian government has been doing to enable fishing vessels to procure bait, scores of vessels are now in the harbour waiting for that article.
This was on May 5th of this year :
The Fisheries Department of the Canadian government has tackled the problem of a full and constant supply of bait in a manner at once inefficient and extravagant. Its actions in this connection have obviously been dictated by a desire to advance the interests of party rather than to promote the welfare of our fishermen. This is admitted, and regretted by all interested in the fisheries, irrespective of their political allegiance. Even Moses Nickerson, -who was one of the first to advocate government encouragement to a cold storage system, has condemned the department's methods of establishing bait freezers on the coast.
As a number of fish merchants have for some years been operating bait freezers for their own purposes, the proper procedure would have been to hold out inducements to these men to extend their operations in this line, and to give a bonus not on the construction of freezers, but according to the amount of bait placed in them. This was the method advocate.i by practically all authorities on fishery matters.
The government, however, could not see its way to encouraging fish merchants to increase a legitimate line of business-probably because some of the more prominent men owning and operating bait freezers were not of the right political complexion. So it paid half the cost of twenty-four small bait freezers, which for very natural reasons have been of no practical benefit to the fishermen. The companies organized to take advantage of the government's bounty had no experience with cold storage plants and consequently some little error in construction or operation militated against their success. In one instance, a freezer was insulated with ordinary tar paper, and the bait and food fish placed therein became so impregnated with the odour of tar as to be completely spoiled, whereupon the officers of this particular company wrote to the Fisheries Department that they had lost $500 or so by the experiment, and that if the government did not make good their loss it would lose some valuable supporters in that constituency. A naive confession, doubtless, of the political creed of the ' Laurier and Prd-fontaine ' Grits !
[Stage Direction]
Not content with wasting $25,000 or more on the small freezers, the government has made arrangemnets to bonus the construction of a large freezer in Canso-to expend $30,000 or $40,000 to no purpose, except possibly to help its machine workers. The Canso Cold Storage Company, which will receive this government grant, proposes to supply the bank fleet with frozen bait. The prospectus of the company should be read by all fishing vessel owners and by all fishermen. "With easy indifference to the rights of our fishermen, it shows how the franchise for $31,000, granted by the government to the Whitmans of Canso, to be exercised for the benefit of the bank fishermen, is to be converted into an instrument to promote the interests of a group of capitalists.
As matters stand at present, the hopes of the company, as foreshadowed by the prospectus, are not likely to dispose of 10,000 barrels of frozen squid to the bank fleet every season, and make a profit of $5 on every barrel. Our bank fishermen will buy squid direct from the catchers rather than from this company, because, while fresh and unfrozen squid will keep in their holds a week or more, bait taken out of cold storage decomposes in a few hours. The establishment of a large bait freezer at Canso cannot therefore, under present conditions, be of much benefit to our bank fishermen, though the promoters of this project will doubtless be well paid for their trouble by the government grant. In devising its latest cold storage scheme the department has ignored a factor necessary to success- that is the fitting of bank fishing vessels with cold storage plants. With a large supply of frozen bait at ports like Canso, fishing vessels provided with cold storage could utilize frozen bait effectively, and could carry on their operations with much less loss of time than now. These plants could be put in for $35 or $40 per vessel.
The cold storage plan is all right in principle ; and if worked out in a practical manner would no doubt be of great advantage to the fishermen. But the Department^ of Fisheries is anything but practical, and its efforts in this connection are only likely to increase the difficulties of the fishermen in procuring bait, owing to the fact that the large grant to the Canso Cold Storage Company will tend to enable that concern to acquire a monopoly of that commodity in the vicinity.
It is little wonder that Nova Scotia fish merchants are advocating the Scotch method of administering the fisheries ; that Is, by a board of practical men, representing every branch of the fishing industry. In Scotland the board of fisheries is independent of politics, and is somewhat analogous to school boards in this province. The appointment of all officials under its control is determined by competitive examination, thus insuring the choice of the most experienced and best informed men. In Canada, where the only qualification for office under the department is a political pull, the majority of fishery officers can hardly distinguish one fish from another. As at present constituted, the Fishery Department is an easy mark for politicians, with theories and friends who need the public- money in their business. Witness the work of Dr. Kendall. It was this Mr. LEFURGEY.
politician who initiated the government bait cold storage scheme, and who, not content with wasting $25,000 in small freezers, fathered the scheme to put public money in the poekets of the Whitmans, of Canso. About three years ago Dr. Kendall, at the expense of the government, fitted up a Furness Line steamer with cold storage apparatus in order to test the possibility of shipping fresh lobsters to the United Kingdom. At the government's expense, Dr. Kendall sailed for England with a consignment of lobsters. At the end of three months, after taking a post graduate course in London, the doctor returned to Canada, but though his excursion cost the government about $7,000, nobody seems to know whether or not it demonstrated anything of value to the lobster industry. A Halifax fish merchant informs me that he has repeatedly tried to procure a report of Dr. Kendall's experiment from the Fisheries Department, but without success.
Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Before the hon. gentleman lays that away, will he kindly give to the committee the name of the author of that document ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This is a newspaper article taken from the Halifax ' Herald,' and it was sent up to me with the request that I should look into the matter.


Alexander Johnston: Will the hon. gentleman say if the ' Herald ' says so ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This is headed ' Fishermen's Herald,' and it is taken from the Halifax ' Herald,' and as the Halifax 1 Herald,' like all other good Conservative papers, is working in the interests of the fishermen and of other people in the maritime provinces, I have no doubt it does not publish matters that it is not cognizant of.


Alexander Johnston: Will the hon. gentleman deny that this is the work of an anonymous correspondent ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the hon. member for Cape Breton keep quiet until I am through, and then he can have his say ? Now, in the face of what the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has put into this pamphlet, X would respectfully submit thar the article I have just read should be taken into the consideration of this House, and that an investigation should be made to ascertain whether this campaign pamphlet is right or whether the case as stated by the correspondent of the Halif ax 1 Herald ' is right. There is no doubt that if the hon. minister cannot account in a better way for the money that is being expended in his department, he will be like the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that one of the cabinet ministers in the corridor last night asked : Well, how did the Minister of Agriculture get along ? The answer was : Oh, Well, he got leave to sit again. I am afraid that if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries does not give us a better explanation than he has he will have the same

treatment meted, out to him. He will have leave to sit again.


Alexander Johnston: Mr. Chairman, will you permit me one word of explanation in regard to the subject matter before the committee ? The article quoted by the hon gentleman is the work of an anonymous correspondent in the Halifax ' Herald.' I have some knowledge of the situation as regards the fisheries in my own constituency, and all I have to say to the hon. gentleman is that he will not get a reputable fisherman in Nova Scotia to vouch for the statements which he has quoted from an anonymous correspondent in the Halifax ' Herald.'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It does not make any difference in the world whether the correspondent is an anonymous one or'not. If the hon. gentleman wants to turn up the article he can get the Halifax ' Herald ' of May 5th and see it for himself, and I have no doubt that the Halifax ' Herald ' will readily give the correspondent's name. But the main question is not whether this is an anonymous article. An article appearing in the public press in condemnatory terms of the work of the department on this line should certainly be called to the attention of this committee. The main question is whether this article is true or not. In the face of the campaign sheet issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and paid for by the people's money, claiming that the government are doing so much in the matter of cold storage for the deep-sea fishermen, it is interesting to read the statements made in this article published in the Halifax ' Herald.' The matter comes down to the question whether the article is true or not, and whether the hon. minister is not misrepresenting, as in the case of the numerous other campaign pamphlets that we find floating around the country.


Alexander Johnston: I would like to ask the Hon. gentleman whether he is prepared to say that any reputable fisherman in Nova 'Scotia is responsible for the article which he has quoted ? It is insulting to the intelligence of this committee for the hon. gentleman to come here with an expression of opinion from a man who is both afraid and ashamed to give the people of this country his name.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the accusations brought against members of the government for their delinquencies, or rather for taking what does not belong to them according to their own version. What I wish to talk about principally is the condition of the St. Lawrence river, and for which the Minister of Marine is somewhat responsible. Although he has not been long iii office he ought to know something about that river, for I believe he was raised at the head of navigation. It is his duty to see that that river of which we are all so proud should be made so as to be navigable without danger. He is aware that last Sunday morning an accident happened near Lake St. Peter by which a number of valuable lives were lost. I happened to be in Montreal last Sunday, and some of the officers on the Atlantic liners told me that they would not be surprised if many more accidents should take place. It was pointed out to me that nothing but pieces of white board scantlings stuck up in the river, were the guides for navigation. When I came up the river 17 years ago, we had green boughs along Lake St. Peter.


Mr. BENNETT.: It was Palm Sunday.


Jabel Robinson: Of course that was not under the present ministry, but I do hope that the St. Lawrence river will be put in such a position that vessels will not be subject to be wrecked. It would not have occurred and should not if proper lighthouses were in that river ; so I am told. I may say that it would not cost as much to put electric lights all along down the sides of that river, as would the loss of one of these large steamers. The question discussed this afternoon is whether the members of the government have the right to charge their cab-hire. According to their own showing they have no right, and they have been in power for eight years and have not made a law which would give them that right. Don't let this session pass without making a law under which a man who is working in the interests of this country will not be compelled to walk from station to station, or even from his home if he is an elderly person, without having his cab-hire paid. But let us have it legally done. It is said :


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I told you that the gentleman's name was appended to the article. If you want it you can have it, but you appear to be more anxious about the name than the truth of the statement that is made.


Alexander Johnston: Give his name.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the statements are not true.


Alexander Johnston: I say most emphatically they are not true.
He that takes what isn't his'n If he's caught he goes to prison.
These people who take what isn't their own leave themselves open to the law, and the ministers should not be in that position. Let them make a law at once so that a cabinet minister in the discharge of his duty, or deputy minister either, shall be allowed cab-hire legally. But, when it comes to life insurance it seems to me that we poor -I was going to use a strong word-have to insure our own lives, and so should the members of the government. They should

pay their own insurance out of their salaries and not expect the country to pay it for them. And as regads ' tips ; ' if they think that the poor people who pay the taxes feel warm hearted enough let them pay the 'tips' out of their own pockets. I don't think that the poor people who pay the taxes of Canada, should pay ' tips ' for a man who is drawing $7,000 a year. I want this government to make a law now, so that when the independent party comes into power, and that won't be long, we will be able to pay the cab-hire legally. If the government does not make it a law legalizing this cab-hire, the responsibility for wrongful charges rests upon them.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I wish to state to the bon. gentleman that he has been greatly deceived by what has been told him in reference to the accident last Sunday. The facts were misrepresented to him. The St. Lawrence from Sorel to Montreal is the best lighted part of the channel ; there are gas buoys on both sides of the channel, and the accident was entirely due to a mistake by one or the other of the pilots, and had nothing to do with the channel in any shape or way. If we had lights every ten feet it could not prevent an accident when one or the other of the pilots makes a serious if not a criminal blunder. This is not the time, nor the place to discuss this question, because this important investigation, although ordered, has scarcely begun, and will not be finished for some days, until the commissioner can get the witnesses before him, when the ss. ' Cape Breton ' returns from Sydney. I can promise the House that there will be a thorough and complete investigation into this casualty, which I repeat is not due to the river channel, because at that point there is certainly over a mile and a half of channel with from 15 to 40 feet of water. I do not wish the statement to go abroad without being contradicted, that this part of the channel is not in proper condition.


Jabel Robinson: I would be very sorry indeed to say anything that is not strictly correct.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not mean to say that the hon. gentleman would make the statement unless it were made to him, but I certainly do think that somebody misrepresented the facts. It is well known to every one that at that part of the channel the aids to navigation are perfect.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is responsible for the proper signal lights on a vessel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The rule of the road regulates that. I do not want to prejudice the case in any way, but certainly a mistake has been made and the investigation will show who is responsible. The rules of the road were not carried out by some one of the officers.


Jabel Robinson: 


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister is quite right in saying that we should not prejudge the case, but it is stated that the accident occurred because of an insufficient signal light. Who is responsible for that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The accident must have happened through an error of judgment on the part of one of the officers as to the distance between the two steamers and as to the speeed with which the ' Cape Breton ' was going down. She had just lifted anchor and was steaming down. Probably one or other of the officers did not correctly calculate the swiftness of the current.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that one of the vessels gave the signal to pass by the left, and the other passed to the right, which of course meant a collision, and that one of the vessels blew the whistle a second time to indicate that it was determined to take the left side.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, I will not discuss the matter at present, as it might prejudice the case of one party or the otner. It appears clear that one of the boats was within its rights.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries why the buoys have not been placed in the Napanee river this spring ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There has been some delay, but they are being placed now. There have been delays in many places this spring owing to the high water and the difficulty of reaching the points where the buoys are usually placed. That is the information I have from the department.


Uriah Wilson: I think there are other reasons. One man has been attending to this business for many years, and he only got $60 for doing it ; and my information is that he has been informed that a vessel is to be sent up to place these buoys. If that is the case, the work cannot be done for double that amount of money. Besides, I think it desirable that the man who attends to them should live in the town of Napanee. I understand that there has been some difficulty with the minister as to the contract for keeping the buoys. I would like to know what the contract means-if it is not for placing them in the spring, looking after them during the summer and taking them out during the fall ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will look over the contract and see.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have all the information in reference to this matter.
I may say that the contract is dated in July, and I understand that the department expected that this man would put the buoys out this spring. He was instructed in April last year to place the buoys, and

the contract would be sent up to him to be signed. I understand that the department expected him to place the buoys In the river this spring as part of the contract, which would be doing a year and a half's work for one year's pay. I would like to know how soon the minister will give me the information.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To-morrow. I will send it to the hon. gentleman by mail.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: The minister remarked that the portion of the river from Sorel to Montreal is the best lighted. How many gas buoys are in that distance on each side of the river, and how far are they apart ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will lay on the table of the House a chart, showing the position and the number of buoys, with all the explanations.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I presume that the minister is prepared to give some explanation to the House and the country in reference to the pilots and officers generally in travelling up and down the St. Lawrence. The cattle shipped by that route come largely from the province of Ontario, and the freight rates have been very largely increased ; and I presume the minister will be prepared, either now or at some later time, when I intend to bring the matter up more definitely, to explain what is the training and qualification of these pilots, and what system he intends to adopt so that they will know something about the business. They do not seem to know much about it now.


George Taylor: I hope the hon. gentleman will also give a report of the number of lighthouse-keepers on the St. Lawrence whom he has dismissed on one or two months' notice. Some of them have been doing service for fifteen or twenty years. I understand that the hon. gentleman, shortly after assuming office, went into an arrangement for using acetylene gas, that he has large works in Prescott for making the tanks for holding the gas, and a large steamer for delivering them at the points where the lighthouses are, and that this steamer is to move around and look after the lights in place of the men who have been faithful servants for many years, and who have been simply told that their services are dispensed with. I would not object to the change if it were going to effect economy ; but in my opinion it is not, but on the contrary, it will double the expense of every lighthouse on the St. Lawrence west of Montreal. There is the expense of a hundred men employed at Prescott building the tanks, the expense of purchasing carbide, which is made here in Ottawa, and in which one of the ministers, I understand, is a large stock-holder. I do not know whether another of the ministers is interested 1G0
in the works at Prescott, which were formerly in Morrisburg, or not; but the whole thing appears to me to be a big job, while the poor men who have been serving the country for years have been told to go on a month's or two months' notice, and without any retiring allowance except a couple of months added to their salaries. I put a question on the paper some time ago in reference to two men at Gananoque, and the minister replied that they had been fourteen years in the service, that their services had been dispensed with, and that it was not the intention of the government to give them any further remuneration than two or three months' salary. I think that is treating faithful servants unfairly. If it were going to save the country expense and give better lights, there might be some excuse for it; but I do not think it will. I would like the hon. gentleman to bring down a full detailed statement, showing how many employees between Montreal and Toronto have been dispensed with, the number yet in the service, what moneys, if any, have been paid to them, if it is the expectation of the government to make any saving in the annual cost of keeping the lights, and if so, how much, from whom they are purchasing the carbide, and who are the shareholders in the companies that sell the government the carbide and other supplies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will not undertake to give a list of the shareholders in private companies. All the other information I will be glad to furnish the hon. gentleman. I may say that the change from coal oil to acetylene gas was Inaugurated by my predecessor on the recommendation of the officer in charge of this part of the department. Up to the present the change has worked very satisfactorily. We will be obliged to cease employing certain lighthouse keepers, but most of these lighthouse keepers complain that they are not paid enough. Most of them are applying every week and month for increases of salary, so that really I do not know that the case is one of very great hardship. There may be hardship in one or two cases, but I have not been made aware' of any special case.


George Taylor: What officer recommended the change from coal oil to acetylene ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Fraser, who is the commissioner of lights at present.


George Taylor: When was he appointed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About ten years ago.


George Taylor: As commissioner of lights?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, he was in charge of the lights when I made the change.


George Taylor: Surely the hon. gentleman has read in the newspapers of the numerous



templating distributing the money to the provinces in regular proportion. The bon. minister shakes his head. Looking up the files of the Charlottetown papers, I find that the hon. Mr. Peters, First Minister, has stated that the matter was practically settled, that the legal claim of Prince Edward Island to a just proportion of this award was acknowledged by the authorities at Otttawa and that an arbitration would be held to fix the amount. From the reports in the newspaper one would understand that this government has practically decided to arbitrate the matter and apportion the money among the different provinces. In the event of that taking place, and if the government take the view which was held in 1882 by the gentlemen who were then administering the affairs of this country, namely, that the bounties are paid out of the interest accruing from the fishery award, our fishermen will receive no further bounty. Can the hon. minister tell us authoritatively what will be the position of the fishermen in regard to the bounty provided the amount of the award is divided among the provinces to pay for the debts which our provincial Liberal administrations have been running up during the past ten years ? In Prince Edward Island, there is a government debt of over a million dollars ; and if the money from the fishery award be handed over to the Liberal administration there to pay for the extravagant debts, they have been running up for the last ten years, where will our fishermen come in ?
explosions and accidents all over the country from the use of acetylene gas. The hon. minister is taking a great risk in going to the expense of making changes without thoroughly testing the lights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That has been done by the department and there has never been any accident.


George Taylor: All over the country every month you read of explosions in churches-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have nothing to do with churches.


George Taylor: I do not think any one would ever accuse the hon. minister of having anything to do with churches. But we read of accidents in churches and school houses through the use of acetylene gas.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not the kind of gas we use.


George Taylor: I asked my hon. friend to give me the names of the parties who supplied the acetylene gas, and he said he would not give the names of private companies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman asked me for a list of the shareholders and I said I could not give that.


George Taylor: Will he give the names of the companies that supply the carbide ? Mr. PREFONTAINE. Yes.


George Taylor: And the contract price ? Then the people can draw their own conclusions as to whether a minister of the Crown is interested in one of the companies or not. I understand that a minister of the government is a member of the company which has the contract to supply the carbide for all these lighthouses.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware of it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Coming back to the question of bounties, I understand that the money comes from the fishery award.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no such thing in the law. The law regarding bounties does not refer to the award. That question is being discussed with regard to a settlement between the provinces and the Dominion.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In looking up ' Hansard,' in the discussion on the appropriation of the interest from this fishery award, Sir Leonard Tilley said that the interest was being paid over in bounties to the fishermen.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not denying that, but there is nothing in the law that refers to the fishery award.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: He said further that if this money were handed over to the provinces, the Dominion would be under no obligation to pay a bounty to the fishermen.
I understand that the government is con-Mr. TAYLOR.


Edward Hackett: The fishing bounty is a very important matter to the people of Prince Edward Island. I was a member of this House when this legislation was introduced to pay the fishermen a bounty, and a few days ago, on the 1.3th of June, I find the following question on the order paper ;


Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	On what principle are bounties paid to fishermen in the maritime provinces ?.
2.	Why are not fishermen engaged in the lobster fishery allowed to participate in the bounty, as well as those employed in other branches of this industry ?


Right Hon.   S@: The bounties are distributed in accordance with the statute passed in that behalf.
Perhaps the hon. minister will be able to place before the committee the statute on which that bounty is based.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think it is the statute of 1888. I will send for it.


Edward Hackett: While waiting for the statute, might I ask the hon. gentleman if there is a steamer employed in planting oysters in the maritime provinces, and is Mr. Kemp, who was formerly in the service of the government, still in the service of the government ? What amount of money did that service cost last year, and what kind of oysters are being propagated ?
*
[DOT]5033


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman will find in the Fisheries Report, on pages 258 to 262, answers to all the questions he has asked with reference to the culture of oysters.


Edward Hackett: I find that the production of oysters in 1895 was valued at $192,000, while in 1901 the production had fallen in value to $173,000-quite a large falling off. This is in the maritime provinces, and I take the figures from a pamphlet Issued by the hon. gentleman. I want to know what this Mr. Kemp is doing, whether he is travelling around the shores of this country in a steamer at the expense of the public without giving any result.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman will find in the report of the Fisheries Department, page 105, all the information he asks concerning oyster culture and the reason of the falling off. The details are all given, province toy province. There is also an appendix, No. 5, page 139, in which the hon. gentleman will find a statement by the inspector.


Edward Hackett: Would the hon. minister say what results have been obtained from oyster culture in the Murray river ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed they are giving the best results.


Edward Hackett: How many years since were these small oysters planted ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About three years ago.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The results are good, as I have stated.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
West Canadian collieries, limited.
House went into committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.
Mr. OLIVER.: There are some amendments which have been agreed to. The Bill, you will remember, Mr. Chairman, was left by the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the Minister of Justice in regard to certain points that were raised. I understand that the Department of Justice has considered these points and that an agreement has been arrived at. I have not the amendments in hand, however, and I suppose the only course will be for the Bill to be referred back to the Committee on Private Bills.
Progress reported.
Mr. OLIVER moved that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Private Bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edward Hackett: Have there been any oysters exported yet ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not yet.


Edward Hackett: How long does the hon. minister intend to continue this planting before he thinks the people may derive some revenue from it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have a special inspector over that business, and we will be guided by him in this matter.


Edward Hackett: What results have come from the work at Shediac, New Brunswick ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The results have been very good there also.


Edward Hackett: In what way have the results been good ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Our inspector has sent reports upon the work, we have seen the oysters, and have received them.


Edward Hackett: I remember when, some years ago, the oysters were totally exterminated on the Shediac. Can the hon. gentleman say that oysters have increased on the Shediac river, and to what extent? This work was begun on the Shediac ten years ago, and we should have some good results by this time.
160J
House went Into Committee on Bill (No. 126) respecting certain patents of Siegfried Gironeoli.-Mr. MacKinnon.


John Graham Haggart: Were any amendments made in the Private Bills Committee ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. Those amendments can be explained by the promoter of the Bill.


An hon. MEMBER.: They can be explained as we come to them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think we ought to have an explanation as to the general scope of the Bill. So far as I know it has not been discussed. I do not think the House ought to consider the amendments until we have some reason given why the Bill is required at all. The Bill is not a usual one, and I think the hon. gentleman in charge of it should give some explanation.


Mr. MACKINNON.: The object of the Bill is simply to revive a patent the term of which expired and which thus became void. The patent expired without the knowledge of the patentee. He lives at a distance-in Austria-and was for a time ill, so ill that he was not able to attend to his business. When he recovered his health, he found that the patent had expired.


John Graham Haggart: How long Is it since the patent lapsed ?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Only a few months.
On section 1,


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: The object of the amendment made to this section by the Private Bills Committee is simple. * It is to limit the time within which the order provided for in this Bill may be granted. If the necessary steps are not taken in six months the order provided for is not to be granted.


David Henderson: Are all rights acquired by other parties safeguarded ?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Yes, that is provided for in the last clause.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


KINGSTON AND DOMINION CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Kingston and Dominion Central Railway Company-Mr. Harty.
On section 7,
John Graham Haggart: This is an extraordinary direction for a railway to run, from Kingston to Newboro, thence to Westport and from Westport to the Georgian bay between Parry Sound and Midland. I think this Bill covers a charter at present held by the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It covers a portion of the same ground.


Mr. HARTY.: The reason for running the line from Kingston to Newboro is that the line shall run through 17,000 odd acres of mineral land which the promoters possess in that territory.


John Graham Haggart: Does this not cover the ground of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company who have a charter for an extension of their line to Parry Sound ?


William Harty: I believe they have but there is a considerable mileage between the locations of the two railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It covers part of the ground near Newboro.
OBill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD HEADINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 129) respecting certain patents of Edwin R. Cahoone.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Wm. Ross.
Donald Alexander Mackinnon: 



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: At six o'clock the committee was considering item 16 and the amendment of Mr. Taylor thereto.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: *rppdiu^ year and I can find no Orders in Council on this subject nor do I believe it is customary for the Department of Marine and Fisheries-


Mr PREFONTAINE.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to refer him to page 15 of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1903 ? He will find the whole of the statistics concerning the payment of the fishery bounty and showing how the fishery bounty has been paid since 1882 to this day.
iMr LEFURGEY. I am referring to the manner in which the right hon. Prime Minister answered my question. He tola me to refer to the statute.


Mr PREFONTAINE.: If the hon. gentleman had looked at the report he would *have seen how the bounty has been paid.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: When I ask for information I am supposed to get proper information and proper courtesy from the other sidei of the House.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman is not supposed to read ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Well, I only want to be accorded fair treatment and when I ask a question in a proper manner I suppose that proper courtesy shall be shown me m answering that question. I find that there is no statute regulating the payment of this bounty. I can find no Order in Council in this book although the bounties were paid ; but the second paragraph of the Act says :
2. A statement shall be laid before both Houses of parliament within the first twenty-days of next session, of the mode in which the said grant shall have been expended, together with copies of all Orders in Council relating to such grant and expenditure ; and during the same session and each .session thereafter, a statement shall be laid before both houses of parliament, of the mode in which it is proposed to distribute the grant in the ensuing year, and the assent of parliament shall be obtained thereto.
Now, I do not think the government has complied with that law. Did the Department of Marine and Fisheries within twenty days of the opening of parliament lay on the table of the House a statement as Co the mode in which next year's bounty was going to be distributed, as the law requires.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: How can I tell beforehand ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You can make an estimate, the same as you do for the other services of your department and according to this statute you are obliged to do it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It appears in the departmental report which is laid before the House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That report tells how last year's money was distributed, but it says nothing about the ensuing year, and you have not complied with the law. I asked the minister why the lobster fishermen did not participate in the bounty, and I got no satisfactory answer. There is nothing in this Act to prevent the lobster fishermen sharing in the bounty the same as other fishermen, and the government can pass an Order in Council at any time to allow them to participate. I strongly urge on behalf of the 1,'obster fishermen of Prince Edward Island that they should get a share in the bounty. The lobster fisheries have not been so lucrative of late years as they formerly were, and those engaged in the industry are entitled to their share of this bounty. There is another question I want to ask the hon. minister. In the event of the Si,500,000 of the fishery award being given t'o the provinces, and when Prince Edward Island gets its share to be utilized probably in wiping off the debt of over three-quarters of a million dollars mcuried bv the extravagance of Liberal administrations, and especially by the present administration during the past ten years ; are the fishermen of the province to continue to receive the bounty ? I asked this question before, and I was Fold by the minister that this had nothing to do with the matter, but I find on page 1512 of Hansard ' for 1882, that when Sir Leonard Tilley was introducing this Act, he stated :
It was also considered that the interest on the $4 500,000 awarded by the Fishery Commission should he distributed among the fishermen who, under its operation, had been compelled to give up the advantage of having access to the American market for their fish. We hope within the next month or so, to he able to pass the Order in Council based upon this resolution to an extent that will very likely he about the $150,000 asked for.
It was the declared intention of the government at that time, that the fishery bounty was to be granted from the interest accruing on that $4,500,000, and now, if that money is to be paid to the provinces,
I would like to have an assurance from the government as to what will be the position of the fishermen with regard to the bounty.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I wish to make a remark or two on the subject brought before the H-'ouse by my hon. friend (Mr. Lefur-gey). I hope his object is not to stir up the fishermen on the island, into believing that the bounty will be done away with. Of course the Minister of Marine does not know until the question is decided by the proper tribunal, whether the Dominion government will have to give this money to the provinces or be allowed to retain it. When that point is settled it will be plenty of time to decide whether the Dominion government shall continue to pay the bounty or not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Not at all.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: The fishermen have the assurance of the premier of Prince Edward Island, that in the event of the money being given t'o the province, and if, the Dominion government does not continue to pay the bounty, then the provincial government will pay the same sum that is now received by the fishermen of the province. That amount will be paid at any rate, and the fishermen are quite satisfied on that score.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We will have to wait and see if they are.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: We will have to wait until the question is decided. This is a question in reference to which legal authorities have held different opinions ever since the fishery award was paid. The late Minister of Justice took strong ground, that the money belonged to the provinces, and Mr. Dickey, who was Minister of Justice ill the Conservative government, also held the same view. The question is open to argument. After it is decided it will be time for the Dominion government to consider whether or not they will continue to pay the bounties to the fishermen. There is one suggestion which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefur-gey) makes, and in reference to which I am in entire accord with him. I believe strongly that bounties should be paid to the lobster fishermen in certain cases. In the earlier days, the lobster fishermen did not receive bounties because the boats in which they fished were generally owned by the lobster packers, and they made a good deal of money out of the business. However, at the present day a great number of the lobster fishermen own their own boats, and as the lobster fishery is not so remunerative as formerly the bounty would help them a great deal. The suggestion of the hon. member for East Prindfe (Mr. Lefur-gey) is well worthy the consideration of the minister, and especially so when we find that the payments made to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, as compared with those made to the fishermen of Nova Scotia, are very small indeed. It has been small for the last twenty or thirty years.
I would like the minister to consider that aspect of the matter.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not in accord with the remarks of the hon. member for Queen s (Mr. MacKinnon), for I think we are entitled to know what position the fishermen of Prince Edward Island will be in if this distribution of the money should be made. Being somewhat familiar with the financial position of Prince Edward Island, and the obligations we are under already,
I can readily see that if this money is paid over to the provincial government, it will be used to wipe out a matter of $1,000,000 which has already been run up and is in-


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: creasing at the rate of from $25,000 to $50,000 a year ; and if the fishermen in Prince Edward Island have to depend upon the Liberal administration to carry on the affairs of Prince Edward Island without a deficit, and to leave an amount over for the payment of the bounties which we want extended to the lobster fishermen, they will come out at the' short end of the horn ; and I consider that we have a right to a statement from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on this occasion as to the exact position this question is in before the government.^ I know that the representatives of the different provinces have been here on three or four occasions, and I have it on very good authority that an arbitration is1 to be held to decide the share to which each province is entitled. The hon. minister) shakes his head. Would he be good enough, then, without my plying him with questions, to make a statement as to what stage this matter has reached ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no statement to be made, because nothing has been done yet.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. minister state positively that nothing has been done between the premiers of the different provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There have been negotiations, but no conclusions have been arrrived at.


Edward Hackett: I have seen it stated in a Prince Edward Island newspaper that the premier of that province, Mr. Peters, on his return from Ottawa a few days ago, made the statement that the matter" was to be submitted to the Privy Council for adjudication, and that in the event of the Privy Council deciding that the fishery award was the property of the provinces, an arbitration would be held to apportion it. Has the matter gone that far ? What has^ been done in that respect ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Negotiations have been pending since 1899, I think, but no conclusion has been arrived at.	(


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I may say to the hon. minister that the premier of Prince Edward Island, when he was up here the last time, told me that arrangements had been completed for the settlement of this question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose he knew.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the hon. minister tell me, then, what position the bounty would be in, in the event of the disitribu-tion of this money to the provinces ? Is the hon. minister prepared to state that the taking of this money out of the hands of the Dominion government would not annul the payment of the bounties to the fishermen ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not prepared, as I stated just now, to make any statement whatever until the matter is settled or agreed upon.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am glad the hon. minister has withdrawn from the position which he took before six o'clock. At that time he seemed to be quite sure that this bounty would be paid to the fishermen anyhow.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I did not state anything of the sort. He probably misunder-i stood my bad English. Another time, when I have to make a statement, I will make it in French, and I shall probably be understood.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understood the hon. minister in English very well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a distant recollection of the discussions which took place over this fishing bounty several years ago. The question was whether the money would be divided among the different provinces according to what each was entitled to, or would be funded and the interest on it paid out to the fishermen from year to year. The contention was set up that if the money were divided, it would be disposed of just as the hon. member says it is intended to dispose of it in the future. It was decided, after long conferences, that it was better to retain it in one fund, and distribute the interest by way of bounty to the fishermen, from year to year, and I think a statute was passed carrying out that intention. Therefore, I take it that no change can be made until that Act is repealed, or until the courts decide that the money should be given to the provinces separately. .


William Ross: Speaking on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia, I may say that it is not desirous of making any change, but is quite satisfied with the system of bounty given to the fishermen at the present time. I am cer-ainly in favour of the bounty being extended to the lobster fishermen, and I do not see any valid reason why that should not be done.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I can endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Wm. Ross) as far as they have gone, but with regaj-d to what my hon. friend fr-'om Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, while he has some knowledge of the subject, I regret that he has not that accurate and extended information we would desire.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not pretend to be accurate!, 'because I was speaking from memory.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. gentleman was in the House representing the county
he now represents at the time that legislation was passed, and I remember right well the then Minister of Finance, Sir Leonard Tilley, being strongly urged by myself and .'others to give this bounty to fishermen because they had become so numerous that their business was not sufficiently remunerative and in consequence were migrating to the United States. We urged that, in order to prevent this, they should be encouraged to prosecute the deep sea fishing and the government of that day acceded to our representations. It was also considered that the giving of a bounty would not only so encourage the prosecution of deep sea fishing, but also the industry of shipbuilding and in this way keep a large number of our mechanics at home as well. But while I endorse the views of my hon. friend from Victoria, I am of the opinion that the government should increase the bounty and give the lobster fishermen a share in it also. These fishermen (the deep seamen) are not getting the reward from their industry which they used to enjoy in the past, and the result has been that many of them have gone to the United States to seek for labour in other avocations. To counteract that tendency, I think the government should increase the bounty and include the lobster fishermen among those entitled to share in it. I understand that the amount of $4,500,000 was in the exchequer of this Dominion for some time before any action was taken to give our fishermen a portion of that money in the shape of interest. It would I believe, be most unwise for this government to hand over that money to the provinces for the reason that in that case it would go into other channels and the fishermen would not have that security with regard to the payment of their bounty which they enjoy at present, whilst the capital sum is funded in the Dominion treasury. I would therefore ask the government to let the matter rest as it is. I was under the impression that it was settled in 1882 with the consent of the respective maritime provinces, I understood that the provinces agreed that this money should remain in the hands of the federal government and not paid over to the provinces, and only the interest on it paid out to the fishermen in the shape of a bounty. I think, now that the fishermen are increasing in numbers, that the amount of the bounty should be increased so that the apportionment meted out to each fisherman would be the same as in years gone by. During the past year the amount was somewhat less than in the previous year.


William Ross: Not less to boatmen-a little more to boatmen.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The apportionment
was less to the fishermen as a whole than in the previous year. I would strongly urge the Minister of Marine to allow the matter

to rest and not put it in the hands of parties who knew very little about the situation and the needs as respects the fishermen. Let this amount remain where it is and give the increased number of fishermen an increased amount from the exchequer, so that the payment to each man would be the same as in the past and in order that the lobster fishermen might also receive a share in the increased amount of bounty so granted.


Mr. FIELDING.: My lion.'friend is giving us another evidence, of which we have a g'ood many, of the disposition of hon. gentlemen opposite to complain of our expenditures in a general way, and then to argue in favour of increased expenditure whenever we come to details. I am not blaming them on that ground, but I am merely pointing out that when every session they blame us for spending too much, they cannot be very serious. With regard to the lobster fishermen, I think I have stated already that I represent more lobsters in this House than perhaps any member in it. It is a great interest in my constituency, and I should be as anxious as any hon. gentleman to see that the benefits of the bounty are extended to lobster fishermen as well as others. But after all there must have been good reasons some twenty years ago why the grant was not extended to the lobster fishermen. It has never been extended to that branch of the fishing industry and the desirability of doing so was never raised.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was then held that as the award arose out of our deep sea fisheries, it was the deep sea fishermen who should get the benefit.


William Stevens Fielding: At all events, we have had twenty-two years' experience of that system ; and if the payment is to be extended to the lobster fishermen, the resull will be that the amounts to the other fishermen must be reduced. If the expenditure was based, as I believe it was, upon tttfe amount of the award, I fancy it would be difficult to make out a good case for increasing the amount. I am not saying ' No ' to it at this time. I represent a fishing county, and, naturally, I share the desire ot my hon. friend to do the best that is possible for our lobster fishing interest. Still I think it is fair to recognize the fact that the payment was based upon the amount ot the fishery award, and represents the interest upon it; and, while we would have a good case to ask for a reapportionment of the interest, if that were required, we might not so easily be able to make out a case for an increase. I am not passing a judgment upon it now. I would like to see the lobster fishermen of my county, who are numerous, get the benefit, but I recognize the fact that our case would not be so strong now as if it had been taken up in this way Mr. KAULBACH.
twenty-two years ago. To make payments to the lobster fishermen and so reduce the amount to the others might easily cause discontent.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that this was originally given to the deep-sea fishermen. At the time a request was made that the lobster fishermen should receive a share of the bounty also, but that was objected to by those who considered that they had not shared in the sacrifices, to make up for which the award was given by the American government. I would like the Minister of Finance to understand that I do not complain of expenditure when money is applied in the right channel. He can always count upon my support in expenditures when wisely calculated to develop the resources of the Dominion and keep our own people at home in our own country. And the way to retain our own people is to provide that every man shall be able to receive a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. The only way that that can be done in giving a bounty to fishermen is by providing an increased amount in the estimates this year. I cannot see why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his colleagues, having the surplus of which they boast, should not be generous enough to meet the reasonable wishes of these hardy sons of toil who earn a livelihood at the risk of their lives on the deep sea, and that by very great exposure and arduous toil.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am pleased to hear the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) in his little talk on this subject. After his usual fashion, he qualified his remarks before he sat down. He tried to make out that if we gave the lobster fishermen the justice which he believed should be extended to them, we should be taking from the deep-sea fishermen. The statute of 1882 calls for $150.000, which may be expended under Order in Council passed from time to time. This statute does not prevent the government from authorizing, by Order in Council, the payment of money to lobster fishermen, for the matter is entirely in the hands of the government. The hon. Minister of Finance says that for twenty years nothing has been paid to the lobster fishermen. But is that a reason why the lobster fishermen, whose fishery has been decreasing, and who have been earning less money than they did at the time when the statute was passed, should not be now considered ? Is it any reason why they should not have been considered at any time during the last eight years l.on. gentlemen opposite have been in power? As to the plea of the Minister of Finance that if anything is paid to the lobster fishermen there will be less for the others and that dissatisfaction will follow, I find that in 1895-6 the fishing bounty paid out was $163,567, and in 1901-2 the amount whs $159,942.


Mr. FI BLUING.: I think there was an amendment increasing the amount from 8150,000 to $160,000. I know that we always speak of the sum as $160,000.
Mr. LEtFTJRGEY. Then let us have another amendment, Mr. Chairman. In 1895-6 the amount paid was $3,567 over the amount provided for under the amendment of which the hon. minister speaks. As the Minister of Finance feels so strongly that the lobster fishermen should be accorded better treatment, I think he should be able to induce his colleagues to have another amendment and provide for the interest of the lobster fishermen.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see that if he grants an increase in the bounty over the block sum of $160,000 per annum the government will receive it back indirectly m another way. There is no class of men in the Dominion who contribute more to the revenue in the way of duties than do the fishermen. When they are successful they live very well, and when they are untoi-tunate and have a shortage in their catch it is pretty difficult for them to get along at all. If the bounty to them is increased, they will contribute as much to the revenue in return, and so the government will not be a loser by the transaction. I urge again very strongly that the hon. gentleman should accede to the request and increase this amount beyond $160,000.


Mr. COPP.: I would like to ask the hon gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) a question, if I may. Would he advocate an increase to the vessel owners as well as to the fishermen ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: If the revenue will admit of it, I would certainly do so. It would be an encouragement to shipbuilding and to ship owning. I do not wish that to be interpreted, as some .persons attempted to thrust it in my face some time ago when I made a proposition for an increase in this House that it was because I am a shipowner and wanted the benefits Tor myself. I can truthfully say that I would be willing to surrender every dollar of the bounty, so far as I myself am concerned as a shipowner, to benefit the fishermen, but I want to see that the fishermen particularly are cared for. And I say that the increase should be made in a block sum, and let the increase go to the lobster catchers. Then if the government wish to increase the bounty to the deep-sea fishermen beyond what it is at present, I shall be only too happy to see that done also.


Mr. KENDALL.: The question of the development of our fisheries is one of very great importance.
By an addition to the bounty our fishermen would receive on the average perhaps not more than 50 cents or 75 cents each so this kind of aid does'nt help them much.
But there are some 47,000 of our fishermen who, if they were provided with means to obtain a constant supply of bait, and with better methods of transporting their fresh fish to the markets of the west, would then receive substantial benefit. I do not know what the minister said this afternoon, but I am free to'say that I think the government is dealing with this matter in a broad and comprehensive way. A few years ago I had the honour to recommend to the government a scheme to assist the shore fishermen of the maritime provinces by means of refrigerators, and that scheme has now come into force. 1 would point out the fact that our fishermen have endorsed that scheme to the extent that already some twenty-nine bait refrigerators have been established, and I understand there are applications for five or six more. I venture to predict that before four or five years we will have from 75 to 100 of these on the coast beyond the mouth of the St. Lawrence river. Still these small refrigerators are not sufficient entirely to meet the requirements of the fishermen. According to my idea, and I think it is shared by many others, we should have large mechanical refrigerators at several points in the fishing district, one say at Strait of Oanso, another at Grand Mauan and another at the Magdalen Islands. As a matter of fact if we had had large refrigerators on the coast the summer before last, we could have stored up thousands of tons of bait which would have saved us last year. I think the nember for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) will idmit, more than a million and a half ot iollars. Again I say that I think that it the government is going to do anything :o meet the requirements of the fishermen it will not be by giving them small sums of 51 or 50 cents each in the shape of increased bounty. Efficient bait supplies and proper cold storage transportation facilities are the crying needs of the fishermen. While I am ou my feet I would like to say that during the regime of the late Minister of Railways I found it impossible to impress the necessity of furnishing proper cold storage aids for transportation of fresh fish. I must now ask the present Minister of Railways and Canals, and I know I have the sympathy of the Minister of Marine in this matter, that proper refrigerator facilities be provided on the Intercolonial to meet the requirements of the great business that has already begun to develop. Eight or nine years ago the Intercolonial received $9,OUU in freight rates for the transportation of fresh fish, last year it received $27,000 or $28,000, and I think I am well within the maik when I say that it is not at all unlikely that the trade in fresh fish between the east and the west will be developed to such an extent that the Intercolonial will receive uot less than $100,000 yearly in freight.	-

Mr. KAULBiACH. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) refers to refrigerators along the Atlantic coast. Last year I endeavoured to encourage the fishermen of my county to invest in refrigerators, and also to encourage a large one in Canso ; but I could not inspire them with the idea that the refrigerator fitted up with a chemical process would be of any service to them. They complained that fish bait frozen for the banks would only remain fresh for a little while, and then become a spongy substance, with no nutritious properties, and the fish only would take that kind of bait when they could not get anythink else. Fishermen as a rule want fresh bait, and when that is not to be had they will then only take bait from a refrigerator.
I am glad my hon. friend has referred to refrigerators, because it gives me an opportunity of speaking of another method that can be employed for curing bait fishes that will be far in advance of the present chemical process. A gentleman named Baton has given me a description of this as a method, which he calls his process. He had an interview with the hon. member for Cape Breton, and I think my hon. friend is possessed with the same idea as myself, that it is an improvement on the old method of bait freezers. Mr. Baton claims that he can make an ice that is completely crystallized and in which there are no air globules at all. He says that air globules in the ice have a tendency to injure or destroy the article intended to be preserved. But there are no air globules at all in the ice he makes, and he claims that it will preserve the fish three times as long as ordinary ice. He also says that it can be furnished for a mere trifle of cost, two cents and a half a ton, and can be made far cheaper by his method than gathering natural formed ice near a refrigerator. He claims that by his process he can make pure ice for domestic use, and that by a current of electricity passing through it all microbes and impurities that are usually found fni water are destroyed. The ice thus produced, he says, is perfectly pure, and will last for a long time. He says that the fish remains fresh and good only so long as it maintains its phospheric properties, and when that is exhausted nothing is left but the pulp, which is not edible either for man or fishes. The same with meat, he says his method will preserve meat for a long time, in fact as long as you might wish to keep it, if maintained at a certain temperature.
I would recommend that the government have an interview with Mr. Eaton in reference to his patent. He is establishing an ice freezer at Montreal another at Toronto and be intends to have one placed in Ottawa. I have recommended him to visit the maritime provinces. He is at the present time in communication with some parties at Halifax and it is to be hoped that they will


Arthur Samuel Kendall: grasp the idea as the people in Montreal and Toronto have already done, and that we may soon have an improved system of freezing which will be far in advance of anything that is now employed by the present government at Sydney and other places along the Nova Scotia .shore. I certainly would urge that matter upon the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) who will understand the question sufficiently to see the advantage that would result if an improved system were employed instead of the one now at present under way at Sydney. I would say further that we should have an improved system of transportation which would enable the fishermen of the maritime provinces to get an advanced price for their fish, and that can be brought about by providing a system of cold storage in the cars of the Intercolonial Railway which would enable the fishermen to send their fish right to the Northwest Territories. They can then have all their fish sent summer or winter in refrigerating cars and they can also send boneless fish which, I am glad to say, is now being put up in my own county. There are two industries in my own county putting up boneless fish now in one, two, three and four pound packages which they are placing upon the market. You can take this fish and hold it up to the light and you will see ho bones in it. It is almost transparent and it has not the offensive smell which fish very often have after lying for some little while. If that industry is carried on with proper encouragement and with a bait freezer such as I have spoken of, according to the system of Mr. Eaton, who is the patentee and who has the theoretical as well as the practical knowledge to carry it along, I believe we can make the fishing industry of the maritime provinces equal to that of any that can be found in the way of industries in any part Of North America. I strongly urge again that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will make arrangements to have an interview with Mr. Eaton and gather from him all the ideas which he has on this subject and which he is quite sure that he will feel satisfied that this new method is in the interest of the fishermen.
I would have brought a practical idea com- -mitted to paper that he gave me had I known that this subject of bait freezers would have come up this evening. I have left it in my room, but at a future time when this subject is up for discussion again I will submit it to the hon. minister or I can hand it to him at any moment.


John Graham Haggart: There has been rather an important allusion made by my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) to a statement made by the premier of Prince Edward Island, and to a quotation or extract from a paper in Charlottetown as to an agreement being arrived at between the government and the different provinces pro-

viding for a different distribution from that which at present prevails of the amount awarded under the Washington treaty. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that no agreement had been arrived at up to the present moment for the purpose of submitting a case to the Supreme Coourt in order to get its opinion as to the liability of the different provinces.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are negotiations in progress but there is not final conclusion.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the conclusion was so definite that a request would be made for a special meeting of the Supreme Court for the purpose of obtaining its opinion on this subject. Now that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, perhaps the hon. minister would state the stage at which these negotiations have arrived and whether the information or current gossip in reference to the matter is correct or not. My hon. friend from East Prince also referred to the distribution of the bounties. I understood that it was statutory, that an Order in Council was to be made for the distribution of bounties from year to year and the principle adopted upon which the distribution was to be made. Has the hon. minister had the Order in Council prepared for the distribution of these bounties in accordance with the statute ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Certainly. It is passed every year.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It has to be placed oh the table of the House within 20 days after the opening of the session.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is in the report.


William Stevens Fielding: It is on the table. It is in the minister's report.


John Graham Haggart: The report is for last year. The Order in Council has to be made antecedent to the distribution.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, that is correct.	-


John Graham Haggart: The Order in Council which is in the report has reference to last year's distribution.


William Stevens Fielding: But at the time it was passed it had not reference to any past distribution but it had reference to the anticipated distribution. The Order in Council is passed before the distribution is made.


John Graham Haggart: Then I understand the hon. Minister of Finance to state that the Order in Council which was published in the minister's report of last year is the Order in Council intended for the distribution which is to take place of these bounties which the hon. Minister of Marine and fisheries is asking a vote for in the present year.


William Stevens Fielding: Before we pay the bounty there is an Order in Council passed for the distribution every season. Whether or not the blue-book covers the order for the current year or past year is a point which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have to answer.


John Graham Haggart: But, the point that my hon. friend from East Prince makes is that the Order in Council must be passed.


William Stevens Fielding: I can guarantee that it is always passed. It is passed every year before a dollar of the bounty is paid.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The statute *says that the Order in Council shall be passed providing for the distribution of the bounty for the next ensuing year, and that it shall be placed upon the table of the House within twenty days after the opening of the session. Therefore, the Order in Council which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred to was for the distribution of last year's bounty. We are entitled in this House to have the Order in Council that shall be passed showing how this money is going to be distributed for the next year, and I would make one more plea to the hon. minister that the Order in Council this year shall include the lobster fishery.


William Stevens Fielding: It cannot do that because the Order in Council for this year is passed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: And therefore the money is being distributed on the basis of that.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is for last season.


William Stevens Fielding: No. for the current season's payments. Whether or not the Order in Council for the current season has been brought down I have no knowledge but if it has not been brought down, I agree with the hon. gentleman that it should be brought down. In every case the Order in Council is passed in anticipation of the payment and the money is being distributed now on the basis of that Order in Council. It could not be charged for the present season.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There will be another Order in Council passed at this sitting of the House for next year.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not passed at the sitting of the House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: During the sitting of the House ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Order in Council is passed after the claims are received so that we can base the payment on the claims. The amount to be distributed is $160,000 and the pay-

ment is based upon tbe claims that are received. Before the distribution is made the Order in Council is passed. That is done every year. There are two Orders in Council cited in the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries of 1903. There is one for 1902 and one for 1903 at pages 10 and 11. That is to show on what basis the payment in 1903 was made. The Order in Council was passed after the claims had been received determining in what way the distribution was to be made. That Order in Council is dated 6th February, 1903. The cheques are being distributed now, and an Order in Council was passed as to what basis the* distribution was made this year. If that has not already been brought down, I will bring it down.


Edward Hackett: What about the negotiations ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Negotiations had been pending between this government and the representatives of the different provinces before I was a minister, but no decision had been arrived at. The discussion was as to whether there should be a reference to the Supreme Court to decide the points at issue from their legal aspect, or whether they should be decided on the basis of equity. There was a long discussion on that point, and up to the present it has not been decided whether or not a test case will be submitted to the Supreme Court. If there is a test case submitted, the question arises whether it will be on the legal points, or on points of equity, or whether it will go to arbitration. There is nothing decided.


John Graham Haggart: Just negotiations.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Just preliminary negotiations. A new element has come into the discussion because British Columbia sent a delegate, and we are discussing on what basis we can enter into an arrangement for settlement.


Edward Hackett: The explanation of the minister is satisfactory so far as it goes ; but it clashes greatly with,' what was said by Premier Peters in Prince Edward Island. I have a statement here given to the ' Patriot ' newspaper by Premier Peters on his return to the island from Ottawa a few days ago.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is a news-, paper report.


Edward Hackett: It is from the ' Patriot, ' the organ of the government in Prince Edward Island.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot control that.


Edward Hackett: Well, here is what it says, and you will see whether it is or not :
The fishery conference.
Premier Peters who returned last night from Ottawa, on being interviewed by * The Patriot ' Mr. PREFONTAINE.
concerning the results of the conference with the members of the Dominion government said that so far as the Halifax fishery award is concerned, it was decided on the suggestion of the Minister of Justice to refer the matter first to the Privy Council of England to determine whether the Dominion government in equity or good conscience should pay . the provinces the share of the award. Should the question be decided by the Privy Council in favour of the provinces receiving the award, the question of the amount payable to each province by the Dominion will be decided by an independent arbitration, to be selected by the provinces and the Dominion. The above course was decided upon, owing to the fact that Nova Scotia could not be persuaded to join with the other provinces in holding an arbitration as at first intended. The matter is being referred to the Privy Council under a statute which authorizes the Dominion government to ask the opinion of the King in Council as to any constitutional' or other matter by which the Dominion government will be bound. This question will, if possible, be submitted immediately to the Privy Council.
At the above conference there were present Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. H. R. Emmerson, Hon. W. S. Fielding, Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Minister of Justice, and Deputy Minister New-combe, Premier Peters, Hon. Benjamin Rogers, Hon. George W. Simpson, of Prince Edward Island ; Premier Tweedie and Attorney General Pugsley, of New Brunswick ; Mr. Mc-Ccrkhill, treasurer of Quebec and representing that province ; Mr. A. B. Aylesworth and Mr. G. C. Gibbons, K.C;, of Ontario, who has been retained by the Dominion government. '
Mr. Peters appears to know a great deal more about this than does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Mr. Peter's statement is in direct contradiction to the statement of the minister and the minister's statement is in direct contradiction of what Mr. Peters said. Mr. Peters states absolutely that there was a conference, and that this was the decision arrived at and he states further :


Mr.  A. B.@: Aylesworth and Mr. G. C. Gibbons, K.C., of Ontario, have been retained by the Dominion government.


James Clancy: Good jobs.


Edward Hackett: If Mr. Peters is correct these two eminent lawyers have been retained by the Dominion government, and yet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows nothing about it. This is an extraordinary contradiction. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries says he knows nothing about this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said that I did not know anything about the negotiations. The hon. gentleman was out of the chamber, or he did not understand me. I said, there were negotiations, but there was no conclusion arrived at. That is what I said very clearly.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I understand that the bounties which are being paid at present are for 1903 and not for 1904.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, of course.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has the Order in Council* for the payment of bounties for 1904 been passed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We pass the Order in Council when we receive the claims.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then the minister is not complying with the statute.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to correct him. I have the statute here, and it says :
A statement shall be laid before both Houses of parliament of the mode in which it is proposed to distribute the grant in the ensuing year and the assent of parliament should be obtained thereto.
That can be done any time during the session. The point my hon. friends raised was as to this statement being laid before parliament within the first twenty days of the-session. The hon. gentleman is wrong on that point. What the statute says with reference to the twenty days is :
A statement shall be laid berore both Houses of parliament within the first twenty days of the next session, of the mode in which the said grant shall have been expended, together with all copies of all Orders in Council relating to such grant and expenditure.
That part of the section refers to what has been expended during the past year, and that is complied with by the presenta^ tion of the departmental report which was within the twenty days I presume. The statement as to the ensuing year can be laid before parliament if any hon. member asks for it at any time during the session, and not within twenty days of the opening.
Mr. LEFURGEY; I submit that that d'oes not conflict in any way with miy contention. The statute to which the hon. member for Queen's referred was passed, I believe, in 1886. The statute to which I referred was the firslt Statute. It was passed in 1882, and required that the principle upon which the bounties were to be paid for the ensuing year was to be brought forward by Order in Council, and placed on the table within twenty days after the meeting of parliament. It was not the intention that the detailed statement should be placed before parliament, because that could not come until the number of the fishermen employed and the number of fish caught were known. At the present time we are entitled to call on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to place on the table a statement of the method by which he intends the bounties of 1904 to be distributed. This is the reason I am bringing up the plea at this time. I am glad that the Finance Minister supports me in the view that the lobster fishermen should receive a portion of the bounty, and, as the Order in Council has not yet been brought down,
I trust that they will be included in the bounty for the present year.


William Stevens Fielding: As my hon. friend assumes that the statute which he has read is still in operation, I think it would be well to make some inquiry as to that. My impression is that there must have been some amendment to it, because my recollection is that the practice referred to in that statute has not been literally followed.
I have not any recollection of any order being brought down regarding the method of distribution for the ensuing year. Before the discussion is over the minister will be able to ascertain whether there has been an amendment.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I might bring to the notice of the House the fact that in 1891 an amendment was passed providing for the publication of the rules in the ' Gazette ' :
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient respecting the payment of the said grant and the manner in which applications tor the same or any portion shall be made and established, and may require persons applying for the grant or any portion thereof to verify their claims or any statements made by any person in connection therewith, upon oath ; and any such regulation shall, after publication in the * Canada Gazette,' have the force of law.


William Stevens Fielding: Does that repeal any legislation ?


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: It does not repeal the Act of 1886, but supersedes it by making other provisions.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The statute of 1886 does not amend the statute of 1882. It is a consolidation of the statute of 1882. It does not repeal sections 3 and 4 of the statute of 1882.


Mr MACKINNON.: It does not repeal those sections. Anybody in parliament can ask for the statement of the expenditure of the last year and get it, and can also ask for any Order in Council.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is all the contention we are making. We want to know the principle upon which the payment is to be made, and not the details at all.


William Stevens Fielding: It would certainly be very difficult to determine now the manner in which the bounty would be distributed in the next season, because it would be necessary to ascertain the number of fishermen, the number of boats, &c., before the mode of distribution could be determined upon. Of course, if the Act is there, it either ought to be complied with or repealed.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Suppose the minister and all his colleagues advocated the payment of the bounty to the lobster _ fishermen, would not that be a principle of

which the Bouse would be entitled to be informed. I am trusting that the Minister of Finance is going to do this, because he expressed himself so favourably to looking after the lobster fishermen, of whom he claims to have a majority in the maritime provinces. It seems to me that the lobster fishermen should get a portion of this money, and I would like to have an Order in Council brought down giving a bounty to these men.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's zeal for the lobster fishermen reminds me of a story ; and while it is dangerous to tell a story in parliament, the occasion is sometimes too tempting to be resisted. A man went to a country shop keeper and asked what the price of flour was. Six dollars a barrel was the reply. That is pretty high, said the customer. Well, that is my price, said the dealer. But I have been over at Jones' shop, said the other, and he says the price is five dollars. Why then did you not buy from Jones, asked the dealer ? Because he says he is out of flour. Well, retorted the grocery man, when I am out of flour my price is five dollars too. Hon. gentlemen opposite had many years in which to deal with the lobster question, and they did not do it. I conclude therefore that there must have been very good reasons why they did not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have always noticed that the Minister of Finance will contrive to find some little quibble to get him out of a difficulty. He has not advanced any reason. On the contrary he has acknowledged that the lobster fishermen have not received anything for twenty years, and this is the first occasion the matter has been brought up in the House. But the hon. gentleman has been sitting on the front benches during the past eight years, during which time he has not seen fit to bring up the case of the lobster fishermen. But when it is brought up by the opposition, he hurriedly rises in his seat and says some relief should be given them. He will find that he will not be able to dispose of this question by telling a little story, and I trust he will take up the question of lobster fishing in all seriousness. The fact that we have done wrong in the past is no reason why the hon. minister should persist in the same course.
[Mr. FIELDING. The hon. gentleman is mistaken when he says this question was never brought up in parliament before. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who has been here for many years, has just told us that the matter was considered years ago, and it was found that the lobster fishermen were not so much concerned in the fishery award as the deep sea fishermen. The reason he gave is fairly open to argument, but the hon. gentleman is mis-


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: taken when he says this question was never discussed before.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am quite willing to correct my statement and say that it has not been brought up in this House during the past eight years, during which my hon. friend has been on that side.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries would do well to take into his serious consideration the case made out on behalf of the lobster fishermen, especially as he has the assurance that the payment of a bounty to these men will be supported by the opposition. It would be an addition of $100,000 or $150,000 annually to the amount paid at present, and I would ask that the minister would take the matter into his earnest consideration. When hon. members on this side propose an expenditure, they are apt to be charged with extravagance, but in the present instance that charge cannot lie, and I would ask the hon. minister to see whether he cannot come to the relief of these men.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: 1 rise to endorse' to some extent the remarks made by my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) but I think he is labouring under a misapprehension to some extent. He divides the fishermen into two classes-the lobster fishermen and the others, but as a rule the same people are engaged in both. If the amount is not to be increased, there will be no practical advantage in giving some of it to the lobster fishermen and some to the others, because in each case the same man would receive in both qualities. I presume there would be some difficulty in the way of increasing the amount. I am inclined to think that our friends from Ontario v. ould oppose any proposition of that kind. I will be very pleased if our Ontario friends would support the government in proposing an additional sum of money to be distributed among the fishermen of the maritime provinces-say $100,000 or $150,000. But I would be very much surprised if they would.
I have often heard them complain that there was too much money expended in the maritime provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Improperly expended.
Mr, J. J. HUGHES. I am glad to learn that they have discovered their mistake and are prepared to vote an additional amount for the fishermen, according to the statement of my hon. friend.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is the hon. gentleman put up by the ministers to dictate the policy of the government 1


James Joseph Hughes: I am speaking for myself only.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If such a proposal were made, would it not be equivalent to an

additional provincial subsidy to the maritime provinces ?


James Joseph Hughes: Would my hon. friend support it if it were ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The amount of the award was capitalized and the interest paid out to the fishermen ; and so long as they get that interest, they are getting all the proceeds. But if an additional amount were voted now, that would be practically an additional provincial subsidy.
'Mr. J. J. HUGHES. That is the proposition which the hon. member for East Prince suggests and which he says the opposition; will support


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I never suggested what the opposition would do. I was simply speaking as a private member and stating what I think should be done for the lobster fishermen. I would ask the hon. gentleman from King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) not to put words into my mouth which I did not utter.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman said that the suggestion came from the opposition, namely, to pay a bounty to lobster fishermen, but he now withdraws the statement. If the amount cannot be increased, there would be no use in dividing it because the same men are both lobster fishermen and deep sea fishermen. Say the government give four dollars, then one man would get two dollars as a deep sea fishermen and two dollars as a lobster fisherman. That is what the hon. member for East Prince proposes and he thought he was expounding something which would be of great advantage to the lobster fishermen.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would you support him ?


James Joseph Hughes: If this parliament were prepared to increase the amoupt paid the fishermen in the way of bounties, I would support it. I understood from the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefur-gey) that the opposition were going to sup-< port his suggestion.


David Henderson: Nothing of the kind.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought as much. And so, the claims of the hon. gentleman and the great sympathy he has expressed for the lobster fishermen of Prince Edward Island fall entirely t'o the ground. I approve very much the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) that the best way to benefit the fishermen is to make provision, as far as is reasonable and practicable, to supply them with bait and facilitate the best methods of catching curing and marketing the fish. I think it is along these lines that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is working. He is fi very practical man and has shown a great interest in the fishing industry.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have not heard 'of it very much.


James Joseph Hughes: You may not have heard of it in Ontario, but we have heard of it.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) has read the minister's (Mr. Prefontaine's) book ?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I have seen his work, and I know what the fishermen think of him. And I am sure he will do anything and everything that is practicable to develop the fishing industry and promote the interest of those engaged in it. There is one suggestion I would make to the minister. I- see that, under the regulation a fisherman must catch 2,500 pounds of fish, and fish for three months, to be eligible for the bounty, and that the time spent in fishing lobsters does not count. I would like to see that regulation changed.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is the crux 'of the situation. That is where the hon. gentleman's (Mr. J. J. Hughes') statements are wrong.


James Joseph Hughes: I know as much about this business as does my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey).


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You have not shown it yet.


James Joseph Hughes: I hope my hon. friend will not continue these unseemly interruptions. They are not creditable to him and are entirely uncalled for. I do not often take up the time of the House, and I am making a statement that, I believe, contains matters that are worth listening to. I believe the regulations should be changed so that the time spent in lobster fishing may count in qualifying for the bounty. The lobster fishermen are the bona fide fishermen. A man might spend the necessary length of time to qualify for the bounty and still not be really engaged in the business. But, if he is a lobster fisherman, you may be pretty sure that he earns his living by fishing. The lobster fishermen have to catch their bait, and when not fishing for lobsters they engage in fishing for cod, mackerel and other fish. Just oue more point. The fishermen will continue to receive their bounties. Hon. gentlemen 'opposite need not worry over that. The bounty has been paid for a good many years, and whatever the regulations may be, the payment will be continued.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is pleasing to hear the hon. member for King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) speaking so highly of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The hon. gentleman has had favours bestowed upon him, and so he [DOT] speaks with feelings My hon.	friend from	East	Prince
(Mr. Lefurgey) and others on this side

have no motive except the welfare of the fishermen, but the hon. member for King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) may view it with a selfish light, having been benefited as a partner in the fishing business. My hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Le-furgey) asked the Minister of Marine and Fisheries what conclusion had been arrived at with respect to these bounties, and the minister answered that no conclusion had been arrived at. What could my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) conclude but that there had been no move in any direction ? But, as a matter of fact the Minister of Railways, the Finance Minister, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister had an interview with Mr. Peters of Prince Edward Island, and they decided to refer the matter to the Privy Council. My hon. friend (Mr. Pr6-f'ontaine) denies that. I understand that they also decided that, if the Privy Council decided in favour of the provinces, respecting the award, the amount payable to each province shall be decided by arbitration.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I stated that the negotiations were on that line, but that no conclusion had been reached. I have studied the question, because that was part of my duty as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But before this last interview took place I knew what points would be brought up and discussed. But no decision was arrived at.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the hon. minister must not forget that his friend from King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) is quite satisfied as to what the department is going to do.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because he assumes that we will do what is right.


Andrew B. Ingram: And my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) is not in the secrets of the minister, and must content himself without even a fair answer to his question. Is that the way the hon. gentleman proposes to admin ister his department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not understand it that way at all. '


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand from my hon. friend here that he made a statement which the minister disputed, otherwise he would not have been compelled to quote from the Prince Edward Island paper to substantiate the stand he took.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not dispute the statement made by the hon. gentleman. He may make any statement he pleases, 1 am not responsible for it. I only stated what The facts are according to my knowledge, and that is all.


Andrew B. Ingram: How could the hon. gentleman state that there was no conclusion arrived at ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because that is the fact.


Andrew B. Ingram: He differs from my hon. friend. Does he mean to say that no court has come to a final conclusion ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I beg my han. friend's pardon. I stated, and I repeat again, rbat negotiations took place, but no conclusion was arrived at with regard to the points upon which we would arbitrate or go before a court, that no conclusion was arrived at one way or the other.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then this paper was incorrect when it said a decision had been come to to refer the matter to the Privy Council of England 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, that was not the statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it true that this matte is to be referred to the Privy Council in Eng land ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have stated jus: now what is true, and nothing else.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister say that that paper is not correct when it says this matter is to be referred to the Privy Council in England ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have given an answer as plain as possible.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I say that unless the hon. gentleman contradicts the statement, we must take it as correct. The hon. gentleman in order to support his contention had to quote what the paper stated, but in the first instance the minister did not deny it, he rather affirmed it, I thought ; but now, on second thought, he has denied the statement. Then we have Mr. Peters coming up to Ottawa and then going back to Prince Edward Island, for the purpose of making some political capital, and allowing himself to be interviewed, allowing statements to be made in the public press that are not correct. That is the position, and that is the position the minister evidently bears out in this discussion, that Mr. Peters, according to that interview, has gone back to his province and stated what is not true. If that is the position of affairs, it is first-class literature for the Conservative party in Prince Edward Island.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We cannot understand the facts about this matter unless we have a further statement from the hon member for King's (Mr. Hughes), who seems to be acquainted with it, but will'not tell the committee all he knows. He called on us members from Ontario to say what we thought about it. The first thing we say is that the law should be complied with, that if there is a statute it should be obeyed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does the hon. gentleman state that the law has not been complied with ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am trying to keep myself right, and I want to see whether the member for King's will put himself right. Now, the minister says, in answer to the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), as I understand him, that no conclusion whatever has been arrived at in regard to this matter. I accept that statement. Then no mode indicated by the statute can be suggested to this House at present. The member for King's wishes us to understand that he knows all about this matter, and he is indignant because we ask him to explain a little of what he knows, so that we may vote this money intelligently. When he makes that statement he is in direct conflict with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom he gave such high testimony for his ability and for the wonderful things he has been doing and who says no conclusion has yet been arrived at. He is supporting the minister because he has faith in his ability and fitness,, and believes he will do everything right. That is a pure matter of faith. The member for King's has so much faith in the ability and propriety with which the minister will deal with this matter that he is prepared, without knowing anything about the way he will deal with it, to trust it entirely in his hands. Now, if the minister is correct in saying that no conclusion has been arrived at, then I think the member for King's ought either to ask the minister's permission to put upon the table his own scheme, which he knows all about, or else he ought to correct what he has said to the committee, and say that upon reflection he does not think he ought to ask the Ontario members to vote for an increased expenditure until the statute is complied with. Does the hon. member think that the members for Ontario, to whom he has appealed, ought to vote for an increased expenditure on a certain subject without inquiring how the minister is going to spend that money V I am prepared to vote for any reasonable expenditure when it can be shown that it will be used in the public interest, but I do not like to vote for an expenditure which is likely to be wasted, and unlikely to reach the beneficiaries for whom it is intended-that is the fishermen in this case. The hon. gentleman cannot shirk that question. He cannot ask this committee in all seriousness to say whether it will vote for or against an increase of the expenditure unless he gives it some reasonable ground upon which to exercise its judgment correctly, and those reasonable grounds would be : AVhat mode, as indicated in the statute, is he going to adopt in the payment of the bounty, in order to expend this money so that it" will do some good, and not be wasted politically and in other ways.


Edward Hackett: I do not wish to retard the passing of this item in the estimates there are one or two matters I desire to refer to. The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I.
(Mr. Hughes) spoke all around the circle because he evidently desired to take a fling at hon. members from Ontario. I am an old member of this parliament. I have been off and on, a member of this parliament for the last quarter of a century, and I have found the members from Ontario as well as the members from the other provinces prepared to do justice to the little province of Prince Edward Island, the smallest province, but still the garden of the gulf. Therefore I say that I have always found the members from Ontario as well as from the other provinces willing to do justice to the province of Prince Edward Island and especially the members on this side of the House. The hon. member for King's talks all around the circle and he ends up by saying that if you pay an additional amount to the lobster fishermen you are paying to the same men ; that is to say that if you are paying $2 to the lobster fishermen and $2 to the deep sea fishermen it all goes to the same men. He suggested to the hon. minister that he should so amend the regulations so as to allow the time spent in the lobster fishery to be included. That is what my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) is contending for. He contends that the time that the lobster fishermen, who after all is the fisherman of the country, spends in lobster fishing should be counted in the three months which it is necessary to devote to the fishery before he is entitled to the bounty.


James Joseph Hughes: There are two qualifications-three months fishing and the taking of 2,500 pounds of deep sea fish. What I meant was that the time spent in fishing for lobsters should count as far as the time is concerned, but that the fishermen should be required to catch 2,500 pounds of deep sea fish. Is that what my hon. friend means ?


Edward Hackett: My hon. friend has gone back on his proposition. He recommends that the lobster fishermen should receive a share of this bounty but when he finds that lie is cornered he goes back around the circle. Perhaps I am the only man in this House who has had a large experience in reference to the bounty, because for eight or ten years I was the claims officer in Prince Edward Island and I had to go around amongst the fishermen to ascertain their claims in reference to the fishing bounty, i felt that a great grievance existed on the part of the lobster fisherman. He had the necessary quantity of fish. In the herring fishery he would take the full quantity of fish in perhaps two weeks and then he would fish in the lobster fishery for six weeks but when it came to taking the oath that he had fished in the deep sea fishery for the prescribed length of time he could not do it. My hon. friend from East Prince contends that the time spent in the lobster fishery should be included and that the quantity of fish caught in the herring, mackerel or



cod fishery and other branches of the industry should also be included so as to make up the quantity of fish required under the regulations. That is all my hon. friend from East Prince is contending for and my hon. friend from King's will not object to that. It is only a reasonable proposition. It has been said in a way so very characteristic of the hon. Minister of Finance that for so many years this thing has escaped the attention of the government. Well, he has been eight years in office. He says that he represents more lobster fishermen than any other member of this parliament. Now that it has been brought to his notice we ask him to do something and we ask his colleague the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to come to the relief of the lobster fishermen by allowing him to participate in this bounty as well as those who are supposed to be entitled to it because they are engaged in other branches of the deep sea fishery.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Edward Cochrane: What are these clauses ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are as follows :


Mr. HACKETT.: 5. 'Every fishery officer who, by virtue of his appointment as such, is authorized by the Governor in Council, under authority of ' the Fisheries Act,' chapter 95 of the revised statutes, to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace, ex-officio, shall, for all the purposes of this Act and the regulations made under it, be ex-officio a justice of the peace within the district for which he is appointed to act as a fishery officer.
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient respecting the payment of the said grant and the manner in which applications for the same or any portion thereof shall be made and established, and may require persons applying for the grant or any portion thereof to verify their claims or any statements made by any person in connection therewith, upon oath ; and any such regulations shall, after publication in the 1 Canada Gazette,' have the force of law.


Edward Cochrane: That does not repeal tbe law that we have been talking about.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Don't you be too impatient.


Edward Cochrane: Tbe hon. gentleman stated that he was complying with the law when he has not complied with the law.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Be patient.


Edward Cochrane: We have a good deal of patience and we get very little for it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 55-66 Victoria, chapter 18 passed in 1892 contains the following section.
1.	Section three of an Act to encourage the development of the sea fisheries and the building of fishing vessels, chapter 96 of the revised statutes, is hereby repealed.
So that the obligation of depositing this Order in Council as regards the mode of distributing the bounties is wiped out and we are in the position of having applied the law as it exists. In the statutes of 1882, no mention at all is made of the Halifax award, but it was well understood that the $150,000, which was increased lhter to $160,000, was a kind of compensation for the fishermen whose rights had been infringed on. In the Washington Treaty of 1871, we find that there was no compensation contemplated to be paid for shell fish, shad, salmon, and all fish taken in rivers and in the mouth of rivers. Under the treaty ot 1818, the Americans were excluded from such fisheries, and therefore, it was not contemplated in the Halifax award, that any compensation would be paid by the United States for loss sustained by lobster fishermen, or fishermen who caught shad or salmon, or who fished in the rivers or mouths of rivers ? It is therefore .easy to understand that the question of paying a bounty to the lobster fishermen was not considered at the time. The question comes up now as to whether a bounty should be

paid to lobster fishermen. It is my opinion that those interested in the lobster industry will agree with what the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) has stated. I am strongly inclined to believe, that the best way to aid lobster fish-men is to furnish them with greater facilities for securing bait, improved modes of preserving the fresh fish, and increased transportation facilities to enable them to put the lobsters fresh upon the market. X think this would have a more beneficial effect, not only on the individual fishermen, but on the industry generally, than would the payment of a paltry sum of one dollar or two dollars to a fisherman. At present we are trying to make the best regulations possible to save the lobster industry from that destruction which has attended it in other countries.) It is 'Only in Canada that we really have a lobster industry. The lobster fishery is depleted in the United States, and they are obliged now to buy their lobsters in Canada for their own market. I do " not claim any particular credit to myself for the efforts which are being made in that department to improve the lobster fishery. When I entered the department eighteen months ago, I knew little about fisheries; I had to work hard to learn, and to take the advice of those who had experience and practical knowledge of all these -questions. In the first place I took the advice given me by my officers, and then I had the views and suggestions of those engaged in the industry to guide me. I may say that the department is supposed to do everything possible to encourage not only the lobster fishermen individually, but the lobster industry in general, so that it may be preserved. Since 1899 we have not only provided bait freezers for ordinary fishermen, but we now intend to provide bait freezers for deep-sea fishermen. On the north coast of Prince Edward Island the cod fishery has been almost abandoned, and it is proposed to bring oflt Scotch fishermen to revive fhfit industry. However, the first) thing to be done is to provide bait freezers. Last year, the suggestion was made to us by some practical fishermen, that we should provide ponds for seed lobsters. This was a new idea, but we adopted it, and I am glad to say that there is reasonable hope to believe the experiment will be a success. Under the present law the fishermen are obliged to return seed lobsters to the water, but as we cannot have an inspector to every trap, we are fairly certain that notwithstanding the care we have exercised for several years past, seed lobsters have been destroyed. When you remember that a seed lobster contains about 10,000 eggs, you will see what a deterrent this must be to the increase of lobsters in our waters. On the suggestion of some practical fisheries
men, we leased a pond, and we set aside a certain amount of money to buy these seed lobsters from the fishermen at about the same price as they would obtain for them if they sold them in the ordinary way. The result was that we deposited in that pond last year over 50,000 seed lobsters, and the report of our inspector is to the effect that millions of small lobsters were put back into the sea, that at least as many young lobsters were put back as were caught in the whole season. In view of the success we have had, we intend to extend this system to other places where we think it is convenient and practicable to do it, and we hope to help in this way, not only the fishing industry, but directly and indirectly the lobster fishermen themselves.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I am very much pleased with the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Having listened carefully to the discussion on this question I was surprised that none of the hon. gentlemen who had spoken on the subject referred to the propagation of lobsters. That to my mind is the most important thing we can do for the lobster fisheries of the maritime provinces. It is not by paying the fishermen a small bounty that we can increase this industry. To my mind the question is whether we can preserve the industry at all. It has gone down considerably on the coasts of the maritime provinces during recent years. It is also a well-known fact that there was a large lobster industry on the coasts of the United States some years ago. Lobsters were caught on the coasts of New York and Massachusetts, and even as far south as Cape Hatteras. But they have practically disappeared from the coast of the United States except along a E portion of the eoast of the state of Maine. So that, as the minister has said, we have now practically the control of the lobster fisheries of the world, and it is of the utmost importance that we should see that everything possible is done to prevent them disappearing from our coasts as they have done from the coasts of Norway and the other northern countries of Europe, and from the coast of the United States. The efforts of the government should be directed to increasing the number of lobster hatcheries and pounds along the coast of Canada. The work that has been done in this direction on the coast of Pictou county is admitted to have been very successful. I have followed that question for some years past.
I have visited the hatchery year" after year,
I think it is now about eleven years since it was established. For four or five years the fishermen were of opinion that it was a waste of money, and that the young lobsters which wei'e put into the sea never came to anything ; but as time passed on, and it was found that the fishermen on that coast were doing better than the fishermen

on any other part of the coast of Nova Scotia, they began to change their opinions ; and now you will not find a fisherman or a lobster packer within thirty or forty miles of that hatchery who is not of opinion that it has done a great deal to increase the catch in that locality. If we could have lobster hatcheries established along the coasts of the other counties of Nova Scotia where lobsters are caught, they would do a great deal more for the fishermen than the paying of a bounty to them for destroying the lobsters. What we want to do is to preserve and propagate the lobster and that is the direction in which the government should expend money. It is well known that the lobsters have considerably diminished. The fishermen do not catch as many as they did some years ago. I am told that the individual fisherman does not catch half as many in a day as he did fifteen or twenty years ago ; but I am glad to say that he gets for the half that he does catch a better price than he got for the larger quantity he caught formerly. In that way the business has been kept up. I also agree with what my hon. friend from Cape Breton has said in regard to improved transportation. We all know that fish is a perishable commodity, and if we cannot place it in the market quickly, it becomes worthless. The importance of suitable transportation facilities has been illustrated by the great progress that has been made with the halibut industry on the western coast of Canada. That industry did not exist until a few years ago ; but, with the appliances supplied by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Dominion Express Company, it has been worked up, so that now western halibut can be placed on the markets of Boston and New York more quickly and more readily than o'ur halibut caught in the eastern waters. I will read an extract from the ' Pishing Oazette ' :
During the year 1903 there was shipped from Vancouver, B.C., by the Canadian Pacific Railroad 296 car loads of halibut of 24,000 pounds each. These large consignments come principally to New York and Boston, although some of it was landed in Chicago and other western centres. This amount will he undoubtedly exceeded this season. The splendid service given by the railroads, both in time and equipment of refrigerator cars, has been one of the strong factors helping to build up the business, so that to-day the halibut caught on the Pacific coast are not as old when they arrive in Boston or New York as fish caught on the halibut grounds of the east and landed at these points. This is owing to the great distance the vessels are obliged to go in the east and on account of' the scarcity of the fish and the great length of time it takes to catch enough to make it a paying proposition to the vessel and crew.
That progress could not have been made in the halibut industry on the western coast of Canada if railway facilities had not peen supplied. The fast train placed on the Intercolonial Railway a few years ago be-Mr. SINCLAIR.
tween Mulgrave and Montreal has done a great deal to build up the fishing industry on the eastern coast of Nova Scotia. Prior to that date a car of fish was sometimes left on a siding for days, so that when it arrived on the market it was worthless. But now. we can have fish shipped daily at Mulgrave with the knowledge that in fifty-one hours it will arrive in Montreal. We have on the Intercolonial what we never had before* a fast freight train, and it has done more to build up the fishing industry in the east than all the bounties paid by the government. Providing cold storage, giving better railway facilities and propogating the fish- these are the practical ways in which the government can benefit the fresh fish industry in the maritime provinces.


James Clancy: I have listened with some anxiety to the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to-night. The province of Nova Scotia has been pressing for many years to have the fishery award handed over to the provinces.


Alexander Johnston: Does my hon. friend say that the province of Nova Scotia was pressing for this ?


James Clancy: I understood that Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces wanted the whole sum handed over to them.


Alexander Johnston: I do not think the hon. gentleman has any warrant at all f or that statement.


James Clancy: Then I am entirely misled by the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because I understood it to involve that question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


James Clancy: What was the question ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The discussion came up on the question of what were the claims made by the different provinces to a share of the Halifax award. I did not mention the province 'of Nova Scotia at all, but the discussion was more regarding what had been said by Mr. Peters, the premier of Prince Edward Island, than anything else.


James Clancy: It is very astonishing that some gentlemen seem to be startled by an announcement of this kind. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnston) did not know that any one of the provinces had made a claim for any portion of the award.


Alexander Johnston: I was not in the least startled, but only wanted to point out that the statement which the hon. gentleman made was inaccurate.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman then be good enough to enlighten us as to wlia.t the claims are that are being urged ?


Alexander Johnston: On behalf of Nova Scotia ?


James Clancy: On behalf of the maritime provinces generally.


Alexander Johnston: I have already said that the assertion that the province of Nova Scotia was pressing the matter on the attention of the federal government is inaccurate.


James Clancy: All we can conclude is that the hon. gentleman does not seem to know anything about his own province. We are not surprised that he should resume his seat without being able to give some intelligible information.


William Ross: Let me say emphatically that Nova Scotia has not asked the government to make any change in the regulations which have existed since the fishery bounties were given to the fishermen in Nova Sc'otia. That province is rather opposed to any change in the existing conditions and does not participate in the agitation from Prince Edward Island ip any manner or form.
and no trade could be done in shipping live lobsters from that part of the coast. The only thing to be done is to continue the hatcheries. While the fish have not yet increased in size, they are increasing in numbers. I would be rather inclined to see the government continue the present system; than divert a portion of the bounty to the lobster fishermen. There is some irregularity about the payment of the bounty. la the county of Pictou, I am Informed that some of those who have received a bounty in some years do not get it in other years. Their application is sometimes refused, and men who have had, the bounty for a number of years find themselves left without it. I have several cases of this kind in mind, which I intend to bring more particularly to the attention of the department. But in the meantime I would be glad if the minister could give me any general explanation how it is that men who have received the bounty for years find themselves excluded for no apparent reas'on. They tell me that their practice is the same and they fish the same number of days, and yet no bounty cheques are sent.


James Clancy: I am glad to learn that, as we were led to believe that all the provinces were urging for some participation in the award. I would like t'o ask the Minister of Marine if the government has consented to re-open the question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can only repeat what I have said. There may have been negotiations-that is to say the government could not refuse to hear what those gentlemen had to state-but no conclusion whatever either to open the question or not has been come to ?


Mr. BELL.: Prom what the hon. minister has said I suppose there is no intention on the part of the department to make any change in the regulations as regards the, bounties. He is disposed to abide by the present regulations and assist the lobster fishermen by providing a better supply of bait and greater conveniences for the assembling of the fish ft the factories and, 1 suppose, continuing the lobster hatcheries which we have at present. I know that the subject is exceedingly difficult and complicated. On the south shore it is claimed that the reduction in the number of certain lobsters leads to a l'oss of sea vegetation and the consequent scarcity of other fish, so that the maintenance of the lobster industry is important to other fishing industries on the coast. There is one improvement which it would be very desirable to make, and that is to have some method by which the size of the lobsters on the Nova Scotia coast could be increased. In the western part of the province they catch fairly large fish, which are shipped to the United States alive and bring remunerative prices, but on our coast the large fish are becoming scarce


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If my hon. friend will give me particulars of the cases to which he refers I will gladly investigate.. From information I have received from my officials I am led to believe that very few complaints have been made lately. Of course, where there are so many cases to be dealt with there must be some who express dissatisfaction.


John William Bell: How do these cases occur, is it through clerical oversight ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, I do not recall any cases of that kind. Sometimes there may be two parties claim. Sometimes the regulations are not fulfilled. All the cases are personally investigated. I repeat, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) has any special cases, it will be sufficient for him to leave them to the special officer in charge of this business, Mr. Kent, and that officer-will try to do justice in the matter.


John William Bell: I intend to do that, but I thought there might be some general explanation of these cases given by the minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There were so few complaints they were not brought to my notice except in special Instances.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I would remind the minister that I brought to the notice of the department a ease which seemed to be a very important one. The master of the vessel had omitted to take the license, and, having taken his departure from the port he requested that the managing owner should make the application and get the license. The request was made only through the clerk in the fishing office of the manag-

iug owner, and the managing owner in consequence, did not know of the omission until a month or so had elapsed from the time the vessel took her departure from port. I recommended that to the department-I do not know that I had an interview with the minister himself-but nevertheless the bounty was not paid, and, in consequence the whole crew were deprived of their portion of the bounty. I hope the minister will carefully reconsider this matter and grant these people the bounty to which, I think, they are fairly entitled. They did not ignore their duty of making application ; it was purely an omissiom When such occurs accidently, I think the minister should treat it as an exceptional case and meet the request of the parties.


William Stevens Fielding: I think we have had a very good day's work, and a very fruitful one. We are not likely to make much further progress. If this item is passed we can rise. But, if hon. gentlemen wish to debate it further we can do so.
'Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, Monday is a private members' day. But if the business standing on the order paper in the name of private members is exhausted what government business, if any, will be taken up ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the order of private members' business is exhausted we shall proceed with Supply, beginning at the point at which we have just left off, unless tjhe Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here in time. But, in that case, the Postmaster General will take up his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 20, 1904.