1905-03-21

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that my attention having been called, by the hon. member for Toronto North, in his place, to the fact of the demise of Edward Frederick Clarke, Esq., member for the electoral district of Toronto Centre. I have, in accordance with section 8 of chapter 13 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral dis trict.



THE TELEPHONE QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General moved :
That Messrs. Bergeron and Geoffrion be ad

ded to the committee appointed on Friday last to consider the telephone nuestion.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) to amend the Act respecting the packing and sale of staple commodities -Mr. Fisher-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-dimensions of apple boxes, penalty ; certain packages excepted.
Mr. HENDERSON.: I regret that I am again obliged to enter my strongest protest against the passage of this Bill in the form In which it is at present worded. I do not conceive that it is in the interests of the trade of Canada that the Bill should be so worded. The hon. minister has told the House in discussing the resolution on which this Bill is founded that the fruit associations of this country have described the size of box in which apples should be packed for export. I think the minister should liave laid upon the table of the House some resolution of some fruit association to show us where the authority came from for fixing the special size of box which is prescribed in this Bill. In sections of the country where the fruit industry is extensively carried on there is a very strong protest against 91i
the size of box here prescribed, and it is the more strange to me that the hon. minister should have given us that information, inasmuch as the gentlemen from whom I obtained information are members of fruit associations, and no doubt were present at some of those meetings when the matter of the size of the apple box was discussed. The difference between the minister and myself is this : I have proposed that a box should be designated in the Act, the size of which would be some well known quantity. For example, I suggested that the box should contain one-quarter of a barrel. The standard barrel of apples is a well known mea- * sure. In the old country apples are sold by the barrel, and people there understand what a barrel of apples is. We have fixed by law the size of a barrel of apples and the quantity is known amongst us-and, I believe, correctly-as three bushels. If we are going to authorize the shipment of apples in boxes containing less than a barrel, I contend that these boxes should contain some well defined, specific quantity that would be well understood by the purchaser in the old country. The box defined by the Minister of Agriculture is a nondescript box which represents practically nothing specific. It is not one-fourth of a barrel ; it is not one-third of a barrel ; it is no definite fraction of a barrel that the people will understand.
It is less than one-third of a barrel and it is larger than one-quarter of a barrel. To my mind, the box that would hold one-quarter of a barrel would be a very much better package than one that contains no definite fraction of a barrel. When this matter was last discussed, the Minister of Agriculture almost insinuated that my object in advocating a smaller box was that the shippers in this country might take advantage of the buyers in the old country and sell them a smaller quantity with a view of enhancing the price. I had no such intention or thought, but I do tell the minister that the use of the box which he has described will have the effect of defrauding the people of the old country. The purchaser will naturally ask how much there is in the box, and he will be told it is a bushel, or one-third of a barrel, when, as a matter of fact, it is not.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: How much is it short ?


David Henderson: It is very considerably short. The minister shakes his head, but I can tell him that he is all wrong ; he has taken his information from young men, who have not the experience of practical men in the business, who have investigated the matter. Three boxes of the size prescribed in this Bill will not fill a barrel ; a fact which has been demonstrated by practical test. The box which the minister proposes will contain the contents in cubic inches of cne-third of a barrel, but he forgets that there is much waste of space when you pack three or four packages instead of one barrel, there being a large amount

ol' space In each package that Is not filled and you would require three packages, each containing a larger cubic space than exactly one-third of a barrel, to give the quantity of fruit that would go into one barrel. There is where the difference comes in, and whether the package is square or round it matters not. In the section of the country in which I live the people have practically tested this. They commenced with a large box and they kept reducing it in size until they discovered a box that would practically hold exactly , one fourth of a barrel. The minister has failed to make allowance for the greater waste of space in three smaller packages as compared with one large package. It is not a good plan for us to legalize what I call a nondescript box ; a box that will not hold one-third of a barrel and which holds more than one-fourth of a barrel. If the seller tells the buyer that this package contains one-third of a barrel that statement is untrue. It contains the cubic capacity of one-third of a barrel but it does not contain one-third of the quantity of apples that would go into a barrel and so a fraud will be perpetrated. I again appeal to the Minister of Agriculture that he should not destroy the trade, because the adoption of this box will certainly have that effect. In a couple of years the people of the old land will discover that a fraud is being practiced upon them ; that they are not getting the quantity of apples they expected to get, and consequently the Canadian apple trade will be injuriously affected. Surely the minister can avail himself of further information for the purpose of determining the size of a box that will contain exactly what it is represented to contain. I believe that the box which the minister proposes is too large, and I would rather favour a reduction in its size. If the minister prescribes a box that will contain a full quarter of a barrel, it would be very much better for the apple trade generally, This package, which the minister provides for in the Bill, is going to be detrimental to the apple shippers as a whole, and it is going to be peculiarly detrimental to those in my section of the country who now use a box of a certain size, and who will have to change the size of the box and educate the people of the old country up to the change from the now customary sized box. I trust the minister will not press the measure without satisfying himself that the box he prescribes does contain one-third of a barrel, and that it is therefore such a box as can be used without giving any unfair advantage either to the buyer or to the seller.


Archibald Campbell: I do not agree with my hon. friend from Haltou, that this Bill, is going to injure the trade of the country. I understand that this box is exactly one-third of a barrel, but that when you empty a barrel of apples into three of these boxes Mr. HENDERSON.
they would contain about three ordinary sized apples less than the contents of the barrel. That would not be a very serious, injury to the trade. The Minister of Agriculture deserves a great deal of credit for introducing a Bill of this kind. I have had a great deal of experience in furnishing packages in which to ship apples, and I know that during the last few years the apple trade has been injuriously affected because of the defective barrels in which the apples were shipped. The barrel when it is dry is taken into the orchard, and, if it gets wet the staves swell, the hoops burst and the barrel is liable to fall to pieces. Last year many apple barrels were made out of green timber, and I venture to say that when they reached the old country many of them were broken to pieces. That injures the sale of our fruit in the old country* and therefore I say that the minister is to be congratulated on attempting to provide a proper package. In the contraction of boxes it matters very little whether the material is dry or green, because when properly put together the box is not liable to be broken, and besides that, boxes will pack closer than barrels on ship-board, the consequence of which Is that they will occupy less space and the freight rates on apples will be less than they are to-day. I think, therefore, this proposition, instead of being an injury, would be a great benefit to the trade.


Mr. FISHER.: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has appealed to me not to put this Bill through. He says I have spoken of resolutions which he has not yet had an opportunity of knowing or seeing. I have those resolutions under my hand, and I will take the opportunity of reading them to the hon. gentleman.
The fruit growers of British Columbia, where they use the box exclusively, have discussed the question of the size of boxes frequently at their associations for a number of years. At their annual meeting in
1902	they reaffirmed a resolution adopting the size 10 in. x 11 in. x 20 in. In the years
1903	and 1904 no objection was made to these dimensions and the conclusion is that* all things considered, this box is satisfactory.
The Ontario Fruit Growers' Association discussed the matter at their annual meeting in Walkerton, in December, 1902, but decided that the matter might stand over for one year, during which time a committee appointed for the purpose would secure all the evidence and experience of Ontario shippers and submit it at the annual meeting in 1903. The committee met during the fruit season in St. Catharines and Grimsby and considered a large number of different sized boxes in the packing houses. They also conducted a wide correspondence upon the subject and submitted their report at the Leamington meeting in November, 1903.
2S45

The following resolution was passed at that meeting :
Your committee would recommend that the Canadian commercial apple box be one of which the cubic contents are about one-third of the Canadian commercial apple barrel, and measuring inside ten inches deep, eleven inches wide and twenty inches long ; and that the Canadian pear box be one-half the capacity and [DOT]one-half the depth of the apple box ; and that the secretary communicate with the secretaries of the fruit-growers' associations of the other provinces in reference to uniformity in this matter.
This motion, moved by E. D. Smith, M.P., and seconded by Wm. Rickard, M.P.F., was unanimously carried.
In December, 1903, at Hemmingford, the Quebec Pomologieal Society passed the following resolution :
That we recognize the necessity of having boxes of uniform size for the exportation of apples, and recommend the trial of the size [DOT]mentioned, viz., 10-inch by 11-inch by 20-inch.
This motion was carried unanimously.
In January, 1904, the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association met at Bridgewater, N.S., and passed a resolution recommending that the box 10 x 11 x 20 be adopted as the standard box for Nova Scotia. This motion was moved by Secretary S. C. Parker and seconded by G. H. Yroom, and carried unanimously.
In February, 1904, the Prince Edward Island Fruit Growers' Association met at Charlottetown, and the following resolution was passed :
That this association formally adopt the box package 10 x 11 x 20 inches (inside measurement) as recommended by Chief MacKinnon, and already adopted by the associations of Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
These resolutions are clear and definite, [DOT]and they give the dimensions which are provided in this Bill. So far as the fruit growers are concerned, there is no question as to this matter ; and I may say, in reply to my hon. friend, that these associations are composed not only of fruit growers, but of a large number of other people who are interested in the fruit trade ; and at these meetings none of the objections put forward by my hon. friend were mentioned. At any rate, there is no record of them, as these resolutions were passed unanimously. I take the following passage from the address of Inspector Maxwell Smith before the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association :
This package, measuring 10 x 11 x 20 inside, Is the box that has been recommended by your association for a number of years, and which has also been endorsed by the Ontario Fruit *Growers' Association at its meeting in Learning-ton about two months ago. So we are making some progress towards a uniform box.
There has been a demand for a uniform box, and the size provided in the Bill is that
which has been unanimously endorsed by these people as the best one to adopt. I appreciate fully that there may be some slight diversity of view ; but at the meetings where the people particularly interested discussed these questions, those diverse views were either not brought forward at all or were not supported sufficiently to enable them to be put on record. Let me give one or two other statements in regard to this. Mr. Brandritk, the secretary of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, says :
This association recommends a box having a capacity of 20 x 10 x 11, inside measurements, and we are of the opinion that having always used boxes we are in a better position to advise as to the requirements than our eastern friends can be. However, what we want is a lawful standard box, as at present anything is a box of apples, from 35 to 50 pounds.


Mr.  G. W.@: Hunt, the manager of the Ottawa Fruit Exchange, says that the ' Ontario Fruit Growers' Association cannot do better than join with the other provincial associations in recommending the size 10 x 11x20.' He also says:	'Growers have
resorted to all manner of packages, we have received this year (1903) boxes ranging in size from 18 inches long, 10 inches deep and 12 inches wide to dry goods cases containing about two barrels and a half.'
Now, I want to quote just one other thing, which is a fair discussion of this whole question. This is an extract from a letter of Mr. G. W. Hunt, of the Ottawa Fruit Exchange, a gentleman who has handled a great deal of fruit as a business man :
Growers have resorted to all manner of packages this year. We have received boxes ranging in size from 10 x 12 x 18 to dry goods cases, containing about two barrels and a half. I would recommend a medium size, holding as nearly as possible one bushel. This package would be very convenient for more reasons than one. The principal one that I would mention here is the fact that a great number of our Fameuse or snow apples go to the United States, and if we use a bushel box we pay duty for that and no more, but if the box holds less than a bushel we pay for a bushel anyway, and the duty is 25 cents a box.
Mr. Yroom, fruit inspector, having examined the London market in regard to the number of different boxes, says :
I heard a great many complaints about the Canadian box on account of the variation in the size. A box containing forty pounds is about the right size for the English market.
Not many boxes are wanted for thev export apple trade. In fact, only a few choice' apples should be shipped in boxes. The barrel is the proper package for the great bulk of Canadian apples.
Mr. Russell, a very large dealer in Glasgow, writes as follows :
In regard to packing of apples in boxes I consider this package should only be used for No.

284S
1 fruit, as the demand for apples packed in this way is only for better class trade, and, in fact, anything apart from really fancy stock sells as well if not better, in barrels than in boxes. This package should weigh on an average from 50 to 54 pounds gross, and the use of Excelsior among the apples (unless for soft varieties) should be discontinued.
The 20 x 11 x 10 box is what is commonly known as the California package, and is adopted almost universally there. Mr. AVm. Wilson, the proprietor and inventor of the Wilson case, also a packer and shipper, says :	[DOT]
One-quarter-barrel-case, 18 x 12 x 9, holds just 28 quarts, or about 40 pounds of apples, and is equal to one-quarter barrel of 112 quarts, the former size of the barrels, and, while 18 x 12 x 9 is a very economical size case for packing apples, it has no exact proportionate relation, either to the standard bushel or barrel of today.
One standard bushel case can be made for twelve cents, whereas the 'quarter-barrel costs ten cents.
The cost of dock dues in Britain is charged per package, within certain limits, so that bushel cases would cost same as quarter-barrels.
One bushel, being a standard measurement everywhere, as well as an exact proportion of a barrel, is, therefore, the only proper standard for a national package, whereas calculations made by the quarter-barrel would only produce confusion and friction between buyer and seller.
Half-bushel cases are also very convenient, and in exact proportion for the finer fruits.
Bushel cases have an advantage over barrels in ocean freight, for while five barrels are charged as one cubic ton, it takes about twenty-four bushel-cases to make forty cubic feet.
My hon. friend will see that what I stated in general terms before the committee is endorsed by the resolutions passed by these
various associations. My hon. friend must not suppose that X was casting any reflection on those he represents, when I said there was difficulty in the English market because the people there did not know what they were getting when they got a Canadian box of apples. There is a temptation no doubt, when selling by the box, to sell as small a quantity as possible, and therefore it is in the interest of the trade that a minimum standard should be fixed for Canadian boxes just as for Canadian barrels. Everybody knows when he buys a Canadian barrel what he is getting. but he does not when he buys a Canadian box.


David Henderson: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman as to the desirability of having a standard box, but X do not regard the standard he prescribes as a suitable size inasmuch as it does not contain the one-third of a barrel, which is the well understood measure in the old country. The hon. minister will not undertake to say that the box prescribed in this Bill will hold a bushel of apples or one third of a barrel.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
David Henderson: There would be a difference in weight.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly, according to the variety of apples. You could not take weight for a standard at all.


Mr.   BDAIN@: How will those boxes be stamped as regards the quality of the apple ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is nothing about that in this Bill.


Mr.   BDAIN@: How will the purchaser know whether the box contains number one or number two apples ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have to he stamped under the Fruit Marks Act just as a barrel or any other package.


Mr. BLAIN.: The Fruit Marks Act will
apply to the box the same as to the barrel.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Will these boxes be marked ' J barrel ' or ' 1 bushel ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that, as a matter of fact, these boxes are marked as to their capacity. It is simply a Canadian box of apples, and the box used will be a standard box. At present they use any size they choose.


George Taylor: The hon. member said that a box would contain a bushel of apples. If the statement of my hon. friend from Halton iMr. Henderson) be correct, three of these boxes of apples will not fill a barrel, but it will take a pailful or more in addition to the contents of three of these boxes to fill a barrel. If that is the case, tve shall get the name of playing sharp with our English cousins by adopting this size of box. I think the minister should accept the proposition of the hon. member for Halton and put this Bill off until to-morrow, and, in the meantime let the test be made. If the statement submitted to the House by the hon. member for Halton is correct-and it is made on the authority of an apple packer and shipper- the condition of affairs is a serious one, and this House should hesitate before passing this legislation. But if the minister is right, and if the apples that fill three of these boxes will, with the addition of two or three apples, fill a standard barrel, that fact can be shown by the practical test and no harm will come from delaying this Bill for twenty-four hours.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained to the committee that three of these boxes, probably would not hold quite so many apples as a standard barrel will.


George Taylor: Will there be the difference of a pailful?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There will not.


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) says there will, and he has shown that the statement is made on high authority. Why not make the test?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The test has been made, and the difference has been shown to be only two or three apples.


Mr. MILLER.: I do not think it makes any difference whether the statement made to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and by him submitted to the House is correct or not. Whether the box of apples holds one-third of a barrel or not, so long as the size is fixed, it can be bought and sold as a standard Canadian box of apples. In Canada we know that, throughout the season, strawberries are sold in boxes said to contain a quart. We know they do not contain a quart, but we can see what they do contain, and any difference does not affect the strawberry trade.
In the same way, the standard will be fixed for the Canadian box of apples, and when the customer buys a box of apples he will not consider whether that box is one-third of a bushel or not.


David Henderson: I may tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) that he may get into trouble if he undertakes to sell strawberries in a box containing less than a quart each, for that is the standard size.
On section 2,-commencement of Act:


Sydney Arthur Fisher: According to the printed Bill this Act is to come into force on January 1, 1906. I have stated that we do not wish the standard to apply to the present season's trade. The 1st of January next will be too early, and so I wish to change the date to 1st June, 1906. That will enable the trade of the coming season to be worked off.


David Henderson: Could not the minister extend it to 1st of January, 1907, and so give an opportunity to men who have provided themselves with a large quantity of box-material to use that material and not be compelled to lose it? For, of course, this material must be given time to season, and so a stock of it must be laid in in advance. Why not postpone the coming into force of the" Bill and not put these people to too great loss ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: January 1st is not a good date for the trade, and it is in the interest of the trade I am speaking. The apples are packed, of course, in the late summer and fall and are sold all through the winter. If the Bill were brought into force on 1st January, part of the crop might be sold in the way they have been sold hitherto, while the other part would come under the provisions of this Bill.


David Henderson: Half a loaf is better than no bread.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that if they work off this season's crop, they will have all the opportunity necessary, and by fixing the time for the Bill to come into force at 1st June, 1906, they will have an opportunity to work off the whole crop.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Lighthouse and coast service-construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, including apparatus $500,000.
['Perhaps it will be better to discuss that point to-morrow.']
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAIXE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There are some points on which the committee at its last sitting required information. I have

that information now. The first point was as to the Lurcher lightship :-
This lightship was built at the Poison Iron Works, Toronto, under contract, for the work on the Lurcher Shoal, about 16 miles WSW. of Yarmouth, N.S. It was absolutely necessary that this vessel should be on her station during the winter of 1903, and to enable her to do this she had to leave Toronto before the work was quite completed. She had a very hard time indeed in getting through the ice, &c., of the canals as far as Quebec; in fact, had it not been for the work of Mr. B. H. Fraser, assistant chief engineer of the department, she could not have got through even as far as Quebec.
The captain, officers and crew were sent up from Yarmouth to meet her in Quebec, and after provisioning she left that place at six o'clock in the morning of the eighth of December, being the very last ship to leave the port of Quebec that year.
Mr. Douglas Stevens, government steamboat inspector, and one of the most well known, trusted and efficient in Canada, under whose superintendence this vessel was built, left her in Quebec, with captain Koenig, of the D. G. S. ' Druid ', who took charge of her on her way down. The lightship encountered very heavy gales of wind and steamed through 280 miles of packed ice before arriving at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Naturally, encountering this ice knocked her out very considerably, and on arriving at Halifax, here she proceeded after provisioning and coaling at Summerside, a certain amount of repairs had to be done. These repairs were done under the superintendence of Mr. Douglas Stevens, and Mr. Salmon, who at that time was not busily engaged in the department, was sent down to correct her compasses and to see her moored on her station. After the repairs had been finished as speedily as posible in Halifax, the lightship left that port for her station and Mr. Salmon, for personal reasons, did not go and moor her in her proper position, but returned to Ottawa. She was placed on her station by the departmental officers in Halifax, in what they considered the best possible way, taking into consideration that the shipping interests had been informed that the lightship should be in her position on a certain date, and the shortness of time at their disposal.
In reference to mooring the ' Lurcher ' on this occasion, it must be borne in mind that this is the first proper lightship the government have ever had. That her station is probably the most exposed point on the whole American continent, being ; exposed to thd entire sweep of the Atlantic, and the tides and rips of the Bay of Fundy. United States lightships in various places are continually breaking away from their moorings, and the same thing occurs on the English coast. On this occasion the * Lurcher' after being on her station a short time, broke away and had to steam into Yarmouth harbour. Mr. Salmon was again sent down from Ottawa to Yarmouth to have this lightship properly moored, but instead of going out on the vessel and mooring her in her proper position, he remained in Yarmouth a few days, and for private and personal reasons again returned to Montreal, without seeing the vessel properly moored. He then proceeded to write a most scathing and unwarranted, memorandum on the vrork performed by Inspector Douglas Stevens. This Mr. PREFONTAINE.
report was so absolutely incorrect and so ridiculous, that the department took no notice of it; it simply showed Mr. Salmon's entire ignorance of the matter.
The Lurcher lightship, as well as the Anticosti lightship, are acknowledged by experts everywhere to be two of the best vessels of their class ever built, and it was simply owing to Mr. Salmon not carrying out his instructions when sent down on two occasions, but returning for private reasons of his own, without seeing the vessel properly moored, that she broke adrift.
Since that time the Lurcher lias been moored under the direction of Commander Spain, and a plan of the manner in which she is moored is attached. She has withstood this season the heaviest gales that have been experienced on the Nova Scotia coast for the last thirty years, and is still moored in her place, and on Commander Spain visiting her some three weeks ago, she was in her proper position and not likely to break adrift again.
This is only another case of insubordination on the part of Mr. Salmon in not carrying out his instructions, and after being unfortunate enough to be connected officially with the man for some time, I quite agree with the opinion of a very well known master mariner, who having had dealings with Mr. Salmon and speaking of him as a seaman, referred to him as a combination of ignorance, arrogance and pomposity, with ignorance predominating.
Commander Spain shows how she is moored now, and how she has remained in her place without moving any way from that time.


Richard Blain: Has the minister laid on the table the report of Captain Salmon, which was asked for some days ago ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was considered perfectly worthless.


Richard Blain: It seems to me rather a strange attitude for the minister to assume to read a statement criticising a gentleman's conduct as an employee of his department, and at the same time refuse to lay upon the table the report that gentleman sent in to the department when it was asked for from this side of the House.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no objection whatever, I will produce the report at eight o'clock this evening.


Mr. AMES.: Then it would be permissible to continue the discussion of this Lurcher lightship after the report has come in ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Mr. BENNETT.: I am glad the minister has stated now what the power of the lights is. When it is considered that one of the [DOT]smallest lights used in an ordinary room is of sixteen candle power, and that at a distance of nearly a mile from the water edge the minister's officers think that a lamp of only four times that power is sufficient to guide ships entering the harbour, of Midland, all I can say is that I have my opinion of the minister's officers. However, as the minister says that this official, who has such an extraordinary knowledge of the requirements of the trade of the lake, thinks it is sufficient to have a light four times the strength of an ordinary room lamp, up on a hill nearly a mile from the water's edge, I sympathize with the minister in having such an official.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information I have from the officer is that the reflector doubles the lighting power of the lamp so that each lamp would be over one hundred candle power.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would remind the minister that if you go into any ordinary village or small town he will find that the lights on the street are from 1,000 to 2,000 candle power. The minister's official seems to have more knowledge, apparently, than the minister has, because the minister bows to him. But I think when the minister talks it over
with him he will come to the conclusion that he had better change his opinion. After Colonel Anderson, if it is he who was responsible, had sent to Midland the two lamps, there was political influence enough to cause the then minister to send back those lights, and to substitute these electric lights. I am sorry the present minister was not in the department then, because I do not think he would have allowed that to be done. The minister is not to blame for these lamps at Midland except for their continuance, for these lamps were there when he came into office. Now I appeal to him whether when he considers that these lights are only four times the strength of an ordinary light placed in a small private room, he still thinks, with his official, that they are powerful enough when placed nearly a mile from the water's edge, to light vessels coming into the bay. I tell the minister again that last fall a vessel coming in at night mistook some of the other lights, and as a result was piled up on the shoals in the middle of the bay, and during the night or towards morning she took fire.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not responsible, as the hon. gentleman says, for the installation of these lamps, but from the information that I gather from my officers, I would have done the same thing because two or three lamps of that kind have been installed in the port of Montreal to my knowledge.


William Humphrey Bennett: Sixty-four candle-powerV


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Seventy-five candle-power, red lights, so as to distinguish them from others and with reflectors. They are perfectly satisfactory, and we have had no complaint from anybody. On the contrary we have been complimented because there were no lights of this kind before and the mariners were exposed to be misled by the similarity of lights. It is the same in the case of Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: How far would those lights be from where the vessel would be approaching ?
Mr. ^PREFONTAINE. |I would think about a mile and a half.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the vessels come around the point they are five miles away from the lights and they are approaching the shoals when they are three and a half miles away.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I say about a mile and a half, because the channel to the harbour at Montreal at the foot of the current is not straight so that the light could not be seen until you turn the corner. The corner would be about a mile and a half away. I know as a matter of fact that in Quebec there are red lights of this kind, that are seen at a distance of 5 miles, from the Island of Orleans, and

there is no trouble whatever. I know this personally as I have been on board steamers coming up to Quebec and I have seen how satisfactory these lights are. There is no confusion with the others, because there is only the one pair of red lights.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Have there been any complaints with regard to these lights from the shippers ?
Mr. PRBgONT4INE. No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the harbour master at Midland reported that any vessels have gone on that shoal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Never.


William Humphrey Bennett: What do you pay the harbour master ?	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think he is paid by fees, the amount you will find in the report.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it would be fair to have the harbour master find out if vessels have been piled up on this shoal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Surely the hon. gentleman does not expect me to go looking for complaints ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have made complaints and the minister told me he would not pay any attention to them.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I find from the report of my officers that the complaint is not reasonable under the circumstances so that really the hon. gentleman is not going to ask me to search for complaints. If the lights are not sufficient it is for the marine men to say they are not.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know that this case reflects any credit on the minister's officials because at first he put in lights that were too small.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman knows we are improving every day and do not refuse to improve, but when there is no call for improvements we do not make them.


William Humphrey Bennett: All right; pile up the boats then.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who paid for the repairs that were made to the Lurcher lightship after she reached Halifax ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The department.


Herbert Brown Ames: As I understand she left Toronto in an unfinished condition, and on the way down suffered considerable damage which was repaired at Halifax at the expense of the government.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, because the damage was caused by the ice.


Herbert Brown Ames: And the contractor was not asked to make good any portion of the repairs ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Mr. HYMAN.: They were just the ice repairs.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. There is another matter which has been brought up and which I might dispose of now. That is the Parry Sound buoy contract.
Previous to 1898 the buoys in the vicinity of Parry Sound were all spar buoys, with the exception of one bell buoy, and the work was carried out by contract.
In 189S three gas buoys were established in the vicinity of Parry Sound and tenders were asked for the maintenance of these buoys, and the following tenders were received, which were solely for the maintenance of the proposed new gas buoys:
Per annum.
James Playfair, vessel owner,
Midland	$ 300 00
Galna & Danter, contractors
Parry Sound	 900 00
A. W. Clarke, mariner, Parry
Sound	 1,000 00
And later the tender of James Playfair was withdrawn as he informed the department that he had made a mistake.
The chief engineer, Colonel Anderson, reported on these tenders as follows :
I strongly recommend that none of these tenders he accepted, but that the service he done on the basis of payment for actual work until we are in a better position to judge of its actual cost. Mr. Playfair's offer, which was withdrawn, was not a desirable one to accept under any circumstances, because Midland, where Mr. Playfair's plant is, is about forty miles away from the nearest buoy and I believed the price was less than the work could be properly done for. I cannot recommend the acceptance of either of the other tenders, because I think they are higher than the work is worth, and I think we can do the work by the day very much less per annum. The buoys (spar) have heretofore been handled by Captains A. W. Clarke and E. S. Pratt, the contractors for the other buoy service at Parry Sound. These men own four steamers ferrying and towing in Parry Sound, and are themselves local pilots and directly interested in maintaining an efficient buoy service. They are also in close touch with the masters of all the large vessels coming into the Sound. It was they who put the buoys out, and the way they handled the work was particularly satisfactory. Therefore to maintain the service on the basis of a charge of $25 per day for tug and scow, work on shore to be charged according to the time occupied by the men employed, would, I believe, result in work being done for less than the tenders, and I am certain that it would be done in a more thorough manner. I would impress upon the department the necessity for prompt and efficient service in connection with this gas buoy service, and it is because I believe Captain Clarke is in the best position to do satisfactory work that I so strongly recommend that it be left in his hands.
Accordingly, from 1898 to 1900 the Parry Sound spar and gas buoy service -was carried out by contract for the spar buoys, and

by clays' work for the gas buoys at the following cost:
In 1898	$1,143	00In 1899	
1.441	25In 1900	
1,646	50
In December, 1900, Captain Clarke made an offer to enter into a contract with the department for three years to perform its buoy service for the sum of $1,400.
The chief engineer stated that Captain Clarke was building a new tug equipped with derrick for handling the moorings and strongly recommended that his offer be accepted. An allowance was made later to Captain Clarke of $75 per annum for the maintenance of one iron buoy at Three Star Shoal.
On the termination of Captain Clarke's contract in March, 1904, it was renewed for the sum of $1,600, being an increase of $125 per annum for substantially the same reasons as advanced by the chief engineer in recommending the acceptance of Captain Clarke's tender in the first instance.
The addition of three gas buoys and a gas beacon at Kilbear Point, being added to the contract, Captain Clarke was allowed the sum of $1,000 per annum additional, the additional price being based on the cost of the contract held by him and because it was efficiently performed.
The establishment of a buoy depot at Parry Sound will lead the department to undertake the buoy service in Georgian bay with its own steamers and under its own officers and will eventually lead to the cancelling of all buoy contracts in Georgian bay.
Reference has been made to the proposed establishment of a buoy depot by the depot at Parry Sound. I thought I had made myself fairly understood by the committee the last time. I thought I had explained completely that the government had entered into negotiations with the Ottawa Bank or its representatives to purchase a property at Parry Sound for $5,500, that the property consisted of about three acres of land on the shore, with a wharf constructed which would accommodate our department and with a large stone building which had been used for some time as a manufacturing establishment and that there was a boiler, engines and other machinery on the property.
The negotiations were suspended because some one had intervened and tried to get an option on the property for $7,500 or $2,000 more than we offered. We dropped the matter at the time, but I have since learned that our bargain is a good one and that it is in the interest of the House and the country that we should pay $5,500 for this property. There is some little difficulty as to the right to a passageway which can be settled with the Ontario government. I believe that the purchase of this property for $5,500 including costs, commissions &c., is
a good purchase. We could not get any property in the neighbourhood at any such reasonable price, and then we would have to erect the buildings and buy the machinery.


William Humphrey Bennett: The misapprehension that existed the other evening as to this matter was caused by the ignorance of the official of the department who visited the place, and who assured the minister that the premises were at Parry harbour while as a matter of fact they are not. I have made inquiries since, and I now know the site. It is known as the old bobbin factory, but it is not located where the official of the department said it was. Knowing something about the matter now, I do not think that the price mentioned is out of the way. It is due to the minister that I should compliment him for discovering that some party friend had attempted to put up a job on the government and make $2,000 out of the deal. It is to the credit of the minister or his officials that they discovered this trick and succeeded in stopping it. As to the buoys, the minister has given this contract to Mr. Clarke apparently without tender for $2,600. It is only fair that there should be tenders called for that service. Mr. Clarke is not the only man who owns a boat there, nor is he the only man who is competent to do the work. I do not know that Mr. Clarke is deserving of. any great solicitude from the government, because he is the very man who interposed and tried to make the department pay $2,000 more for this site ; the minister knows that.


Mr. PERDEY.: I am sorry I was not here the other day to explain the misunderstanding which arose with reference to the purchase of this Parry Sound property from the Bank of Ottawa. This property was taken over by the Bank of Ottawa some years ago, it having been used as a factory. The buildings and boilers were then valued at $5,000 and the Bank is now getting $5,000 net; the other $500 going for the usual commissions and costs. The committee may be satisfied that the price is a reasonable one, and I mayr mention that the town of Parry Sound thought of buying the property last fall at exactly the same price.


Herbert Brown Ames: The other night the Minister of Marine intimated that it was his intention to ask a considerable additional amount for the perfection of the aids to navigation in the Gulf and River St. Eawrence. Will the minister tell us if this present vote is intended to complete existing work, or whether it is to be applied to new work. The minister promised that he would at some convenient date give a full statement of the new work which is about to be done during the coming year in the river and gulf, and we would like to have that statement from him either now or on the supplemen-

tary estimates, whichever is more convenient to him. The minister has of course taken cognizance of the resolution of the Montreal Board of Trade, passed on the 31st of January, 1905, which has been forwarded to him, and which for the information of the committee I shall read :
That whereas the aids to navigation in the Gult and River St. Lawrence are still inadequate to the requirements ot the St. Lawrence route and the safety of shipping and passengers, and
Whereas the aids to navigation, so far provided, have been recognized by underwriters, some of whom have made slight reductions in their rates to the advantage of the whole Dominion, and
Whereas an additional reduction can he confidently looked forward to on the completion of the required aids to navigation.
Be it resolved, that the government he urged to provide in the estimates a sufficient sum of money to complete the absolutely required improvements to the lighthouses, fog signals and ether appliances, which required improvements were submitted by the Shipping Federation of Canada to the Commissioner of Lights, and understood to have been afterwards approved by the Lighthouse Board, and
Be it further resolved, that the government be asked to carry out these improvements in their entirety this year.
This resolution refers to a series of recommendations submitted by the Shipping Federation of Canada, which the minister lias also in his possession and a copy of which was forwarded to me on the 24th of February by Thomas Robb, the manager. It would be very acceptable to the commercial and shipping interests of Montreal, if the minister should give us in detail the improvements in the aids to navigation which [DOT]in consonance with that report, will be initiated or completed during the coming season. The minister will remember that this report refers to Belle Isle high light, Belle Isle low light, Cape Bauld, Cape Norman, Point Amour, Flower Island, Greenly Island, Point Rich, Cape Race, Cape Ray, St. Paul's Island, northeast point, St. Paul's Island, southwest point, Bird Rocks, Bryon Island, rictou Island, Heath Point, West Point, Anticosti. Cape Rosier. Matane, Fame Point, Father Point, Maughers Beach, Gan-net Rock.
The reason I call attention to all these items is, that the minister may bring to his mind the report of the shipping federation, which I understand has been submitted to and approved by the lighthouse board, and which I trust will in due time receive his concurrence. We should like to have a statement from the minister as to what he intends to accomplish this year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 

[Stage Direction]
In Ontario, the following is the list of the new works to be done :
Burlington, new tower	 $ 2,000
Rondeau, new tower	 2,000
Victoria Island, fog alarm	 15,000
Improvements to existing fog alarm.. 20,000
Welcome Island, new light	 5,000
Sister Island, moving light	 1,000
Inspection	  5,000
Colchester reef protection	 5,000
Large repairs	 20,000
«	.	$75,000
111 New Brunswick, we propose to do the following :
Wharf accommodation	 $25,000
Large repairs	  22,000
Inspection	 3,000
[Stage Direction]
In Nova Scotia :
Dartmouth, wharf and stores	 $15,000
Mauger Beach, repairs to breakwater.. 5,000
Grand passage, new dwelling	 3,000
Budget, Herring Cove, Bass River, Amherst River, Fisherman Harbour,
Emmings Island, new towers	 6.000
General account, including repairs, inspection, &c	 25,000
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island :
Souris, new light	 $ 1,000
Indian Point, repairs	 6,000
General account, including large repairs, inspection, &c	 10,000
[Stage Direction]
These figures total up as follows :
General account	$ 65,000
Quebec	  150,000
British Columbia	 87,000
Ontario	 75,000
Nova Scotia	 54,000
New Brunswick	 50,000
Prince Edward Island		17,000
Steel buoys	 10,000
[Stage Direction]
The apparatus will be provided for in the supplementary estimates. These apparatus are procured from the only firm in the world from which they can be procured at reasonable prices, namely, Chance Brothers, in England. There are three firms which furnish them-a firm in France, another in Germany and Chance Brothers, in England. I inquired about prices from the three, and Chance Brothers offered the best prices and conditions and material /and everything. It is that firm which supplies the American government, so that we will have just as good a system of lights as any country in the world.
Herbert Brown Ames: Does the hon. minister expect during this coming season to practically complete his plans for the illumination of the St. Lawrence gulf and river ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We hope to be able to complete the plans we have laid out, but there is always a certain proportion of uncertainty. Sometimes the orders are given and the material is not delivered. Sometimes it is more difficult to erect a piece of construction when it is far out at sea, or where there are storms and difficulties in the way. In most of the cases in the gulf we are prevented from proceeding by way of contract, because we could not get, except at extravagant prices, contractors to come and take charge of the work. They would have to provide very large plant, for which the government would have to pay. We are trying as much as possible to do these works by day's work with our own men. We send them from different points, especially from Quebec, with material and everything they require. In some of these remote places there is no possibility of getting labour and material. In British Columbia we have abandoned almost entirely the idea of giving out contracts in remote places. We send out our own men and steamers and material, so as to have the work done efficiently and at less cost.


Herbert Brown Ames: My hon. friend has stated that some years ago there had been, after consultation, a definite plan arrived at for the improvement of the Lower St. Lawrence and the gulf. Do I understand the minister to say that he expects that by the end of the present working season this plan will be practically completed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I fear I have left the committee under a wrong impression. What I stated was that, if I get supplementary estimates to cover the plans shown by the drawings and charts I have laid on the table, I shall be able to do so much of the work this season that next year I hope to finish the whole. It was estimated at the time that it would cost from $3,500,000 to $4,000,000. We have expended about $2,000,000, and, so far as we can see the work will require the expenditure of about $2,000,000 more. The work will go on as rapidly as possible.-' At the present we are suffering from the want of help in the engineering branch. This is not a difficulty confined to my department. The Department of Public Works and others are in the same position-the engineers and draftsmen required are not to be had. I have personally inquired from McGill and Laval Universities to secure men for this service.
I hope that we shall be able, with the help we can procure to complete the work, laid out this season.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand, then, that it will require this year and probably one year more to complete the works under the plan that has bedn followed by the department for some years. When that plan is fully carried out will all the recommendations in this document from the shipping federation have been fulfilled ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, except any minor new points tliat may be discovered as we proceed. I have here a plan which shows what is to be done in 1905-6, and any hon. gentleman who consults it will see that the department is not going blindly at this work, but has taken it up systematically to follow the recommendations of the shipping interest of the board of trade of Montreal.


Richard Blain: May we expect any marked decrease in the rates of marine insurance because of the expenditure of this large amount of money ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We sincerely hope for a considerable decrease. Still insurance companies are loath to reduce rates. This matter is working itself out gradually, as is shown by the resolution passed by the board of trade and the shipping interest, which declares that there has already been a reduction. Some vessel lines have benefited more than others. I have been trying to get at the figures but it is not easy to do that at once. I know that the first to obtain the reduction of insurance rates were the Canadian Pacific Railway boats, probably because the company enjoys great confidence and the boats were supposed to be manned in first-class style. Other lines have also obtained reductions. What these reductions are we do not know yet, but, of course, it will all be known In time.


Richard Blain: The reason I ask is, because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) made the statement in the House a few years ago that one of the reasons for expending so much on the improvement of the St. Lawrence, was that we should thereby have a considerable decrease in marine insurance, besides helping materially the shipping interest of Canada. I suppose the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pre-fontaine) is keeping that point in view and is pressing it. Because, it would be a very serious matter if, after the expenditure of millions in these works on the expectation of a decrease in insurance rates, no such reductions were actually made. The House will expect the minister to regard this as part of his duty as well as the expenditure of the money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no doubt that safe navigation will secure this reduction by itself, even if it is not pressed. But, having in view the reduction of the insurance rate, and keeping this before the insurance people-and the British people especially, who control most of the marine insurance-I am sure of a favourable result. We keep in constant touch with Lloyds and the best authorities in Great Britain so as to keep them well informed of what we are doing and of what our plans are for improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence and making it as safe as possible. As regards the lighting bv gas
between Montreal and Sorel-and lower down for we have added 33 miles more to this system-the improvement has facilitated navigation so as to give quicker access to the port of Montreal and so shorten the trip by six or seven hours, making almost an extra trip during the season. All these aids to navigation tend to reduce the cost of freight, and so give advantages which reach the people of Canada generally, for Montreal is the national port and the reduction of freights to that port has a tendency to reduce the cost of goods to the consumer.
I have now the information asked for by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) with regard to the harbour master of Midland. The harbour master of Midland is Mr. John White. His salary is $300 a year, paid out of fees. In 1902, he collected $316.50 in fees, returning $16.50 to the department; and in 1904 he did not collect sufficient to pay his salary.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister state what the harbour master does for this $300 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is obliged to fulfil his duty as harbour master.


William Humphrey Bennett: I live in the town and I would like to know what the duties are.
Mr, PREFONTAINE. He has to look
after the buoy service, to place the vessels in the port and otherwise to fulfil the duties of harbour master. These duties are statutory, and I refer the hon. gentleman to the statute.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would ask the minister if he would request the harbour master at Midland to make a report as to whether any vessels have at any time been grounded on the shoal in the bay.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would ask the minister to tell us what steps he is taking in order to make it thoroughly known in all shipping centres of the world that these improvements in the St. Lawrence are being prosecuted. As we know, insurance rates in the St. Lawrence are much higher than at New York; but shippers also know that owing to the improvements which have been made during the last ten years the rates have been cut down one-half. We have reason to believe that the rates can be still further reduced, because many of the best English companies are not insuring at all on the St. Lawrence route, but we think that the better acquainted they become with the St. Lawrence route and the great endeavours which the people of Canada are making to render that route secure, possibly it may result in a general reduction of rates by more companies competing. That being the case, the reduction in insurance means a reduction in freight, and a general benefit to all Canadian shippers and all owners of

2S6S
ships. So 'I would ask the minister what steps he is taking to make thoroughly known the great improvements of the last four or five years, at all points where it may do Canada good.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I intend early this season after the estimates are put through to have some of my officials prepare a complete statement showing exactly what has been done and what is going to be done during the season in order to complete the whole system a year hence. I intend to have that statement carefully prepared and circulated all over the world, so that people the world over may know what Canada is doing to improve the route, and what advantages the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence route offer to shippers.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like the minister to tell us what is the illuminant which he uses and proposes to use in the most modern of his new lighthouses, particularly those that are for a long distance. He has told us that in lighting the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec he is introducing acetylene gas. These light buoys are only to be seen at a comparatively short distance, and I would like to know' what is the latest and most modern illuminant which the minister is using for lights which are expected to be seen forty or fifty miles away.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We intend to use the best. There are two kinds of very powerful lights, one is the petroleum vapour, and the other is acetylene gas under mantle. We use either the one or the other, and sometimes w'e use both kinds.


Herbert Brown Ames: The reason I asked this question was because I had been informed that while the acetylene light is excellent for a comparatively short distance, for lights which need to be seen at a great distance, petroleum vapour has been found to be superior. There is another matter I would like to have explained, that is, in connection with the store holders that the minister uses for his acetylene. I see that this year by T-89 of the Auditor General's Report $136,643.97 were paid to George T. Merwin, of Montreal, for gas holders. This gentleman, I believe, is the agent for the Safety Car Heating and Lighting Company of New York. This money, I suppose, went out of the country. Is it true that none of these articles can be made in Canada, and has the minister any hope to offer us that the time will come before long when any of these goods can be made in Canada? It seems a pity that wre are spending for this one item $136,000 abroad.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The matter is vei'y easily explained. I myself put the same question to my officers when the first order Mr. AMES.
w'as presented to me for approval, and I was informed and I have since confirmed that information that they could not be procured in Canada or in the United States,, that there were only a couple of places in Germany and France, Germany especially w'here they could be obtained because these holders are welded in a certain way and it would require a very large amount of money $150,000 to $200,000 to fit up the plant. I inquired at different places at the Laurentian Works, in Montreal, the Poison Company, in Toronto, and the Bertram Engine Works in Toronto, in fact I inquired all over, in order to see whether it was not possible to procure these holders in Canada, but none of these firms had the plant and they could not be procured here. I may say, that after experimenting there is some one in the business who will I think within a short time be able to furnish these holders to the department but, in the meantime, we have of course to order them where we can get them on the best conditions possible. There is nothing to prevent us buying them here if we can get them.


David Henderson: Before passing away from the item, ' construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation ' I wish to remind the minister of


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of Bronte.


David Henderson: Of Bronte, exactly. I am very glad that the minister remembers so well. It is rather an important place, it has an industrious population and some time ago I drew attention to the fact that it was very desirable to erect on a pier that was being built there, a lighthouse to guide the fishermen on dark nights in the fall of the year towards the harbour. Frequently in pursuing their occupation as fishermen they are kept out in the open lake, and have nothing to direct them to port. A lighthouse could be constructed there at a very moderate expense indeed, of sufficient height to light them home to a place of safety. This light would not need to be kept burning during the whole year, but only for a limited part of the year and it would certainly serve a very excellent purpose. I hope that the minister's memory also recalls the fact that he promised to erect this lighthouse and I also hope that in furtherance of that he will see that during the curent fiscal year this lighthouse is provided. I am sure they will gratefully remember it if it is done. I am not finding fault with the minister for not having this done now, because he explained that he wanted to erect it near the end of the pier. The pier must now be approaching completion, and I am quite sure the minister will make good everything he has said and do for these people what I have asked on several occasions and what he has promised.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must inform the hon. gentleman that as I stated last year tlie reason for tlie delay was the fact that the pier had not been finished and we intended to put the light at the end of the pier. The pier will be completed, 1 hope, before the 1st of July and if it is completed, 1 will promise the hon. gentleman that I will place the matter before the lighthouse board by whom I am led in these matters and in which there is no politics,, and I am quite sure that if it is wanted as the hon. gentleman says he will be satisfied.
To provide for the establishment of Marconi stations, $100,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The explanation is as follows :-
In 1903-4, the sum of $18,847.31 was expended in equipping Marconi stations.
Equipping Fame Point	$ 5,000 00
Equipping Heath Point	 5,000 00
Westingbouse electric generator.. 985 00 Submarine cables and reels.. ..	6,350 00
Freight and other expenses.. ..	1,513 31

In 1904-5, to 30th November, the sum of $29,276.85 has been expended. The expenses consisted in fitting out the steamers ' Minto ' * Stanley ' and Canada ' with wireless apparatus and the expenses of the ships while engaged in the service. The amount expended is as follows :
Fame Point station	$ 5,000 00
Cape Race station	
5,000	00Cape Ray station	
5,000	00
Apparatus for ' Stanley' and
'Minto'	
3,106	42Labour at Belle Isle	
1,992	00Building station at Belle Isle..	2,547	21Wages of men employed at stations and expenses of 'Stanley' and ' Minto '	
6,631	22

The sum of $55,000 will be required to be put in the estimates for the new Marconi stations which have been contracted for at Cape Rich, Newfoundland, and Whittle Rocks and Seal Island and Partridge Island, also increasing from low power to high power stations, to allow communication between Fame Point and Heath Point; Heath Point and Cape Ray; Heath Point and Whittle Rocks; Whittle Rocks and Cape Rich; and Cape Rich and Point Amour, and Seal Island and Partridge Island. Also to allow for a day and night service between said stations.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the Marconi contract was entered into by the government, if I am rightly informed, it was provided that if it should not prove to be a success the government should have the opportunity of withdrawing from the contract. Evidently 92
it has been regarded as a success because the department are now asking a vote to continue the stations already established, and to establish new ones. I would like the minister to let us know how generally the shipping inerests are equipping the vessels which come into the gulf with that apparatus which may render it possible for them to transmit messages to the stations of the Canadian government. It is a very important feature of the situation, inasmuch as while we may expend money in equipping stations it is absolutely necessary that the shipping interests should on parallel lines equip their ships, and unless they do so the expenditure on the part of the Dominion government will be more or less abortive.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They have been very satisfactory. Six of the Allan boats have been fully equipped and the Allan Company have testified to the advantage of these stations. I think these stations are very important and necessary and they will be especially valuable in the spring of the year.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: How many land stations are equipped and how many do you propose to equip 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The following have been equipped. Fame Point, Heath Point, Point Armour, Belle Isle, Cape Ray and Cape Race. It is proposed to equip stations at Point Riche, Cape Whittle, Halifax, Sable Island, Seal Island and Partridge Island.


Mr. OSLER.: Had we not some special agreement with the Marconi Company ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was with regard to a special station for transmission of messages across the Atlantic.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The government, as I understand it, were to receive some special consideration on account of that contract.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is not in my department, but I think it was agreed that we should have the benefit of all the improvements that Marconi made as well as special rates on messages.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We must have had more than that for a payment of $80,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What government vessels are equipped with the Marconi system ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The * Minto,' the ' Stanley ' and the * Canada.'


Herbert Brown Ames: Do they receive special rates?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We merely have to pay the cost of the installation on each of the ships which amount to $1,550.


Herbert Brown Ames: Marconi is a young man and a very live inventor ; I would like to know whether there is any provision in the contract which gives us tlie use of the

.2871

new inventions which he may make from time to time ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is provided for in the contract.
To provide for submarine signalling bell. $70,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The shore stations are to be located as follows : South Point Anticosti, Cape Rosier, P.Q., Matane, P.Q., Beaver Island, N.S., and Scatterie, N.S., and the submarine bell buoy stations at Negro Head, N.S., Beetson Rock, N.S., Brazil Rock,
N.S., and Little Hope, N.S.
5 plants for electric shore stations. $15,000 10 electric submarine bells at $1,050. 10,500 30,000 ft. specially designed cable
at 331c	 10,000
30 tripod bell anchorages at $600. .	18,000
4 submarine bell buoys at $2,500..	10,000
Cost of installation, anchors, &c.	6,500
Total	$70,000
None of these installations have yet been made but the first clause of the contract says :
The said company hereby bind and oblige their heirs, executors and administrators, and they hereby promise, covenant and agree to install on board any lightship or Dominion steamer, or at or near any lightship or upon any buoy or at any station in the waters of Canada, as may be required by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, their submarine warning signal, in a complete and perfect state, with all improvements that may be made by the said company from time to time, and shall provide all patent attachments, comprised in the said submarine warning signal and its apparatus during the terms of this agreement.
The contract hats been laid on the table of the House. This signal bell system was studied by the officers of my department as far back as 1903 and my attention was drawn to it by the owners of the largest steamship lines plying the St. Lawrence. The officers of the department were present at some experiments with which they were perfectly satisfied. The apparatus consists of sinking a bell in the water at a depth of 8 or 9 feet which can be wrung by electricity, and by means of the receiver on board a ship-something like a telephone- the bell can be heard up to a distance of ten miles in some instances. The bell rings in storms and fogs and can be distinctly heard in the pilot-house of the ship, giving an indication as to whether it is on the starboard or port side and also the location of the particular bell which is heard, so that the position of the ship can be exactly ascertained. I had an opportunity of being present, together with the Messrs. Allan amongst others, at an experiment made between Boston and New York in connection with this apparatus, and it was found to work very satisfactorily.
After this last experiment the parties interested began negotiating with the depart-Mr. AMES.
ment for the installation of the apparatus. It took a good deal of time for us to come to an agreement, but at last we came to an agreement, which is the foundation of this contract. None of the apparatus is installed at the present moment, but we have contracted to install a certain number. There is in the report of the Department of Marine a very complete report on this subject. The bargain made is a pretty good bargain, the best that could be made under the circumstances. The parties have made a similar contract with the American government, the terms of which are not at all as favourable as those which we have obtained. In order to guard against our paying too dear for the use of the apparatus, it was provided in the contract that they could not charge Canada any more than any other country, so that if they were going to give the apparatus to other countries at a cheaper rate than to Canada, they would be obliged to reduce the rate to us. The following report shows what has been done in the United States :
Submarine signalling in United States.
By permissive arrangement with the United States government submarine bells had been installed on the following United States' lightships, viz. :
Sandy Hook, Fire Island, Nantucket Shoal, Cornfield Point, Brenton's Reef, Vineyard Sound, Pollock Rip, Pollock Rip Shoals, Boston, Cape Elizabeth.
These bells are operated under service conditions on the lightships. The Submarine Signal Company state that Appropriation Bills which recently passed the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed by the President, contained items for fog signals, $210,000. Submarine signalling being especially mentioned.
In addition to the above, the Naval Bill carries $3,000,000, any part of which is applicable to submarine signal work.
The department is further informed that Admiral Mauney is to begin the installation at once of receiving apparatus on the United States warships, and includes also sound producing with the Morse alphabet code as well as the receiving apparatus.
The department is informed that the appropriations having passed, the details of the arrangement are now in the hands of the United States Lighthouse Board.
The Submarine Signal Company has concluded a contract with the North German Lloyd's Steamship Company to install the receiving apparatus on 122 steamships. Contracts have also been concluded with the Hamburg American Line, the Metropolitan Steamship Line, the steam pilot boats of the harbours of Boston and New York, SS. ' Indian ' of the Philadelphia Line, and J. Pierpont Morgan's yacht ' Corsair.'
The Canadian Pacific Railway have authorized the installation of receivers on their ships.
The maximum rental charged to Canadian ships is $500 per ship per year. In the contract with the North German Lloyd the maximum rental may be $850 per ship per year.
So tbat we have made a pretty good bargain. I would refer the committee to the report of the Commissioner of Lights, pub-fished in the report of the Department of

Marine, on pages 63, 64 and 65. Before entering into another contract, the department and myself took the precaution of consulting the shipping interests, and I took part in a meeting of the Ohambre de Commerce and the Board of Trade of Montreal, held on the 30th of May, 1904. We had made no contract at that time, but X thought it was necessary to consult the people interested. I quote from the 62nd annual report, page 10:
Aids to Navigation in River and Gulf.
Submarine signal bells.-Your council very *willingly arranged, at the suggestion of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for a special general meeting of the board on 30th May, for the purpose of affording an opportunity to Commander Spain of the Marine Department to explain the working of the submarine signal bells which the minister proposes to place at danger points throughout the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The meeting was also attended, on the invitation of the council, by the president and several members of La Cham-bre de Commerce. The Hon. Mr. Prefontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Commander Spain and Mr. J. F. Fraser of the department, addressed the meeting with regard to the proposed installation of these signal bells, and upon the conclusion of the addresses the following resolution moved by Mr. Robert Munro, your second vice-president, and seconded by Mr. H. A. A. Brault, president of La Chambre de Commerce, was carried by acclamation :
Resolved, that the thanks of this meeting of members of the Montreal Board of Trade and of La Chambre de Commerce du District de Montreal, are hereby accorded to the Hon. Raymond Prefontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for having visited this board to address this gathering with regard to the proposed action of his department, in placing at danger points in the river and gulf the submarine signal bell system, and that Commander Spain and Mr. J. F. Fraser, commissioner of lights, are also thanked for their interesting and instructive explanation of that system.
That the minister is congratulated upon the lively interest he has manifested in the work of safeguarding the St. Lawrence route, by providing aids to navigation in the shape of lights, buoys, &c., and that it is believed that the installation of the submarine signal bell system will be a very efficient additional means to that end.
That this meeting hereby presses upon the Dominion government the urgent need of prosecuting most energetically all works in connection with making the St. Lawrence, as the national waterway of this country, safe for night and day navigation, so that disasters to shipping may be avoided and the reduction of marine insurance rates be secured.
The department went on with their negotiations with the proprietors of the system, and finally, towards the end of August, the contract was signed. Now, we want to go on with a part of the work, and that is the reason this item is put in the estimates.


Mr. DANIEL.: I understand that the ' Lurcher ' lightship is to have one of these bells. That lightship is stationed at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, at a place 92i
where, when it is foggy, the lightship is enveloped in fog, and I thought that if the minister were favourable, it would be a good plan to place one of these receivers on board the largest pilot boat crossing those waters. The pilot boats are cruising in those waters all the time, and I think that, as the whole matter is in the experimental stage, it might be well to place one of these receivers on board a large pilot boat which is cruising in these waters all the time, and you would get more information in that way than by means of the steamer 1 Lansdowne' which is supplied with a receiver. The largest pilot boat is sixty-five tons, and the pilots on board are very particular about keeping regular log statements of all occurrences. I would like the hon. minister to put one of these receivers on the largest pilot boat cruising right in the very place where the lightship is located.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I shall certainly take a note of my hon. friend's suggestion. We are awaiting to see the results of our experiment and will try to get the best system installed.


Mr. BARKER.: I see by the papers brought down theat the department has entered into two contracts with this signal company-one on the 8th August 1904, and the other on the 10th August 1904. What is the meaning of these two contracts ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: One is for the signal and one for the receiver. They will be both in operation. The two appliances are to be put on the two boats, the ' Minto ' and the ' Stanley.' The others are to be installed at the different stations.


Samuel Barker: I understand that the hon. minister has entered into one contract under which he pays a royalty of $2,000 for each station where this appliance is used. The royalty ends at a certain time when he has paid $100,000 in all.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When we will
have installed 50.


Samuel Barker: That means $100,000. But in addition I understand the minister pays for the cost of that apparatus itself plus 25 per cent.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On the installation in the ships.


Samuel Barker: But in addition to that, does he not pay for the cost of putting it in ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We pay for the receivers on board the ship the same price as other ships pay.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking for the lighthouse where the bell is put. You pay $2,000 royalty and also the cost plus 25 per cent of the bell itself.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Samuel Barker: The other agreement, I presume, refers to the charges for the receiver, putting it on board the ship ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Exactly.


Samuel Barker: I would like to know for what term this contract is entered into 7 I can quite understand that where you pay a royalty the term is of no consequence. You pay the royalty once for all, but you also pay a sum per annum in connection with the apparatus itself.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We pay an annuity for the use of the receiver on the ship.


Samuel Barker: For what term have you entered into the contract 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No term.


Samuel Barker: The language of the contract is during the term of this agreement, and I cannot find any term provided for.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no term.


Samuel Barker: You trust to each other's interest to keep good friends. I see in the
correspondence that the minister informed Mr. Whitney, of Boston, that the department was in communication with the British Admiralty about this apparatus. There is nothing to show what the result of that correspondence was. Will the minister be good enough to tell us 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We just informed the British Admiralty of what we were doing.


Samuel Barker: Did you never get an answer 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ordinary acknowledgment.


Samuel Barker: They never communicated to you whether they considered the thing favourably or not 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They did not express an opinion. The only correspondence that exists, as far as I can remember, later was the communication from Lord Strathcona asking us for a report. This report was required by some British colonies which wanted to know how the system was working and what Wfe thought of it. As it had not been installed we could not very well give an opinion.


Samuel Barker: You have had no confirmation of you own judgment ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have it from what the United States are doing at present.


Samuel Barker: In February last it appears that in several lighthouses on the coast of Massachusetts it was installed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was an experiment which was conducted at the cost of the inventors at the time. They continued the experiment between Boston and Mr. PREFONTAINE.
New York, and lately they have succeeded so well as to convince the American government of the advantages of the system and the American government has Increased the number and made contracts with their different lines of steamers.


Samuel Barker: Is that recently 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the course of the last season.


Samuel Barker: In the minister's report
to Council at page 25, he says :
Thirty stations will be required for the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic seaboard, and it has been estimated that the cost of equipping these stations will be $5,000 more or less according to location.
How is that $5,000 made up 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If you install a bell in a lightship, it will not cost $5,000 to install the system on board the lightship or at a convenient place where we have already a lighthouse. At certain points it is necessary to put up special buildings for the apparatus ; we have to make special landings and so on. That will make the difference in the cost. But we cannot say that it will cost a certain sum at any particular station.


Samuel Barker: That apparatus would not cost anything like $5,000, would it 7


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; but some large buildings must be erected to put in the machinery to produce the electricity. There are places where there is special exposure to the sea, and more or less expense must be incurred in the construction of the building. It'depends also on how far you are going to carry the bells on shore.


Samuel Barker: That would not be very material. It was the equipping of that station that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prfi-fontaine) said would cost $5,000. And this Order in Council is dated August 10th, the very day of the contract. I have been trying to find out what that means. The ^report to Council says there are to be about thirty stations, and they are to cost $5,000 each. But I rather gather that the cost will really be some hundreds of dollars for each sta tion-something less than $1,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the Order in Council. But the contract does not read that way. The contract reads that there is to be $2,000 for royalty.


Samuel Barker: But the royalty would not be part of the cost of equipment.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We put it all the same, and we calculated that the stations would cost about $5,000 each to complete, and in the contract we have provided how this $5,000 shall be spent. There is to be $2,000 royalty and 25 per cent on the cost of whatever machinery they furnish us. And then there is to be added whatever else

may be expended for machinery and for necessary buildings.


Samuel Barker: I gather that the cost of the apparatus is about $500. Add 25 per cent to that, then allow $2,000 royalty, and you have a total of about $2,600 for the apparatus. If you allow $150 for the men going to the station and installing the plant you will get not more than $2,800 altogether. I do not see where the $5,000 comes in.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We do not know the number of men required for the installation in each case. Of course, while we allow $5,000, if we can get off with an expenditure of $3,000 or $3,500, so much the better.


Samuel Barker: I again call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the Order in Council. This is of the same date as the contract. Going carefully through the contract, I find that that $600 is the cost of the apparatus, about $150 will be the cost of putting it in and $2,000 will be the allowance for royalty. There is nothing about buildings or anything of that kind.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But if the hon. gentleman will refer to the contract he will see that the words are very clear. It may not be clear in the Order in Council, but it is clear in the contract.


Samuel Barker: The contract no doubt followed the report to Council at the interval of not more than a few days.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Although the Order in Council may bear the same date as the contract, the report to Council may have been made long before.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps a week.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To my knowledge, the matter was studied a long time before the Order in Council was passed and the contract authorized.


Herbert Brown Ames: It has been explained that this system comprises a receiver, which is in the hold of the steamer, and a transmitter, which is really the submarine bell. These two parts are both absolutely necessary ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: The government have taken the initiative and are prepared to spend $150,000 in placing these submarine bells at dangerous points. I would like to know if the minister took precautions to secure guarantees or promises on the part of general shipping that they would supply themselves with the necessary transmitters, so that the invention might be fully useful, or whether it was left entirely to the initiative and energy of the inventor ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We exacted the condition that they should secure the acceptance of at least thirty receivers, and unless this is done we will not undertake it.


Herbert Brown Ames: That was one of the conditions of the contract-that at least thirty ships should be equipped with the receiver, outside of the ships of the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Fisheries-Salaries and disbursements for fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $110,000.


Richard Blain: Has the minister brought down the report of Captain Salmon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A very interesting document, not so much for the hon. gentleman as for his colleague from Montreal (Mr. Ames). The document is rather lengthy, and I do not think it is necessary to read it. But I will read the answer of one of the most respectable officers that this department has ever had in its employ, Mr. Douglas Stevens, of St. John. He was appointed under the former government, and was kept on by the present government until last December, when he died. Mr. Stevens was the special officer appointed by the department to look after the construction of boats that were built for the department. He was sent half a dozen times, I think, to England to visit various navy yards, and to look after works of very great importance. In this case he was sent to superintend the work of construction of the ' Lurcher ' lightship, which was installed on the shoal opposite Yarmouth. He did not please Mr. Salmon. When Mr. Salmon was detailed to put the * Lurcher ' on the shoal he disobeyed the orders of the department with regard to the proper moor* ing of the vessel. He came back with art extraordinary report, blaming everybody and everything. In answer to that report Mr. Stevens addressed the following answer to the deputy minister :
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your leter of the 19th instant, inclosing copy of a report from Captain Salmon on ' Lurcher ' lightship in which he reflects strongly on my inspection in connection with the building of this vessel, and also virtually censures the department itself for certain parts of the plans and specifications. In my reply I will take the various items in Captain Salmon's report in rotation.
In the first place, as Colonel Anderson's letter of January 23rd clearly defined the purpose for which Captain Salmon came to Halifax, namely, to take the 'Lurcher' lightship out to her station and requesting me to assist him in facilitating the work in this respect, I therefore did not see the necessity of discussing with him all the details of the repairs to this vessel, which in his report he states I had done, but took him through the vessel, and merely explained matters generally to him and informed him of the difficulties I had ex-

perieneed in getting work done at all because of the severe weather. I also expressed to him my anxiety to get the vessel in a fit condition to proceed to her station at the earliest possible moment.
Captain Salmon's opinion as to my supervision of these repairs and of the repairs themselves would be of some value if he himself were capable of forming an opinion upon technical work of this character. I hope to show, before this reply to his report is closed, that this is another case where a little superficial knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that Captain Salmon is actuated either by spleen against myself for some reason that I cannot explain or that he has been prompted to write out this report by other people who might think that it might be to their advantage to have me censured, or that he considered this a good opportunity for self glorification at my expense, and through his not being familiar with the plans and specifications to which the ' Lurcher ' was built at the exepense of the department as well. Whether you are aware of the fact or not, the rumour has since Captain Salmon's appearance on this vessel at Halifax, got spread abroad that the government has been victimized by having a very poorly designed and built vessel handed over to them, rumours which are entirely false, and which would never have arisen except through ignorance of the elementary principles of ship building, and a painful want of discretion on the part of some party or parties unknown, who gave rise to them. (See Captain Salmon's telegram from Yarmouth, February 3rd). The impression that a person unacquainted with the facts would gather from Captain Salmons's report is that by dint of great personal exertions on his part he got the ship ready for sea in fifteen working hours from his arrival, whereas all he actually did was to rush some provisions aboard at night in heavy rain and borrow a length of hose to fill the water tanks. With reference to Captain Salmon's remark about Captain Tinling's report that I held back the ship for a day, I would say that this was done to accommodate Commander Tin-ling, who informed me that the weather yvas not suitable for swinging a ship to adjust compasses. Long before Captain Salmon came, I pointed out to Mr. Hutchens that the electric mast head lamps could not be used for oil lamps, and if oil lamps were required they would have to be provided. I gave him every facility, assistance and information regarding the lights, fog signals, &c., to be published for notice to mariners. With regard to the statement about the provisions, I neither know nor had anything to do with this matter, which matters I considered to be best left to the agent and Captain Larkin. Had I permitted Captain Larkin to have his state-room quarters refitted in the extravagant and expensive manner he contemplated, there would have been nothing heard about the carpenter's so-called bad work. The statement that everybody employed on the vessel was endeavouring to spin out the job as long as possible is a disgrace to the man who made it.
I flatly deny his statement that X omitted to test rivets and would say that had I been at Yarmouth, not one of the so-called defective rivets would have been removed from her bows, nor stem, nor would the ship have gone to Yarmouth on any such paltry excuse, and any practical man knows that if you start cutting Mr. PREFONTAINE.
out rivets, the work must be recaulked; further, any man accustomed to this class of work knows well that he can take a hand hammer and with a pretense of testing, make as many slack rivets as ever he likes in countersunk work. If, as he states, additional rivets were put in the stem, he has weakened the stem at that point to the extent of the material cut out, as all the riveting in the stem, as well as in the other parts of the ship was strictly in accordance with Lloyd's rules.
With reference to his remarks about the steamer being badly strained, I can only say that such was not the case when the vessel left Halifax. Putting cement in the bows only adds weight where it is most hurtful without adding a particle of strength.
The fitting of an ejector, which I suppose he means instead of what he calls an injector, was totally unnecessary in the forepeak as there is a pump provided in the vessel for draining that part of the vessel by means of a hose.
If Captain Salmon allowed the vessel to go to sea from Yarmouth with a badly strained stem, plastered up with cement,, he has incurred a grave responsibility.
The five unfilled holes were never intended for rivets, but were for the deck planking holts which extended beyond the breakwater, and I am satisfied that those were the holes that permitted the water to reach the forepeak. The other items referred to in the paragraph from which I have been quoting, are too trivial to need any comment.
I will now endeavour to answer Mr. Salmon's statements about my gross carelessness.
The hawse pipe fitted for the harbour anchor was made precisely from the drawings furnished by the department, and the anchor which came from England just before the ship was rushed aivay from Toronto, was discovered to be too large, only as the vessel was leaving the wharf, and there was not time to remedy it, but a larger hawse pipe was sent to Halifax by the builders and fitted there, and I am satisfied myself that the anchor came in through the hawse pipe.
In all my short experience of about thirty-five years constantly among steamboats, I never yet saw a pump rigged over the bows to get the anchor pulled out.
Captain Salmon has already expressed his opinion that the strained bow and so-called defective rivets was due to butting the ice on voyage from Toronto to Halifax, and such being the case, I' fail to see how I could be expected to discover them at Toronto, whether asleep or awake.
How does he know that the bulkheads were not water tight when he never tested them ? I am quite satisfied that they are. In vessels with open bilges, no double bottom, and no cargo, air and sounding pipes are only useless lumber.
Captain Salmon's remarks with reference to the stem being in three pieces are entirely wrong, and the stem, so far from being weakened by the way it is put together (Mr. Salmon's valuable opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding) is much stronger at the joint than at any other part of the stem, as great care was taken in making it so, and further, before this was done, a sketch was submitted to the department and approval was obtained.
Mr. Salmon's criticism of the department for consenting to substituting two large tanks incorporated into the structure of the ship, in-

stead of twelve tanks, is more amusing than instructive, and is only a further illustration of the amateurish manner in which this gentleman has taken upon himself the responsibility of criticising and depreciating this vessel.
If he were acquainted with only the elementary principles of hydraulics, or were even aware of the practice prevalent in the British navy, up to a very recent period, he would know that a loose weight of water free to move in a water chamber on board ship has exactly the opposite tendency to what he thinks, for instead of tending to cause the ship to roll, it acts as a brake and prevents rolling. If Captain Salmon has any doubts on this subject, I would refer him to White's ' Naval Architecture.' This book only costs five dollars, and it will afford him much interesting and profitable study.
With reference to the quarter pipes, all those called for in the plans and specifications are provided as required, and any seaman should know enough to serve the ropes with parcelling where they pass through chocks and are liable to chafe.
1 must plead guilty to Captain Salmon's, charge that there are no deck houses provided on the vessel, but as such are not called for by the plans and specifications, this is a direct criticism of the department, not of me.
With reference to man-holes in tanks, it may be impossible for Captain Salmon to find means of access to the insides of these tanks, but it is quite easy for any one to do so who has a mind to look.
The men's bunks were put up according to plans, but proved rather narrow, and I had them widened before Captain Salmon put in an appearance. His opinion about the heating arrangements is not very valuable, as I lived on board with thermometer ten degrees below zero and did not find any inconvenience.
Captain Salmon's statement about the hatches being big enough to receive the boilers is another reflection upon the plans and specifications.
As to his remark that a carpenter should bo a permanent member of the crew', this is only in accordance with a suggestion I had already made to the department and also to Captain Salmon. How could he have expected the boats holding the reversing gear bracket to break, when he had never seen them ?
During a trying voyage full speed from Toronto to Summerside, Prince Edward Island, I found a means of getting rid of all the ashes without the aid of the ash ejector, or a hole in the deck which would be both dangerous and detrimental, and I think Captain Salmon went beyond his instructions in giving such an order. I fail to understand this remark that all the ports in the ship are put in wrong. Stronger or better sidelights were never put in a ship, and moreover, they are put in properly. As for the five ports in the neighbourhood of the water line, they are placed in accordance with the plans and have already gone through more ice, to my perfect satisfaction, than they are ever likely to meet again, and this without even the covers on.
(Captain Salmon does not appear to be aware that a large number of first-class ocean liners have at least one tier of sidelights submerged *when the vessel is deep-loaded.
It was no discovery of Captain Salmon's that the contact breaker was too slow, and ample provision had previously been made to take care of the defect. The device was in accordance
with plans, but I am having another device prepared, and will submit it to the department in due time, so -that we will not have a repetition of this difficulty on the other vessel.
No hand rails were called for in the saloon by the specification, but the builders fitted, them, thinking they would be useful.
I was unaware that Captain Salmon was a marine engineer as well as master of a vessel, as his remarks regarding exhausting of auxiliary engines into hot well would imply. Would it surprise Captain Salmon to learn )(in spite, of his statement to the contrary) that none of the auxiliary engines on the ' Lurcher ' do exhaust into the hot well. Consequently it will be unnecessary in this case to take the benefit of his past experience and break the connection with the hot well.
Captain Salmon's criticism of the plans and specifications can best be dealt with by the department. No departure from them has been made, without the consent of the department, and every change which has been made has been a great improvement to the ship, which any practical man must admit.
Captain Salmon's opinion with respect to the propelling machinery of the vessel is about of equal value with the rest of his assertions. In this connection I would simply ask if the boilers were reversed, where would he have his smoke boxes, and how would he sponge his tubes. It really seems a great waste of time to have to reply to such ridiculous criticisms.
The compass arrangements are all in accordance with specifications and plans. If they do not happen to suit Captain Salmon's ideas so much the worse for Captain Salmon, and it has nothing whatever to do with a marine engineer being appointed inspector of a captain.
As a rule, captains of ships know practically nothing about the technical construction of a ship anywhere below the rail, and I think that this reply to his report show's that he is no exception to the rule.
Captain Salmon takes ten lines of closely typewritten matter to describe to the department that a saloon chair capsized between Halifax and Yarmouth, an important event *which he was not on board to witness.
Will Captain Salmon kindly point out which is the out-of-the-way corner in which the large filtering grounds could be placed practically and connected to deck and tanks. With regard to Captain Salmon's report about the frames in the stem (bow ?) being flared, by which I presume he means bevelled, I w'ould say that this is another instance of a ship master trying to express an opinion about matters which he does not understand. He is apparently trying to show that the vessel would be better constructed if built with camp frames instead of square. Somebody has evidently been posting him, but he has not quite got on to the idea Camp frames are sometimes used, but only in extremely bluff-bowed ships and not in the case of vessels of ' Lurcher's ' type. It would be very interesting to have Captain Salmon point out how he would deal with the frame at the collision bulkhead if his idea were carried out.
Captain Salmon is evidently of the opinion that the policy of the present government in fostering the building of steel ships in Canada is all wrong, but fortunately for this country, those who are at the head of affairs think differently. I am personally satisfied, and can prove that the ' Lurcher,' so far as her hull is concerned at any rate, is stronger, and in work-

manship can stand comparison with the best of our latest importations from the old country.
I hare no desire to make any comment upon Captain Salmon's criticism of the captain or *chief officer.
As to the engineer, he was recommended to me by Mr. Roche, M.P., and beyond this recommendation I knew nothing further about Mr. Chapman, nor on inquiry could I find any one to say a word against him.
_ The galley was built according to plans and is evidently big enough for the boats built in the United States. I have seen galleys no larger where they were, able to cook for 150 men.
There is no connection between any of the fresh tanks and the sea by which salt water could get ingress, and if any salt water got in, it got there by carelessness through the filter pipes from the upper deck.
The department is already aware of the condition in which the ' Lurcher ' left Toronto and the anxiety on the part of all concerned to get the ship on her station for the benefit of navigation, and some things had to be left undone until such time as she got to her moorings. In fine weather, with the assistance of a carpenter for a while, and the work of the engineers on board, any work left unfinished could be completed without any trouble.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
DOUGLAS STEVENS, Inspector of government steamers.
F. GOURDEAU, Esq.
Deputy Minister of
Marine and Fisheries.
That is the letter of Mr. Douglas Stevens inspector of government steamers. I would not stoop so low as to put this man named Salmon alongside of Mr. Stevens for respectability, honesty, intelligence and honourable life and conduct. I hope the committee will understand that in a matter of this kind I have no preference for one or the ether, but from what I know of Mr. Douglas Stevens-a gentleman who does not belong to our political party, but who is a faithful and loyal officer not only of this government but of the former government-I think there is no further comment to make.


Richard Blain: The minister has read the statement of an officer of his department condemning another officer.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Answering the other officer.
_ Mr. BLAIN. Does not the minister think it fair that he should read the statement of the other official so that the committee may have an opportunity of judging between them ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The document is on the table of the House and anybody can take communication of it and read it. For my part I would not undertake to read it because the party I have mentioned, Salmon has never answered Mr. Stevens letter ; he never dared to answer it.


Mr. BLAIN  .@: The minister has changed his mind very much since last year about Mr. PREFONTAINE.
Captain Salmon. The minister told us last year that he proposed to make certain changes in his department and that not only had he gone all over Canada for a competent officer to take charge of this branch of the department, but he had gone to the old country as well and found Captain Salmon there. The minister should give us some reasons for changing his mind.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The explanation is very simple and I have already given it two or three times to the House. I was left under the impression that this officer was competent and that he was a loyal trustworthy man in whom we should have confidence. But I discovered personally as well as from the facts that come to my knowledge in the department, that he was not at all worthy of the confidence that was placed in him. Mistakes of that kind will happen. I on may take a man into your employment on the recommendation of others and you may give that man your implicit confidence, but to your regret he may turn out to be a perfect and a regular blackguard.


Richard Blain: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have admitted, and I will admit it again and again that I was grossly deceived. From what I know now of the individual he should never have entered into the service of the department.


Mr. INGRAM.: Does the minister mean that Captain Salmon was incompetent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In every way.


Samuel Barker: I wish the minister and the committee to understand that I am not in the least opposing the use of this bell apparatus for which a vote is here asked. I believe that double the money might be well spent if the apparatus is likely to be successful ; but the minister knows the skill with which persons who are introducing patent inventions manage to get them taken up by government departments or other people. In this case I understand that three lighthouses on the Massachusetts coast were fitted up with this instrument and that the minister was asked to inspect these. That is the usual course ; the minister is told that the invention has been adopted and the minister in good faith thinks it is all right and he also takes it up. Then the inventor goes to Washington and tells the people there that the Canadian Minister of Marine has taken it up and that he is in communication with the British Admiralty.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: It is a great honour to me if there should be so much talk in Washington.


Samuel Barker: Not too great a one. The inventor gets it into the minds of the people that everybody is after this invention. Now, it may be a very good one, an excellent one, but when the minister is asking authority to order fifty stations to be equipped with it, and every station he equips will mean a royalty of $2,000 in addition to paying a charge for the thing itself, for its Installation, and for the receivers on the vessels of the government and the vessels of the public that are to use it, I think we are entitled to inquire carefully into it. I have no suspicion on the matter at all ; but I think it is right, before we enter into the expenditure under these circumstances, that we should use a little care and perhaps a little criticism on the subject. Now, I find, in looking over the correspondence, that the hon. gentleman made a report to Council on the 10th of August, and in that report he refers to a previous report of his own of the 8th of July. That previous report is not among the papers. I do not ask that it be produced; I shall be quite content if the hon. gentleman can say what the nature of it was. In that report the hon. gentleman submitted to Council that it was advisable that special officers of the department should be sent to report upon this invention; but I do not find among the papers produced a single reference to such a report. When we are spending so much money. I do think we ought to know not only that the minister recommended such an investigation, but that it took place, and what the officers said about it. That is the only question I want
to ask in addition to those which I have already asked. I do not say this with the slightest intention of interfering with the use of this appliance. I shall hope that it will be a successful one, and if it is, it will be of the utmost value to the country.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to look at page 67 of the report of the Marine branch of the department, he would have seen that we took all the necessary precautions to ascertain the value of the invention. That report says :-
On behalf of the Shipping Federation of Canada, Captain Archibald Reid, port warden for Montreal and surveyor to Lloyd's Register, London, reported :
The submarine signal apparatus is easily understood and manipulated by any person who will devote his attention to it. At 8.40 a.m. heard the sound of the bell on the Vineyard Sound lightship, which at first was somewhat faint to my untrained ear, and appeared to he mingled with the whirr and swash of the sea alongside the vessel, but it soon became very distinct, and louder and louder until it was abeam of the vessel at 9.05 a.m., when it gradually became fainter ; the sound was so plain that all the gentlemen in the room that were standing near me heard the sound passing all through the receivers which I was holding to my ears. When approaching the lightship, the steamer was manoeuvred so as to bring it on both bows, its bearing and location was almost accurately ascertained by the manipulation of the transmitters ; this was done at all the stations where the bells are placed. The time elapsed was twenty-five minutes from the time I first heard the bell till it was abeam (verified by the men and officers outside as I could not see the vessel.) The speed of the vessel was fifteen knots per hour, she therefore must have been from six to six and a half miles off when first the sound was heard.
At 4.15 a.m., when trying the instrument the writer heard another bell on the ss. ' Herman Winter.' This vessel is fitted with a bell in the forepeak which gives four strokes at intervals sounded by machinery. At 4.22 a.m. he passed abeam, elapsed time seven minutes, both vessels going about fifteen knots, so that she must have been about two and a half miles off when the bell was first heard. I heard the bell on the starboard bow (she was expected to be sighted on the port bow). Shortly after the green light was reported on the starboard bow, she crossed to port, the observer detecting the change.
At 7.43 a.m. we heard the bell on the Pollock Rip shoal right ahead or nearly so, striking 7.3. Seven and then three strokes. At 8.12 a.m. Pollock Rip shoal lightship abeam, time elapsed twenty-nine minutes, or about seven miles distant when first the sound of the hell was heard.
Besides that, I heard it myself.


Samuel Barker: Is that a report from the hon. gentleman's officers?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No. Captain Reid is not one of my officers ; he is a port warden of the port of Montreal; he is a Can-

adian public officer. If the bells do not work, there Is no payment.


Mr.   BAKKEE@: If you order fifty of these, you will pay $100,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, not a cent unless they work. It is after the proof of the pudding that we pay for it.


Samuel Barker: I would like to point out with regard to this matter that a gentleman on this side of the House moved for all papers relating to it. Now, I find, in reading these papers, and I have read them with a good deal of care, not for the purpose of finding fault, but merely trying to do my duty, that a report of a particular date was referred to by the minister, and he refers to an inquiry by his own officers. I do not criticise him for using the officers of another department; but it is not fair to members of the House that important reports appearing in blue books should form part of this matter, and that no reference should be made to them in this return. My attention was called to some of the words the hon. gentleman read.
Some of the sentences he read are almost identical with the report made by an American agent to another company with reference to the same inquiry, and I thought that perhaps it was the same report. I, of course, accept the hon. minister's assurance but the coincidence is a strange one.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I hope that the hon. gentleman does not imagine that any of our officers could have copied some other reports. 1 am aware myself personally, having followed this thing from the beginning, that anything done in this matter was done above board and not at the suggestion of any one; and everybody who knows Mr. Whitney, of Boston, knows he is not a gentleman who would try to impose upon any government or corporation anything which was not perfectly right and honourable.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman says he has looked into this matter personally from the beginning. He will not deny that other members have a duty to perform just as well as he has. I would like to read an answer which the hon. minister gave to a question put last year on this subject. Before six o'clock I read from the hon. gentleman's own report that he told his colleagues in Council some time last year that the installations would cost about $5,000 a piece. We see now the cost is $2,800 or $2,900 each including all the expenses. Would he allow me to quote from Hansard of 28th April, 1904, page 2187 :


Mr. KAULBACH.: Has the government purchased from a Boston firm or company a number of submarine signals ? If so, how many have been obtained ? At what price ? On whose recommendation were these submarine signals Mr. PREFONTAINE.
purchased ? In what countries are they in use, and to what extent ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, three had been ordered. Cost $1,200 each. On rhe recommendation of the deputy minister, the commander of the marine service and Uie commissioner of lights.
These are the reports which we would like to see.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are all published.


Samuel Barker: I do not know whether the reports the hon. gentleman has mentioned are the reports of those three particular officers. We have had a jump from $1,200 to $5,000, and now the price is $2,800.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In April, 1904, this matter was yet under study and the question of purchasing some of the system meant those which should he used on hoard of our steamers and not those that were to bje installed. Those that were to be installed could not cost less than the amount mentioned. It only meant those that were to be used as receivers on hoard the steamers. Instead of purchasing three we only purchased two-one for the ' Stanley ' and one for the ' Minto.' All this information is in the report of the Marine Department which was laid on the table at the beginning of the session. Surely I cannot be expected to repeat the same reports. The other day a return was asked of certain papers. We produced the papers asked for and again another motion was carried asking for the same papers which had already been produced. We ,put on the table a document stating that by reference to the return already produced on such a date, all the information asked for could be obtained.


Samuel Barker: There is no reference here to the blue-book.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The blue-books are in the hands of everybody.


Samuel Barker: You might as well refer us to the Encyclopedia Britannica.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If bon. gentlemen would take the trouble to read the blue-books, they would get more benefit from them than from reading the Auditor General's Report.


Mr.   BDAIN@: In the report of Captain Salmon there are some very important statements which require some explanation from the minister. Captain Salmon says :
I had to call Mr. Stevens' attention to the slackness displayed by the carpenter employed. There were a considerable number of these men on board, and as far as I could see they did little more than put in time, and all the work that had been done by these men was disgracefully bad. By dint of continual supervision and constantly urging the men, the repairs were effected in time for her to sail on Wednes-

day the 26th June, and Mr. Douglas Stevens said that everything was tight and seaworthy in the hull and all the engines in good working condition.
This is a very serious reflection on the employees in the hon. gentleman's department. We should have some statement from the minister either admitting the truth of the report or denying it. Then Captain Salmon goes on to say :
I could not help seeing that everybody employed on the vessel was endeavouring to spin out the job as long as possible.
This is an important statement. The ' Lurcher ' is a new vessel, constructed in Toronto by the Poison Company, at a cost of about $90,000. Captain Salmon, whom the minister recommended as a worthy man for this important position, says this of the vessel :
I am informed that the plans for the vessel were obtained from the United States, being the oldest form of lightship in existence and, Mr. Stevens, further acquainted me with the fact that the vessel was a very decided improvement on these plans. In this I do not agree. I consider that the ' Lurcher ' is a very poor copy of the original plans and specifications and these plans and specifications are almost obsolete in the United States.
Surely the minister did not adopt an obsolete plan imported from the United States ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The fellow was absolutely wrong.


Richard Blain: I am only quoting from this gentleman whom the minister recommended to us so highly.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: But this happened lately. It is only lately we have discovered that he was a rascal-that is all. We did not know that before.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the vessel was an up-to-date one ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Up-to-date-the
best.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister says he only discovered it lately.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We did not discover lately that the vessel was up-to-date, but we discovered lately that the man was a rascal.


Richard Blain: I would like to draw the minister's attention to this one other clause before I sit down :
Mr. Chapman was incapably drunk on the vessel leaving Halifax and also the day before she sailed from Yarmouth, and from information supplied to me by the marine superintendent of the Dominion Atlantic line, who has personal experience of this man, I find that he is nothing more or less than an incompetent drunkard. On leaving the wharf at Yarmouth to anchor off Bunker Island this man was so troublesome that Captain Larkin
had to use violence towards him and threaten to lash him in his cabin to prevent him from interfering in the engine-room.
These are very serious statements against officers that are still in the employ of the government. I would expect the minister either to stand up and say, this is a correct statement and that these officers have been disciplined, or else in fairness to them, that he would say that the statement is inaccurate that these men are not drunkards but are discharging their duty faithfully. Referring especially to this man Chapman, Captain Salmon says that he is a drunkard which means that he is unworthy of the position to which he was appointed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He was dismissed on the spot.


Richard Blain: Then on that point the report is correct. What about the balance of it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, we did not take Captain Salmon's word for it. The man was dismissed after an investigation.


Richard Blain: Evidently there is a good deal wrong in the hon. minister's department. I am glad he is going to have a house-cleaning.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With a large number of employees, such a thing as this will happen in the experience of the department. A man gets drunk ; the fact is ascertained ; he is dismissed. What more is there to say ? It is only losing the time of the House to talk about it.


Richard Blain: We are discussing this document which the minister has furnished. I am quoting the hon. minister against himself-that is all. This is the report of a man who, the hon. minister told us last year, was worthy of a position in his department at a salary of $2,000 a year. But now the minister condemns him. This is the first opportunity we have had to examine this report. Surely he will not say that that is not wasting the time of the committee. Surely we on this side have some rights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But why should the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) insist upon holding me responsible for the fault of a mariner who was recommended but who, on being engaged, proved himself unworthy of the position he was given ? These things will happen under the most careful management.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister say why there is an increase of $25,000 in the salaries and disbursements of fishery overseers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Now we get down to business. In 1903-4 our expenditure under this head was $105,111.40. We had a vote in the main estimates of $85,000 and in the supplementary of a further vote of $25,000 was asked. Now, so long as I am
2S91

at the head of the department, I will take a very strong stand against asking	a certain amount in	the mainestimates and then coming	down	tothe House asking for a supplementary vote. I speak now, of course, not of the services the expenditure upon which cannot well be foreseen, but of such services as 1liis in which the amount of expenditure can be	estimated in	advance.	When	wehave a	fixed charge,	I do not	think	we
should ask in the main estimates for $80,000 when wre know that we shall require $100,000, trusting to make it up by a vote of $20,000 in the supplementary estimates. It is better to face the music and say ; the expenditure last year was $105,000 ; it cannot be reduced ; let us ask at once for what we need and have no more discussion about it.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I do not rise to criticise the minister, except that I would like to know whether it is his intention to carry out the resolutions of the Montreal Board of Trade and the Shipping Federation with regard to the aids to navigation that we have been asking for for a number of years. I have no doubt that he remembers the resolution passed by the Montreal Board of Trade on the 31st of last month which resolution is, in part, as follows :
Be It resolved that the government be urged to provide in the estimates a sufficient sum of money to complete the absolutely required improvements in the lighthouses, fog signals and other appliances, which required improvements were submitted by the Shipping Federation of Canada to the commissioner of lights and understood to have been afterwards approved by the lighthouse board.
Every session for the last five years, the Montreal Board of Trade and the shipping interest have asked for these aids to navigation. They have been promised them a great many times, and I hope the minister will carry out the pledges made.


Mr. PR  E F ON T AIN E.@: This subject came up this afternoon, and the programme of the department was fully laid before the committee. We hope that, at the end of the season of 1906, all the lighthouses and.other aids to navigation will be in such a condition that the board of trade and the shipping interest, will be satisfied.


Herbert Brown Ames: Perhaps we cannot hear too much of a good thing, and certainly any news of improvement in the St. Lawrence is a good thing. But the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) will find, when he consults 'Hansard' to-morrow, that this is the third time to-day that that board of trade resolution has been read.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not too many.


Robert Bickerdike: I have brought that question up every session, and no doubt I will have to do so two or three times more.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister's department issued any pound fishing licenses 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None by the federal government.


William Humphrey Bennett: I remember a return was moved for as to how many pound net licenses were applied for by Mr. Dyment, M.P., Algoma. I have been watching for the return, but so far I think it has not been brought down.
Mi-. PREFONTAINE. No Dominion licenses are now issued in the province of Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have before me a copy of the return moved for by an hon. gentleman opposite :	' Correspondence between
the Department of Marine and Fisheries and Mr. Dyment, M.P., as to licenses issued to one T. LI. Jackman, Killarney.' Were any licenses issued to Mr. Jackman at all ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have nothing to do with that.


George Taylor: The minister has not explained in detail the reason for the increase of $25,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I thought I had explained that there is no increase whatever, it is only apparent. Last year tfiere was voted in the main estimates $85,000 and iu the supplementary estimates $20,000. That has been going on for the last three or four years, not voting enough in the main estimates to pay what was absolutely necessary and was contracted for, and then meeting the deficiency in the supplementaries. We want to stop that, and so we ask now for the exact amount we shall require. We spent last year $110,111. There is no use voting $80,000 in the main estimates and then coming forward every year for $25,000 in the supplementaries. Next year I will have no supplementary estimates.


George Taylor: If the estimates were properly prepared, the sum we voted last year, in both the main and supplementaries, was $85,000. It is usual to prepare the estimates, giving in the first column the total for the last year, and adding together the main estimate and the supplementary. This year he is asking for $110,000, or an increase of $25,000 over the total vote of last year. We want to know- what he is doing with that $25,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will have to take a suplementary estimate for this year to make up the amount to $110,000 ; but next year there will not be any supplementary estimate of $25,000 to cover the deficit of the year previous.


George Taylor: How did the department come to expend $110,000 last year, when he asked for $85,000 and said that would be sufficient ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We had to pay for the salaries, and I have explained that we did not ask for enough the year previous.


George Taylor: Last year the minister came down with an estimate to cover the expenditure. Now he says he has overexpended by $25,000 the amount voted last year. What has become of that $25,000 ? A few years ago we ran the fisheries independent of the province of Ontario. To-day Ontario has taken over a great portion of the fisheries, and notwithstanding that, under my hon. friend's administration, the expenditure is going up by leaps and bounds. A few years ago this service was done for a great deal less money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Country is going backwards, 1 suppose, according to the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: We want to know what is done with the money. What has become of that $25,000 that was over-expended last year ? Last year he stated that $85,000 would be sufficient for the service, and he has expended $25,000 more than that. Surely the committee is entitled to know what has become of the money. What is he going to do with this $110,000 ? He has an estimate in his hands showing how this $110,000 is going to be expended. Let him tell us what he is going to do with it. How much was paid for salaries ? I have in my eye now a member who sat on this side of the House supporting the government, and when he was defeated he was appointed fishery officer at a large salary-Mr. Hurley. How much is there in the estimates for Mr. Hurley for next year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have a memorandum giving a full explanation of the vote for 1903-4. For 1903-4 the vote was $105,000, and we expended that year $110,000, This vote was arrived at by adding $85,000 of the main estimates and $20,000 in the supplementary estimates. In order to avoid asking for a supplementary amount for 1905-6, a vote of $25,000 required for the fiscal year commencing July 1st next is included in the main estimates. In comparing the appropriation last fall with the $85,000 voted for 1904-5, there is an apparent increase of $25,000 over the current year; but to complete the expenditure for this year the sum of $25,000 will appear in the supplementaries, thus bringing the total to $110,000, the same as we ask for next year. The expenditure for the seven months of the current fiscal year, up to January 1st last, was $71,487, and it is estimated that the sum of $28,500 will be required to complete the payments coming in the current fiscal year. This amount is made up of the unexpended balance of the current appropriation and the $25,000 which will appear in the supplementaires. In 1897, negotiations were pending between Ontario and Quebec and the Dominion government as to the jurisdiction, and a sum of $85,000 was placed in the estimates pending a final settlement. It was subsequently decided that the federal government must provide for some federal protection, and for this purpose three
inspectors were appointed in Ontario, and provision was made for protection in a portion of the gulf of St. Lawrence. This expenditure, which, in Ontario, amounted to $7,600, and in Quebec to $4,500, was not anticipated when the vote for $85,000 was taken, consequently from that time on various sums, averaging $25,000 a year, have been placed in the supplementaries. To avoid that in future, this sum is now added in the main estimates. The total amount for the last fiscal year amounted to $85,583.03, made up as follows. I presume hon. gentlemen do not desire me to read all these particulars ?


George Taylor: I am asking for a detailed statement of how the hon. gentleman proposes spending this $110,000 for which he is now asking?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The detailed expenditure is as follows :-
Ontario, three inspectors, salaries, $3,600; expenses, $923.43.
Quebec, four inspectors, ten overseers, salaries, $3,406.66; expenses, $1,363.
New Brunswick, three inspectors, salary and expenses together.. $27,064 34
Nova Scotia, three inspectors ..	30,000	00British Columbia	
15,000	00Yukon	
1,400	00


George Taylor: My hon. friend stated that for New Brunswick there was an expenditure of $27,000 for three inspectors.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: And the general expenditure. We have three inspectors but there are other disbursements for other officials which covers the amount.
Mr. TAYLOR, In that statement my hon. friend has said that he had three inspectors for New Brunswick and that the expenditure was $27,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are three inspectors in New Brunswick and a staff of overseers and fishery guardians, and the expenditure has been $27,064.34, including everything.


George Taylor: What is everything ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Fisheries, New Brunswick, Chapman, R. A., Moncton, salary $1,100, travel and outlav, $368.69.
Harrison, H. E., Oromocto, salary $400, travel and outlay, $134.87.
Pratt, John H., St. Andrews, travel and outlay, $107.97.
Then follow the salaries and disbursements of the overseers and wardens and special guardians, to be found at page T- 110 of the Auditor General's Report.


George Taylor: My hon. friend has the same estimate amount in his estimate for this year as the amounts in the expend!-

ture for last year which he has just read ; there is no increase or decrease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


George Taylor: Will my hon. friend tell me the total expenditure for Ontario with three inspectors ; what their duties are, and their salaries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Salaries of officers, Ontario,$3,600 ; disbursements of officers, $943.
A total of $4,500.


George Taylor: Who are the officers for Ontario and what are their duties?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That will be found in the report on fisheries. The inspectors for Ontario are : A. G. Duncan, Marksville; ,T. M. Hurley, Belleville; O. B. Sheppard, Toronto, each with a salary of $1,200.


George Taylor: Will my hon. friend tell us what Mr. Hurley's duties are ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At page XI of the report will be found :-


Inspector J.   M.@: Hurley, of Belleville, says : Fishing along Lake Ontario, from Cobourg east, Bay of Quinte, and on the St. Lawrence river, for whitefish and herring, has been better than for several years past.
Fishing for coarse fish has also been very good, and the season of 1904 may be considered a very profitable one to the persons engaged in this industry in eastern Ontario.
The waters over which my inspectorate extends abound in sporting fish, and anglers have had a splendid season. As an example of this during the season, a black bass weighing five and a half pounds was taken in the Bay of Quinte) and at Glen Island a very large maski-nongd was captured. A black bass weighing six pounds two ounces was also taken in the River Trent. This is supposed to be the largest fish of this species ever taken in these waters.


George Taylor: For writing that report Mr. Hurley practically gets $1,200 ? I ask what his duties were and what territory he covered and that is the answer ? Every one knows that 'a. large maskinonge was caught, we all saw it advertised in every paper in the country. We all know that It was a big fish story to advertise the hotel up on the point there, that it was the best fishing ground in the Dominion, and that a large maskinonge had been taken there. Mr. Hurley produces his report and gets $1,200 for writing that page. I understand that the Ontario government practically has charge of all fishing waters in Ontario, and that Mr. Hurley simply sits at home and makes out his account for travelling expenses and his salary of $100 per month which the minister pays, and all he does is to write a report saying that there was a big maskinonge and some black bass caught.


An hon. MEMBER.: And some suckers.
Mr, TAYLOR


George Taylor: Yes and some suckers too.


Mr. W. J. ROOHE.: I notice in the Auditor General's Report that F. H. Markey is credited with $10 for a fishing lease on the Nelson and other rivers, and on Great Slave lake. This lease is for 21 years renewable for another 21 years or for 42 years in all. Have any operations been carried on during the past year under this lease, and by whom.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Operations have heen carried on.


William James Roche: Have the terms of the lease been complied with ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oil, yes.


William James Roche: What are the terms of the lease ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not the lease here, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) had it last year for six weeks and I suppose he read it.


William James Roche: The minister was so certain about the terms being carried out that I thought he had the terms at his fingers' ends.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I know from the report in the department that the terms of the lease have been carried out. The matter was looked into and my information is that the conditions were carried out. We have not a report further than last year when they started work, but of course we will see that every provision of the lease is fulfilled.


William James Roche: Has that lease been transferred to any person ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was granted to Mr. Markey to be transferred to the British American Fish Corporation.


William James Roche: Has it been transferred ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think we have any regular transfer made.


William James Roche: Mr. Markey had the option of transferring it, but the minister represented last year that Mr. Markey was acting on behalf of the British American Fish Company, and the lease itself says :
The said lessee shall not transfer his interest in the present lease except to the British American Fish Corporation Limited to which letters patent have been granted by the Governor General in Council; without obtaining the written consent of the Minister or that of some other person or persons authorized to grant the same.
It would appear from the lease therefore, that Mr. Markey was really acting for himself, and he had the option of transferring his lease to that one company but not to any other company unless he got the con-

sent of the minister. Has Mr. Markey obtained the consent of the minister to transfer it to any other corporation, or, is the lease now in his own name ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is yet in his own name ; it has not been transferred.


William James Roche: The minister distinctly stated last year that he made it a rule not to grant a lease except to persons who were in the business. Is Mr. Markey a lawyer of Montreal, in the fish business ? The receipt for the $10 is in Mr. Markey's name so that if Mr. Markey is running this on his own hook, the policy of the minister is not carried out. Mr. Markey is not in the fish business and the minister left the impression on the House last year that he was merely acting for the British American Fish Company. Mr. Markey apparently has paid the $10, and in doing that has he fulfilled all the terms of the lease.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Markey has paid the $10 according to his lease, and he has done so with the intention of transferring the lease to this company which is really doing the work. Mr. Markey is a lawyer in Montreal, and I cannot say that he is carrying on fishing operations. The work is being done by' the British American Company and according to that information given by the inspector of that district they have done all the development work the lease calls for.


William James Roche: Have they spent $1,000 during the past year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They spent a good deal more than that.


William James Roche: It is really the Fish Company that is doing the work ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, but the transfer has not been completed.


William James Roche: There was a good deal of dissatisfaction last year with regard to this lease and the minister said he would send an officer up to make a report. I would like to have that report.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The inspector has made a report in which he states that the whole trouble has been overcome, and that it came only from a rival company who were exploiting in some other waters there and did not want to see any one else in their territory.


William James Roche: Is that a written report ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: * Yes.


William James Roche: Will the minister have any objection to bring down that report ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.
Mr. AMES, Who are the British American Fish Corporation and where is their
domicile ; is it a Canadian, a British, or an American company ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think most of them are domiciled in Selkirk, Man.


Herbert Brown Ames: If you were sending a letter to the British American Fish Corporation, Limited, where would you address it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To Selkirk.


Mr. LAKE.: There was a lease granted to John K. McKenzie for the exclusive right of fishing in Lesser Slave Lake and Lake Athabaska ; for what term does that lease run ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: For nine years, but if the hon. gentleman wants special information about it he is welcome to any document in the department.


William James Roche: Are any returns made to the department of the annual catches under these leases.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That would come from the local inspector.


William James Roche: Has this Mr. McKenzie the power in his lease to transfer or sub-let ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He has the right to transfer with the consent of the minister.


William James Roche: Has he sub-let his
lease ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He has not sub-let it; I think it was transferred to the Northwest Fish Company.


William James Roche: Who constitute that company ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know ; it is a Canadian company.


William James Roche: I ask because of an item in one of the Winnipeg daily papers which I will read to the minister :
Winnipeg, February 18.-A report has been brought to the city by fur traders from the Lesser Slave Lake district to the effect that Butterfield & Dee, a firm which is conducting fishing operations on a large scale there, has already taken out 100 tons of whitefish and proposes to take out 300 tons more before March. The exclusive franchise to fish in the Lesser Slave Lake was given' by Hon. Raymond Prefontaine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to Mr. McKenzie, of Selkirk, Manitoba, by a lease signed on May, 14, at a rental of $10 a year from 1904 for nine years. This matter was called to the attention of the House of Commons on August 9, 1904, by Nat. Boyd, then member for Portage la Prairie. A similar concession was given about the same time to a Montreal lawyer to fish in the Nelson and other rivers in the district of Keewatin and Grand Slave Lake for 21 years for $10 a year. Exclusive fishing rights in James Bay were given in the same manner to Archie McNee.
From the procedure in the case of the Lesser Slave Lake it is evident that the franchise has been sub-let to an American firm, which

is conducting operations on an enormous scale.
It is announced that the company proposes to take out 700 tons of whitefish next winter. At that rate, it is claimed, there would soon be depletion.
Mr.. PREFONTAINE. Prom wliat paper is that ?


William James Roche: I am not sure. It is a slip which was sent to me from one of the Winnipeg dailies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It must be a flsli story, because there is no possibility of anything of that sort having happened.


William James Roche: Does the minister say the lease has not been sub-let to the gentlemen mentioned here ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It may have been transferred to the company, as in the other case, with the consent of the minister. They had no authority to sub-let it to anybody else. As regards the quantity, that is perfectly ridiculous. They have to come out by Slave lake, they cannot come out otherwise, and it would cost about $2 per cwt.


William James Roche: There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with this policy of blanket leases covering a great deal of the inland waters, lakes and rivers, in that part of the country. There is an impression abroad that some of the political favourites of the hon. gentleman have been granted these leases for many years, and that they are trafficking in them and at the same time depleting these waters. The settlers are debarred from trading in the fish, only being allowed to catch what they require for their own consumption ; but American firms can come in and secure from the hon. gentleman's department these long blanket leases. The settlers condemn this policy and I do not think it is defensible at all.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by my inspector that since these lakes were opened to fishing, it is a fact that American capital has gone into these enterprises. I know nothing of the statements the hon. gentleman has read. I am responsible for the leases, but they have always been granted after due consideration, and after a good deal of discussion, and on the responsibility of the members from those districts. If the wrong is so great that it requires to be looked into at once, I will certainly look into it and have an inspector make a report, and see if the complaints are well-founded. I have already since last session sent an officer to see if the complaints were well-founded, as they were presented before the House, fortunately the report was that there was no such serious ground of complaint. If the hon. 'gentleman fakes the responsibility of saying that there are good grounds of complaint, I will have a full report made on the subject.


Mr. LALOR.: What is the size of one of these lakes-Great Slave lake, for instance ?


William James Roche: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is an immense lake. I do not know the size of it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Then, do I understand the minister to say that he leases the fishing rights in one of these immense lakes for a term of twenty-one years for $10 a year, and also some of the rivers at the same rate ? That must be a surprise to the country as well as to some of the hon. gentlemen's supporters who sit behind him. He might as well give it away for nothing, because $10 a year does not amount to anything. It seems to me a ridiculous state of affairs that fishing licenses are given away in that manner. I am surprised that the gentlemen who sit behind the hon. minister do not rise and condemn that sort of thing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They would if it were true, but it is not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps it would be as well to put on record the size of this lake : it is one hundred miles long by thirty miles wide. I understand that there are also several rivers included in this.


Mr. HERRON.: I understand that these are some of the best inland fisheries perhaps on the continent. Are there any more good fisheries there, and does the hon. minister propose to continue this system of fishing leases until they are all taken up ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Do they continue fishing there late in the .season ?-because I notice that this lake does not freeze up until Christmas.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The minister, In answer to my remarks, said that his supporters would condemn it if it were true, but it is not true. Would he please explain in what way it is not true ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Look at the lease.


William James Roche: Well, I will read a portion of one of the leases to show the extent of waters covered by it. After the preamble, it says :
The minister, under authority of the Fisheries Act, doth hereby demise and lease unto the lessee, the right to fish with nets, or in any other legal manner, to take and catch all kinds of fresh and salt water fish, and sea-foods of any kind, in and upon the waters of the Nelson river and its tributaries, from West river to its mouth ; also the estuary of the Nelson river, from Cape Tatnam to Owl river, extending three miles from shore ; also Hayes river and tributary waters, in the district of Keewatin ; also that portion of the Pigeon river and tributary waters, in the district of Keewatin ; also the waters of Great, Slave lake, in the district of Mackenzie.
All these waters are blanketed by this lease, which is practically a monopoly. The only reason the minister gives to show that it is not a monopoly is that the settlers and Indians are allowed to fish for their own local consumption. But they are not allowed to sell.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They can sell to the company, and the company want to buy all they can get.


William James Roche: In this agreement, the hon. gentleman will see that certain rights are reserved to the Hudson Bay Company, and the settlers are allowed to fish only for their own consumption.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understand this is an exclusive right for ten years to the lessee of Slave lake.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are certain districts where licenses can be issued. I think they are about ten miles on eacli side of the stations.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the stations are to be located about how close ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Ten miles on each side.


Andrew B. Ingram: No ; I think it is one in fifty.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is in the Markey lease.


Andrew B. Ingram: So that in a lake 100 miles long, a station in the centre would bar any one else from coming in ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Are these leases put up at public auction and tenders called for ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is apparently another lease let for two smaller lakes to Coffee & Merritt. They apparently pay $200. Is that a lease subsequently given ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that this lease to Coffee & Merritt was issued about the same time on Cumberland lake. I am informed that the settlers and everybody around the lake are perfectly satisfied with the operations of this company.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like to know whether these fisheries will come within the jurisdiction of the new provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That question has not come up yet.


Richard Stuart Lake: I suppose that small inland lakes in the other provinces come within the jurisdiction of those provinces ?


William James Roche: I notice something in the press about Lake Manitoba being closed to fish, is that so ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been closed for summer fishing.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice in the Fisheries report that during the last two or three years the applications received at Ottawa are very numerous from parties wishing to develop the fishing industry in the more remote waters of Canada. Are any of those fisheries referred to going to be put up to public tender ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That question has not been brought up yet.


William James Roche: Why is Lake Manitoba to be closed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been represented that Lake Manitoba is a shallow lake and a spawning ground and has been fished year after year, so that it is time to give it a rest and allow it to become replenished.


George Taylor: The hon. minister said a few moments ago that the expenditure in 1892-93 was $105,000. Let me refer him_to Sessional Papers, vol. 24 of 1891, page 54. He will there find that the actual expenditure of the Conservative government during the year 1889-90. in connection with the fisheries, for fishery overseers and wardens -just the same item as my hon. friend is asking $110,000 for-was $65,873.32. And at that time the Conservative government had charge of the whole of our fisheries. Since then the Ontario fisheries have been handed over to the Ontario government. At that time the Conservative government looked after the fisheries of the Dominion, including Ontario, and the total expenditure was $65,000. My hon. friend has increased that expenditure to $110,000, and is doing less work. He is not doing the same amount of work, because he is not paying a lot of officials in Ontario whom the Ontario government are paying. Yet he asks $110,000 to do what the late Conservative government did for $65,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does my hon. friend think there have been no increases in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia ?


George Taylor: We had them in 1891 just as well as now.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was no expenditure then.


George Taylor: Will my hon. friend tell me how much revenue Mr. Hurley received for licenses in the district he had charge of ? He got $1,600 and travelling expenses.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman evidently does not know that this government does not issue licenses in Ontario.


George Taylor: Did Mr. Hurley get any revenue ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We could not get any revenue when the Ontario government issued the licenses.


George Taylor: Yet you paid him a salary.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, because we are obliged to under the law. My hon. friend does not know that yet.


George Taylor: I know we are not obliged to employ Mr. Hurley when the Ontario government are paying men for looking over the same ground and when the Ontario government are getting the revenue. Mr. Hurley, like the other two inspectors



in Ontario, is simply drawing his salary and doing nothing.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman would put his question in writing I would be glad to try and get the answer. It is difficult to procure the information. The lease was granted only last year, so that they have only had one year's operations.


Samuel Barker: The minister must admit that the questions put by the hon. member (Mr. Ames) are important. Any landlord owning property would certainly make such inquiries, in order that he might know


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have said I would inquire, and my word is not an idle word. I will do my best.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister will allow me-the hon. member (Mr. Ames) admits that he cannot ask the minister to give this information on the spur of the moment; but I think that the minister might state to us so that it might go on ' Hansard ' that he will make the inquiries so that when we meet nest year, or this year when the supplementary estimates are under discussion, he will give us the information. Will he give us that assurance ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With the greatest pleasure-I have already given it.


George Taylor: Fisheries-salaries, building and maintenance of fish-breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries, $150,000.


Angus Alexander McLean: Is the minister going to erect any more lobster hatcheries this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Perhaps it may be of interest if I state briefly the condition of this service. The expenditure of the fish breeding service for the year 1903-4, was $109,286.07, and the appropriation $110,000. The expenditure for the seven months of the current fiscal year to the 31st of January last is $97,133.17, leaving a balance of $42,S06.84 to complete the year. In the province of Ontario the following hatcheries are in operation:
Sandwich whitefish hatchery.
Newcastle salmon trout hatchery.
Ottawa general hatchery.
Belleville bass ponds.
The distribution of fry from these institutions was very successful last spring and they are now in operation with a full supply of eggs undergoing incubation. Instructions have been given for the selection of two sites on the great lakes suitable for the erection of a large whitefish hatchery and a salmon trout hatchery, which will be done on the opening of navigation, in order that, if at all possible, buildings may be erected in time for operation next fall. During the past year experiments have been conducted in retaining the young fry until they reach the age of six months before being distributed. These experiments have proved a great success. The hatcheries in the province of Quebec are as follows :-
Tadousac salmon hatchery.
Magog general hatchery.
Gaspe Basin salmon and lobster hatchery.
Lac Tremblant trout hatchery.
St. Alexis trout hatchery.
Lake Lester retaining ponds.
The establishments in Newr Brunswick are as follows :-
Restigouche salmon hatchery.
Grand Falls salmon hatchery.
Newcastle salmon hatchery.
Shippegan lobster hatchery.
Shemogue lobster hatchery.
The establishments in Nova Scotia are
Margaree salmon hatchery.
Bedford salmon hatchery.
Bay View1 lobster hatchery.
In Prince Edward Island a trout hatchery is about completed and will be operated before the winter is over with salmon eggs which are at the present time awaiting to be brought from the Restigouche hatchery. There is a lobster hatchery also in Prince Edward Island.


Angus Alexander McLean: How many hatcheries are there on the Straits of Northumberland?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: One at Shemogue and one at Charlottetown.


Angus Alexander McLean: Have there been any established since last session ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, there has been one in British Columbia-the Harrison lake hatchery. There is also the Skeena river hatchery. We are building another one on Birkenhead river, British Columbia.


William James Roche: I suppose the minister has had brought to his attention the resolution of the Selkirk Board of Trade in reference to the necessity of additional fish-hatchery facilities on Lake Winnipeg. Has the minister responded to the resolution of considered what action he will take ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some time ago 1 gave instructions to Mr. Cunningham, the inspector, to visit Lake Winnipeg, and inspect sites for the establishment of a hatchery there. He will proceed on that mission in a few days.


William James Roche: It is very important because the board of trade recognize that at the rate at which fishing is going on in these waters it will be depleted very soon, unless the lake is re-stocked with fresh ova. They are anxious that some new establishment should be provided as soon as possible.


Herbert Brown Ames: 1 desire to draw the attention of the minister to a condition of affairs, of the existence of which he is probably well aware and which seems to me to cail for action as soon as a remedy can be provided. Last summer I spent some weeks in the immediate vicinity of one of the salmon hatcheries and had opportunity to visit the hatchery daily and also to observe on several of the rivers the work that the men of the department were doing. It seemed to me that the service of putting the salmon fry into the various rivers eight or ten miles from the north was very well done and would bring about beneficial results. But on the rivers I visited at that time, the York, Dartmouth and St. John rivers, emptying into the Gaspe basin, one thing that I could not help noticing was the fact that the government of Canada stocked the rivers and the province of Quebec depleted them. It seems to me that some understanding is absolutely necessary if the work of one government was not to be neutralized by the other. I remember going up the York river in a canoe and finding it almost impassable owing to the facts that nets ran out from one shore two-thirds across the river, then from the other shore two-thirds across, and so on up. With a school of salmon starting at the mouth of the river, if one or two individual fish actually got up the river, it would be almost a miracle. All this time the Dominion government is depositing hundreds 93$
of thousands of small fish up the river. But these fish are practically all taken out by these nets. Cannot the government arrive at some understanding with the provincial government whereby estuary fishing for salmon may be limited to such an extent that the efforts of the government of Canada shall not be neutralized by the fishing licenses that the provincial government give for a mere pittance. I know in Bonaventure county a similar river which I occasionally visit where there are six stands of nets which are leased for an average of $6.30 each. Those stands of nets practically take all the salmon in that river. Yet the Dominion government, at great expense, is endeavouring to distribute young salmon all through the rivers in Bonaventure and Gaspe counties. I understand that the matter is at present under litigation, but are proceedings being pushed with all possible diligence ? Is every effort being taken to arrive at a conclusion ?-because it seems to me that at the present time the praiseworthy efforts of the Dominion government are being practically nullified by the fishery licenses of the provincial government.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must state to the committee that this is a very large question, which has been agitated since 189S. Very clever men have considered it, and . the result has not been satisfactory. The question is only now ready to be submitted to the Supreme Court in order to obtain a determination of the respective rights of the federal government and of the provinces. There are many questions relating to the fisheries that are now claiming the attention of the' government. At the present time we are face to face with some difficulties with the United States, for instance, as regards fisheries in international waters. Since I have been minister I have been trying to arrive at some common understanding regarding that, so that each side will protect its own fisheries, and I hope to be able to report progress next session. The question has become acute especially as regards Mississquoi bay, and* the Americans are now convinced that there must be an international commission in order to settle the difficulties which have arisen and which are likely to arise unless we come to some satisfactory understanding. These things move slowly between governments, and even between the federal government and the provincial governments. Although this matter has been a subject of discussion many times and a subject of conferences, it is only at the present moment that a case is ready to be submitted to the Supreme Court to determine the respective jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces. Nothing of importance has yet been done. I understand the federal government could stop the expenditure and say, all right, let the provinces look after this thing. But that

would mean the destruction of one of the most valuable assets of the Dominion. Our fisheries yield "a revenue of from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 to our people every year, and of course the importance of that interest requires that we should move with great caution. But I hope this matter will be settled within a short period. When X took charge of the depai'tment in 1903, I found it was already a pending question. Within a year or two I certainly think it will be settled. But this question also involves a great number of others, such as increased subsidies to the provinces. X have had interviews with delegations from the several provincial governments, and as I say, we have prepared a question to be submitted to the Supreme Court.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the necessity of propagating trout in the province of Nova Scotia. Some fifteen or twenty years ago there was an abundance of speckled trout in nearly every lake and river, but from many of them they have disappeared to a large extent. There is a fish hatchery, at Bedford, and so far as I know there is" no good reason why that hatchery should not, in part at least, be devoted to the propagation of trout. I have been surprised to learn that when our people in Nova Scotia asked for spawn to place in some of those lakes and rivers they were told that the only kind of spawn they could get from the government was whitefish. Millions of these white fish have been put in the lakes there. Now, they are not a fish tliat will take a fly, and they are no good whatever for sport, and so far as I understand the law, it is not legal to use a net in the lakes of our provinces. Therefore, putting whitefish in these lakes seems to me to be idle and useless. I think there is no fish that would suit our people so well as the trout; and as we now have a hatchery in the province devoted partly, I understand, to the propagation of salmon, if the minister would arrange to devote that hatcllery, to some extent at least, to the propagation of speckled trout, I think he would be doing a very acceptable thing to the people of that province.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may tell the hon. gentleman that during the last five years no whitefish have been distributed in Nova Scotia. At the present time trout are being propagated at the Bedford hatchery, and I understand there are 25,000 speckled trout in that hatchery to be distributed, and there will be more next year.
Fishery protection service, $220,000.


George Taylor: What is the explanation of the $60,000 increase ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some of our cruisers have been enlarged in order to do more effective service. The ' Vigilant ' a


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: twin screw steamer, is now in commission taking the place of the 1 Petrel ' on the great lakes. The ' Petrel ' carried 22 men, while the ' Vigilant ' will carry a crew of 53 men all told. The same remark applies to the * Kingfisher,' which is replaced by a larger vessel. The ' Canada ' sailed from Halifax on February 1, for an instructional cruise to the West Indies, and it is expected that she will return in time to be used in "frerforming the duties of fishery protection vessels. Heretofore fishery protection vessels have not heen in commission in the winter and this will involve an increased expenditure. The ' Vigilant ' will now be employed on the Atlantic coast. These changes account for the increased expenditures. Everybody is aware and I think every one will bear me out in the statement that when we had the ' Petrel ' on the great lakes she was a laughing stock to our neighbours on the other side of the line. Any fishing vessel could get away from her and the American fishermen could poach all around our lakes and waters and would scarcely be troubled by the cruise of the ' Petrel.' Last year we decided to replace the ' Petrel ' by a fast boat of 2if knots. She is a credit to the Canadian fleet, and I hope that with this vessel we will keep our friends within limits and will be able to see that due protection is given to our fishing men and our fishing grounds.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman, although he has given a great deal of information in reference to his having larger boats and larger crews has not given what I think the opposition are entitled to, a detailed statement of the increased expenditure. He has named one boat that has a larger crew but he should say that the expenditure in connection with this boat will be so much, for the next boat so much and so on making $60,000 increase.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I thought the hon. gentleman would easily calculate the difference.


George Taylor: It is the duty of the hon. gentleman and his department in asking a vote to state how much the increased expenditure will be.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The difference in expense between a crew of twenty-two and of fifty-three is easy to calculate.


George Taylor: That depends on what the hon. gentleman is paying the men.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are paying the ordinary salaries for officers and seamen. Able bodied seamen get $30 a month, which would mean an expenditure for the 'Vigilant' of about $25,000 more than before. She burns about three times as much coal as the other. The expenditure is about one-third more and it is not extravagant to ask $60,000 more when we have three vessels of importance. However, if my hon. friend

wants a detailed estimate I shall have one prepared and will submit it when we are discussing the supplementary estimates which will be brought down for these same boats. I have no interest direct or indirect in the matter except that I want the service to be done properly and in a fit manner for the country.


George Taylor: That will be satisfactory.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the minister going to do with the ' Petrel ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The 'Petrel' is going to be used in the lower provinces, on the Atlantic coast.


Andrew B. Ingram: Taken away from the upper lakes altogether ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the department have control over the regulations ? Do you specify in any way as to the use of pound nets and gill nets, the number to be used and the territory to be taken up, how closely they are to be placed, &c. ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, we have the control of that and frame the regulations.


Andrew B. Ingram: How are the licenses for the use of gill nets and pound nets issued ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are issued according to the regulations, although of course 1 have not the regulations in my mind at the present moment.


Andrew B. Ingram: Take Lake Erie, for instance. Has the department regulations as to the space that a pound net shall occupy '! or the space of a gill net license and how they will be located ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oh, certainly.


Herbert Brown Ames: Perhaps the minister will give us a little fuller information with reference to the policy of the government with regard to naval militia. I understand the introduction of the 'Canada' into the service has been a stej) in that direction, and that the vessel is being used as a training ship for naval militia. Is it the intention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the government to bring in this session any Bill with a view of establishing a naval militia carrying out still further the idea of the ' Canada' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am unable to make any official declaration on this question at the present moment.


Angus Alexander McLean: I wash to bring to the attention of the minister a resolution passed at the last meeting of the Maritime Board of Trade, held at Moncton, on August the 11th, with respect to lobster fisheries. It reads as follows :
Whereas, the rapid decline of the lobster fishery, as shown by the reports of the fishing
affairs in the maritime provinces, is viewed with alarm by the board, and as the decline appears to be greatest in those sections where illegal fishing is carried on.
Resolved, that it is desirable that the government take active measures to enforce the regulations for the protection of the lobster fishery by instructing the officials of the Marine and Fishery Department to suppress illegal fishing after the season in their respective districts.
Further resolved, that fishing stations for educating our fishermen be established by the government at suitable places along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
And further, that it is desirable that the government take into consideration the reorganization of the fishing service with the view of bringing it up to a higher state of efficiency.	|:
That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and to the maritime members of parliament.
I presume the minister received a copy of this resolution and that he has probably in his mind some means of reorganizing this service. This matter has been up before this Maritime Board of Trade and nearly all the boards of trade of the maritime provinces for many years, and it seems that the manner in which the service has been conducted does not meet the approval of these boards of trade and of men interested in the fishing industry to a great extent. It is true that for the last year or two the government have been establishing hatcheries along the coast which are doing a great deal of good and meeting with the approval of men engaged in that business, but the Maritime Board of Trade think that more of these hatcheries should be established, and at a meeting held at Moncton, on August 17th, 1904, the following resolution was passed :
Whereas, lobster hatcheries have proven to be of great value in conserving our fisheries ;
Resolved, that in the opinion of this board it is advisable in order to preserve the lobster fisheries, that hatcheries be established along the coasts of the maritime provinces at such places as will enable the spawn of lobsters caught for canning purposes all to be collected and hatched, and that the government be asked to prohibit the fishing of lobsters by ' curleys,' as these ' curleys ' are fished close to the shore and only small lobsters are taken.
I take it that if these spawn are collected and taken to the hatcheries a great deal of good would result to the lobster fishing industry. Is the minister in possession of any report which would show the benefit that has accrued to the fishing industry by reason of the erection of the cold storage plants and their maintenance at the different points ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The matter is under consideration.


George Halsey Perley: A few days ago the Minister of Railways, in answer to a question, said that there was no fish-way at the Carillon dam, and that the reason one had not

been built was that the government did not feel warranted in spending $10,000 in its construction. Under the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, when he thinks it is in the public interest, has the power to order the building of a fish-pass at any dam or slide, and this power has been freely used when private owners have built such dams and slides. I am informed that previous to the building of the Carillon dam large quantities of fish, specially shad, came up the Ottawa river to the sand bars, where they spawned and were caught in large numbers by the residents there. Since this dam was built none of these fish have been caught, and numbers of poor people who formerly depended on this fishing have been deprived of their livelihood. Will the minister ask the Department of Railways to put in a fish-pass at this dam ? It is hardly a good reason to say that it would cost too much, in view of the fact that private owners are ordered to build fishways no matter what the cost. Perhaps some of the other departments might spare the minister a little of -the money which is not expended to such good purpose in the public interest as it would be in the building of a fish-way at the Carillon dam. -


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that it would cost $10,000 at the present time to build a fish-way at the Carillon dam, and the quality of the fish passing there not being very high, the government did not feel justified in incurring the expenditure. For the last two or three months it has been represented to the department that there was a new style of fish-way which would cost a comparatively small sum, and which might be suitable in this and other cases. We are asking for a special report in reference to this matter, and if the new fish-way suits the Carillon dam, it might suit other places, where we now feel indisposed to spend a large amount 'of money. We are asking this year a little more money for this service, because we think the time has come when we should establish these fishways in as many places as possible, in order that the inhabitants may have the opportunity of catching fish for food.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister keep the Carillon dam in mind ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oh, yes. Not only the county of Argenteuil, but the counties along the North river are very much interested in this matter.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the report made by Mr. Matheson with reference to certain frauds in the distribution of fishing bounties been brought down ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just received the report, and I will place it on the table within a couple of days.
Oyster culture, $7,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What is being done in connection with oyster culture ?


George Halsey Perley: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a statement with reference to the matter in the annual report of the department.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This is a very important question, and it deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past. The greatest natural oyster beds possibly in the world are in Prince Edward Island, and they are being depleted year after year. If this should continue, then within a few years one of our most remunerative fishing industries will be in such a condition that there will be no profit in it for the fishermen or any one else. The government should now take drastic measures to protect the oysters and to promote oyster culture.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have had this matter under serious consideration for the past year. I think we will be able to adopt proper means to protect this industry as it should be protected, and I am awaiting further information on the matter. I hope to be able, before the end of the session, to announce what plan we have adopted, and how we will proceed in the matter.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The only reason I bring the matter up is because I know the production of oysters in Richmond baj* is not nearly equal to what it was ten years ago, and it is growing less from year to year, and the oysters are smaller. It is a very important matter for the department to take up.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will get a special report from the experts.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has the minister taken into consideration the plea that was put in by members on both sides of the House last year that fishing bounties be paid to lobster fishermen ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have studied the question, but it is a very difficult one to decide. We could not take it up until the whole question of the fishing bounties is considered.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman inform us what business he proposes to take up to-morrow ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: There is an order of business set for to-morrow which will perhaps occupy the whole day.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman inform us if it is intended to continue the discussion day in and day out until the matter is disposed of?


William Mulock: Perhaps it will be better to discuss that point to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 22, 1905.