1905-03-17

Mr. R. G. MACPHERSON (Vancouver City).: In presenting a petition, I rise to a question of privilege. The petition is signed by Daniel McLean and forty-one others, declaring themselves to be electors of the electoral district of Vancouver. I may say that not one of the forty-two names is on the voters' lists in my constituency of Vancouver.


Mr. BENNETT.: They will be there next time.


Robert George Macpherson: They are not residents of the city of Vancouver.


Some Lon. MEMBERS.: Order.


Robert George Macpherson: I am speaking to a question of privilege. This petition Las been sent to me


Louis Philippe Demers: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order. Tbe rule is that if there is any question of the authenticity of the signatures, a member presenting a petition may call the attention of the House to that fact. But he is not at liberty to make a speech in presenting a petition.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not wish tc infringe the rules of the House. But I have always understood that a member presenting a petition is responsible for the authenticity of the signatures unless he disclaims that responsibility. I know, as a positive fact, that not one of the forty-two names signed to this petition is on the voters' list of the electoral district of Vancouver.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 122) to incorporate the Grand River and Western Power Company.-Mr. Zimmerman.
Bill (No. 123) respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Sinclair.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Farmers' Bank of Canada.-Mr. Miller.

Hon.  W. S.@: That a select committee, composed of Messieurs Burrows, Smith (Nanaimo), Johnston (Cape Breton, South), Grant, Demers (St. John and Iberville), Monk, Maclean (York), Boyce, Roche (Marquette), and the mover, he appointed to inquire into and report regarding the various public telephone systems in operation in Canada and elsewhere, as the committee shall determine ; and to consider and report what changes, if any, are advisable in respect of the methods at present in force for furnishing telephone service to the public. Such committee to have the power to send for persons and papers, to examine persons under oath, to engage stenographers, clerical and other assistance, and to report from time to time.
He said : Mr. Speaker, It is not necessary, I think, for me to occupy the attention of the House at any length in order to induce it to adopt, as I trust it will unanimously, this resolution. Although the telephone is of recent invention, yet, the wide extent to which it is in use throughout the civilized world testifies to its usefulness to the public and demands from a representative institution such as this its best consideration in order to discover whether, and if so, in what manner its further usefulness may be accomplished. In its inception the use of the telephone was confined chiefly to cities, towns and centres of population connected S6J
together by degrees by trunk lines. Of later years it has found its way into rural districts, into comparatively sparsely settled districts, and it seems that the time has arrived when we might study the question with the view, if possible, to making the telephone as widespread in its usefulness in connection with the people as the post office itself. I can conceive of no utility that more touches the people, leaving aside the post office, than the telephone. At the present time in Canada we have one great company. There are many other smaller companies and there are telephone systems conducted as private enterprises. Of late years the subject has received attention at the hands of the imperial parliament and in the course of a few short years that great system will, in England, pass under state control. I do not at this stage indicate what should be our decision. It will be premature to prejudge the ease, but I do think that a careful and thorough inquiry into the conditions in Canada and in other countries might furnish us with a useful and safe guide and aft^r the information is gathered together by a committee that will, I feel assured, give every attention to the subject, the House will then be in a position to make some substantial progress with this measure. There are some who have already made up their minds as to what should be the future destiny of the telephone. There are others whose minds, perhaps, are yet in an unsettled state. Some perhaps are of the decided opinion that the government should have nothing to do with such a service. With all these conflicting views it is right, I think, that the public should be put in possession of evidence and arguments collected after careful, thorough and impartial study to enable us to reach the safest conclusion. I shall not prejudge the subject myself, although, perhaps, if I must confess to a bias as regards the telephone, that bias would be that I cannot see why it is not as much the duty of the state to take charge of the telephone as it is to conduct the postal service. However, as I say, I will endeavour to approach the subject judicially notwithstanding that bias which I think it my duty to announce in advance so that I may not be allowed to give a too unlimited rein to that view in the committee if others should feel that I was proceeding rather to carry out a view of my own than to investigate the case judicially and then reach a conclusion. Some people are willing to rush at conclusions even where large interests are involved. It Is the duty, I think, of the House to be careful and guarded and safe so that we may take wise, safe and prudent steps. I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than observe that these existing systems in Canada, although they have been of very great use and have rendered great public service, still have occas-

ioned friction and dissatisfaction as is always more or less, perhaps, the outcome of conflict between consumer and producer, and so in this case it is possible that the committee may find grievances existing that their inquiry will help to remove. X have nothing further to add except to state that I would be glad to be allowed to suggest another name to the committee, that of Mr. Zimmerman, of Hamilton.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I think I can congratulate the hon. gentleman who has introduced this motion (Sir William Mulock). I can congratulate him on his own view. I think he has long held that view but I think I can congratulate him also that he has converted the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who sits alongside of him. The right hon. gentleman, not very long ago was very much afraid of state ownership in any form, but now that he has consented to this motion being presented to parliament, I suppose X am to assume that he has changed his mind. The test of the value of this committee will b<* the work accomplished by it. The extent of the investigation and of the information elicited, and the report which the committee may make will be a matter of deep public concern. I have no doubt what the result of a full investigation will be; I have no doubt the committee will recommend some kind of public ownership; some kind of public control of the telephone system in this country. Public ownership and public control of the telephone has succeeded in Europe, in Australia, in New Zealand, and I do not see why it should not succeed here. Only the other day the Postmaster General of England, a young man whom we knew in this country, succeeded in presenting a Bill there to nationalize the whole telephone system, and that Bill is said to have the merit of doing justice to the public and justice to the existing companies. I trust we will be able to adopt some such scheme in Canada. The statement of the Postmaster General that he regards the telephone system as a natural portion of the Post Office Department of this country, is good sound doctrine. Let roe suggest that when he applies that doctrine to telephones he should follow the example of the mother country and take in the telegraph lines also. I trust that during his tenure of office we shall see him adopt a national telephone system and a national telegraph system as they have it in England. All these things are in the line of progress, and I trust that the hon. gentleman will organize the committee at once so that this very session a Bill may be presented to parliament.


Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: I also desire to congratulate the Postmaster General upon his action in reference to the telephone system of this country, but I Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
must express my regret that he does not include in this investigation the telegraph system as well. It would seem to me that if it is in the public interest that the government should enter into the ownership of the telephone system, it is even more important that they should own and control the telegraph system of this Dominion. Those who use the telegraph know that there are exhorbitant rates charged in many parts of the country where there is no competition, and it seems to me it is high time that the' matter should be inquired into. I do not understand that the government in proposing this motion is committing itself to the public ownership of telephones, and that being so it seems to me there would be nothing to prevent this inquiry including the telegraphs as'well. Government ownership of telegraphs is in existence in the motherland, and I believe for my part that we should investigate the whole matter here at an early date so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is not in the best interests of Canada to make the telegraph system a government owned institution.


Mr. J. BARR (Dufferin).: I am very much pleased indeed that this motion has been made. I believe that the time will come when telegraphs and telephones will be taken under the control of the government, and I believe further that it is one of the most important questions we have to deal with in this parliament. If we could have a telephone in every post office throughout the rural districts of Canada, it would confer a greater benefit upon the farmers than perhaps even a rural mail delivery would. If there was a telephone in each post office, farmers could ascertain the state of the market, and learn of the most advantageous time at which to bring in their produce. This would be a great boon to them. One advantage which the telephone has over the telegraph is, that the person in charge of a post office can attend to the telephone whereas the telegraph requires an expert operator, and consequently the telegraph could not be used to the same extent throughout the rural districts as could the telephone. Private companies have found the telephone a paying institution, but one great difficulty under present conditions is that one telephone company has a monopoly of the "connection with railroad stations, and other companies are consequently deprived of this advantage. I have no doubt, however, that this difficulty will be overcome in the near future. I believe that a government-owned telephone system in Canada, extended throughout the entire Dominion would not only be one of the greatest benefits that could be conferred upon the farming community, but that under proper management it would be a revenue producing concern for the government as well. The

farmers would have telephone communication with the villages, towns and cities, and there would be complete machinery for easy intercourse between the people of the Dominion. I trust that some good will come out of the appointment of this committee, and that it will be able to devise a scheme under which the government of Canada shall become the owners of the telephone system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon.' JOHN HAGGART. Before the Orders of the Day are called. I wish to ask the Minister of Railways when he intends to make the statement which he foreshadowed the other day in the Railway Committee in reference to the acquisition of the. Canada Atlantic Railway by the Grand Trunik Railway Company.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSOX (Minister of Railways and Canals).: On the third reading of the Bill that was then under the consideration of the committee I shall be in a position to make an announcement.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX.: Some time ago I asked the lion. Minister of Railways iu reference to a report from the Board of Railway Commissioners, and he informed the House that he had spoken to. the commissioners and that a report would be brought down ; but he was not able to tell us at what time he expected that report. I presume that in the meantime the minister has been able to ascertain, and can tell the House whether the report is ready or when it will be ready.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The report has been promised, and I hope to have it within a few days.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would again ask the hon. Minister of Railways how soon we may expect a return to an order of the House issued on the 20th of February with reference to the Bell Telephone case, especially with reference to the Port Arthur and Fort William agitation ? The last time I referred to the matter the hon. gentleman stated that he was waiting the return of certain documents, I think, from the Railway Commission. As these documents will probably now be in his possesison, I presume that the return will shortly be brought down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I spoke to the officials of the department this morning with reference to the matter, and I hope to have the papers laid before the House on Monday.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think something definite was promised yesterday with regard to the budget, but apparently that expectation was disappointed. I am mentioning it now because I know that some gentlemen
on this side of the House desire to discuss certain matters which might very well be discussed in connection with the budget. They have been suggesting to me that these matters might be brought up at once, and I have been suggesting that they should be held back. As soon as the government is in a position to make an announcement, I shall be very glad to know the date at which the budget may be expected.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I will consult the Minister of Finance, and I think I shall be able to make an announcement on Monday.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Care of sick seamen in the marine hospitals in the maritime provinces, and building and repairs to marine hospitals, $50,000.
['When these private Bills are under consideration, we ought to have at least one of the law officers of the Crown here to advise the House. Yet, night after night, we have these questions coming up and no one to speak for the government from a legal point of view. When the Minister of Justice is not here the Solicitor General ought to be here and give us the benefit of his advice.\nThe hour for private Bills having expired, House resumed iu Committee of Supply.']
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: This amount is the same as that of last year. The expenditure last year was $49,786.6S. The expenditure for the present fiscal year to the 31st of December was $30,265.32.


Mr. BERGERON.: How many hospitals are there in the maritime provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In Montreal the total amount paid last year to the General Hospital was $2,905 and to the Notre Dame Hospital $2,370. The rate per day was $1.20. In Quebec we paid $135 to the Hotel Dieu and $810 to the Jeffrey Hale Hospital, the rate being 90 cents a day. At Chicoutimi we paid $73.80 at the rate of 90 cents. At Rimouski we paid $59.50 at the rate of over $1. At St. John, N.B., we paid to the General Hospital $1,298.70 at the rate of 90 cents. At Halifax we paid to the Victoria General Hospital $7,221.10.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Instead of being for marine hospitals iu the maritime provinces, this should be for marine hospitals in Canada, because three or four are in the province of Quebec. The item is misleading.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think the hon. gentleman is right, but the title has been the same for twenty-five years. There are no dues collected in Ontario. I will make a note of the hon. gentleman's suggestion, and have the title changed to tit the facts.


Mr. BLAIN.: How many were taken care of last year, and paid out of the treasury ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1,830 in the hospitals.	j|


Richard Blain: How does that compare with former years ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About the same number.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is it not time that the government should take into consideration the reduction of the amount of the fees on

26SS
vessels coining into Canadian ports, seeing that the amount thus obtained is more than sufficient, as I understand, to supply all the needs of the sick mariners ? I know that in my port the amount of fees that are taken from vessels every year is much greater than the amount required for looking after sick seamen. I would like to hear an expression of opinion from the minister on that point, and if possible, get a reduction of those fees.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Representations have been made to the department during the last few years in favour of the abolition of hospital dues. It is an important question, and I am rather inclined myself to favour the abolition. But as it would involve a pretty large amount, and we have not yet devised any mode of obliging the masters of vessels to take care of their sick men, we have not yet come to a decision. I understand that a delegation from the shipping federation is coming to Ottawa in a few days to lay their views before the members of the cabinet. It is possible that during this session I may announce what will be the policy of the government on this question.


Mr. AMES.: What is the surplus that has accumulated in the hands of the government in connection with the sick mariners' fund ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That goes into
the consolidated fund.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is kept separate, is it not ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is every
year a certain surplus that goes into the consolidated fund.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand the surplus now amounts almost to $200,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no surplus, I mean to say that though the government has collected more than it has expended in that service, the surplus does not appear in the books of the Finance Department, because it has gone into the general fund.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then to put the matter in another way, it is more a matter of bookkeeping than anything else. The minister states in his own report at page 19 that every year a considerably larger sum has been received than expended. For example, in 1904 about $50,000 were expended and $61,778 were received. The previous year, $48,000 were expended and $64,800 received. Now the minister says, that it is difficult at the present time to bring in legislation such as has been asked for by the Shipping Federation and by the Montreal Board of Trade, in reference to the sick mariners' dues. But is there any difficulty in reducing the amount of the dues ?-because every year he collects about 25 per cent more than is needed.


Mr.   DANTEL@: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It may be done by legislation, and it may be done by abolishing the dues altogether.


Herbert Brown Ames: But in Montreal there are difficulties in the way of abolition, and no difficulties in the way of reducing the fees. If you collect $65,000 a year and only need $50,000, there can be no difficulty in reducing the rate of fees so that you will only collect about $50,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I agree that the reduction by 25 per cent would make a great difference, but that is not what the Shipping Federation are asking for, they are asking for complete abolition. That is a serious matter to be decided off-hand.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I would ask the minister if the money spent on capital account for the construction of hospitals to take care of sick seamen, is taken into account in comparing the receipts and expenses ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the minister is not prepared to say when we can hope for legislation with a view to abolishing this system ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If it is to be abolished, it will be done during the session.
Shipwrecked and distressed seamen, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: This, I suppose, is for seamen belonging to Canadian steamers all over the world ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and for foreigners also who have become stranded here.


Robert Laird Borden: Is any part of it recovered ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A sum has been recovered from the Board of Trade and from the Newfoundland government.


Robert Laird Borden: The Board of Trade
in England used to send out claims against ship-owners in this country for moneys advanced to seamen left behind or shipwrecked in foreign countries; and I suppose we have the same practice in recovering from ship-owners in Great Britain and other countries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Hance James Logan: I understand there is some regulation in the department in reference to the burial of British seamen dying in a Canadian port. I do not know whether it is confined to British seamen. But when seamen die at our ports, I believe, there is a regulation in the department that only $10 is to be allowed for funeral expenses of such seamen. I desire to inform the minister that this sum is absolutely inadequate ; I do not think it is a credit to our country or to our government. A case came under my attention not long ago, where a British seaman died in the town of Spring-

hill, in the hospital, and the very least the undertaker could bury him for was, 1 think, about $37. And yet, the department will not allow this undertaker more than $10, and he is compelled to lose the balance of the amount. 1 do not think that at this day decent burial can be given a white man for $10.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I quite admit the force of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) ; but, unfortunately, the Sick Seamen's Act does not provide for the burial of the deceased in these cases, and so it is only by grace that we give even $10 toward the expenses.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask whether the Minister of Marine (Mr. Prefontaine) has anything further to report regarding the seamen imprisoned in Montevideo pending, as I understand it, arrangements on the part of the authorities there to pass a law to punish them. It seems a very peculiar situation that British subjects in a foreign country should be awaiting, in imprisonment, the convenience of people to pass a law to punish them for an act which was not originally a crime.


Hance James Logan: They have not passed the act to punish them yet.


Robert Laird Borden: I am endeavouring to get some information as to what progress is being made with that proposed statute.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are in correspondence with the home government and with the British consul at Montevideo. So far, we have not received a satisfactory answer. The members of the crew who were imprisoned have been released. But it appears that they were released with the intention of sending them away so that they might not be witnesses in favour of the captain at his trial. Discovering this the members of the crew have remained in Montevideo in order to give their evidence before the court when the case of the captain comes up. The latest communication we received was to the effect that they are waiting for the judge who has had under consideration certain points of law, and who was absent from Montevideo. We were told that as soon as the decision of this judge was rendered we should be given more information. It is one of those cases in which the law seems to be obscured. There seems to be no law by virtue of which these men can be detained, but the prosecution, I suppose, are applying to the judges there to have the men detained, with what intention I do not know, except, certainly with the intention of discouraging any fishing in their waters.


Mr. D. D. McKDNZIE.: I am very much obliged to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) for bringing this matter up again, and I hope that everything is being done that can be done by the minister on
behalf of these sailors. There is another matter to which I referred a few evenings ago -when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were going through. It was a matter relating to public health, I believe that it would therefore come within the control of the Department of Agriculture.
I am sorry to say, I got very little satisfaction from that department in regard to the matter. Possibly I cannot get any satisfaction from the department under the present state of the law. But I am pleased to learn that there is a surplus of the fund to provide for seamen. That being the case, I think it is a pity that any town on the sea-coast should be called upon to pay the expenses of seamen coming into the harbours of Canada. Two years ago an American vessel came into the harbour of North Sydney with small-pox aboard. The town had to incur the expense of $1,000 or more to furnish clothing, food, and protection of every kind for over twenty-five men for five or six weeks. I think it rather an unsatisfactory state of the law that a town should be obliged to provide for those coming into it in this way aud I think that some provision should be made by the Department of 'Marine and Fisheries, or some other department of government, by which American vessels could be obliged to provide for their own men, or else to bring these men under the operation of the sick mariner's fund. I submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), with all due deference, that it is the duty of some department of the government to repay the town of North Sydney the money expended in this connection, and, if possible, recover that money from the government of the United States or from the government of the state of Massachusetts from which these people came. If no law existed to cover the case, there should be such a law, as this is clearly not a matter that should be dealt with by the municipalities.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The question referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) is important enough to be taken into consideration. I will make a note of it. Of course, I remember the case to which the hon. gentleman refers. If the law can be amended to provide for such cases, I will see what can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a good deal of difficulty connected with the matter referred to by my hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) along the whole coast of the province of Nova Scotia from which I come. During the small-pox epidemic in eastern Canada, there was no provision to take care of sailors who became ili on coasting vessels. The place where the vessel happened to be at the time the sailor was taken charge of by the authorities it was said, had to bear the expense. There ' was a good deal of uncertainty whose duty

it was to look after the sailors wlio became sick on coasting vessels.


Mr. W. ROCHE.: I wish to say a word or two with reference to the detention of the British seamen at the port of Monte Video by the government of Uruguay, which subject was originally brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. D. P. McKenzie) and which has been referred to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think that the treatment by the British government of the goevrnment of Uruguay in this case has been very lax. I understand that seventeen British seamen were confined for a long time in jail, but have now been released : and I understand also that the captain of that vessel is still in jail until they can make a law to punish him. Now, if that kind of treatment by any foreign government had been meted out to British seamen previously, Great Britain would have taken steps to protect her subjects. If we have any connection with the British government whatever, if they have not entirely abandoned North America, I think that this government should take steps to press upon the British government that they should represent very strenuously to the government of Uruguay that this is not the kind of treatment that British seamen and British subjects have been accustomed to receive at the hands of foreign governments, and also that these men, who have been illegally lodged in jail for a long time and their enterprise broken up without law or without any pretext for any municipal or international law. should be compensated for their losses. If they had belonged to Great Britain itself, that demand for compensation would have been made long ago. If they had been seamen who had their domicile in England cr Scotland there would be a claim made by the British government


Mr. LAKE.: Why not Ireland ?


William Roche: Because Ireland has no seamen. Because they are colonial seamen, it may be that it is inconvenient for the British government to make any earnest representations. As this matter has come before the House, this is a fitting occasion to impress on our ministry to represent to the British government that the maritime people of Canada are not accustomed to have their sons imprisoned in foreign countries without any offence having been .committed by these seamen against the laws or regulations of a foreign country. If that representation is earnestly made and pressed upon the British government, these unfortunate men will receive compensation for the breaking up of their enterprise, and also some kind of solace for their long confinement in the South American dungeons.


Hance James Logan: Perhaps we do not understand the circumstances of this case. It seems to me that if the circumstances are as I am led to believe they are. this case
should not be passed over in a light manner by the parliament of Canada. Would it be asking too much to request the minister to state the case exactly ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must state that the correspondence is rather voluminous, but I have no objection whatever to laying it before the House on Monday. The case is very plain. As is explained by the consul at Montevideo, the authorities have made up some kind of a case against the captain and crew. They were arrested and a charge was made against them of infringing the fishing laws of Uruguay. The contention of those interested in defending the case, and those who have interested themselves in favour of the captain and crew, is that there exists no such offence ; but in order to ascertain that there was no such offence, the matter was brought before the courts, and, as I explained just now. the court, before the case was heard, but after the largument on the preliminary objections, absented itself, and until the present moment there has been no adjudication upon these preliminary objections. In the meantime the crew was liberated, but they kept the captain. Of course, we understand by the circumstances that it is one of the most serious and unjust cases. There was, in fact, no infringement of any law, but there seems to be a kind of justification on the part of the authorities for detaining the men until they have had an adjudication from the judge. The last correspondence we had from the British government was at the end of February. The matter was followed up day by day by this government, and representations were made in answer to the replies that we received from the other-side. The case, to our mind, is not very much more advanced now than it was in the beginning. Of course, I do not know how we can help it, except after the judgment has been rendered. It seems to be an unreasonable thing to keep a man in jail who is arrested without any infringement of the law. It might be unjust and might cause his ruin, and cause great loss to the owners of the boat, but, all the same, it is difficult to find a way unless we were able to send a man-of-war to Uruguay and get these men liberated.


William Roche: The British government has plenty of men-of-war.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no doubt about that, but the British government does not seem to consider the ease as a hardship or unfair or unjust, or I have no doubt they would have acted more promptly and taken more vigorous measures than they have taken. The captain is defended, he is represented by a lawyer, and has communicated through the British consul at Montevideo and the Colonial Office at Loudon, and, of course, all that takes a long time.


Hance James Logan: Is the captain still in jail ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: 


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister any knowledge as to whether or not the alleged offence was committed within the territorial waters of the country referred to, or was it committed on the high seas ? I think that is a very important question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have no means of ascertaining that, but the information we have is from the lawyer defending this captain, who says that the accusation is not founded ; but, as I have stated, the case has not been tried, except that preliminary objections have been argued but not adjudicated upon by the judge owing to his absence. Of course, I understand perfectly well the unfairness and injustice of the case, but we have no means at our disposal to ascertain the facts precisely. The captain, of course, contends that he is not guilty of the offence as charged against him, hut I suppose the authorities there say that he is. They say that they are going to try him for that offence.


Hance James Logan: Is there a British consul at this place ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes ; the papers will show all that.


Hance James Logan: There is a British consul there. It does not seem to me that we should depend on the information of the attorney for the captain as to whether or not there has been a breach of the law if there is a British consul there. I would think the British consul would report to the home office as to whether there has or has not been a breach of any law in existence. Of course, there may be explanatory circumstances in connection with this case, but it seems to me that if ever there was a case in which a man had a very serious grievance, this captain, who has been confined in a South American prison for six months, has a grievance. I have no doubt that the government are paying the best attention they can to the matter, but it seems to me that if nothing has been done it would be well to very quickly ask the Home Office to move in the matter. It is the boast of British citizenship that wherever we are, wherever the sun shines, we will be defended by British power. If a Canadian, who is as much a British subject as a man in England, is not defended in a South American republic and is wrongfully detained in a South American jail, the sooner we in Canada find it out the better. I really think that the circumstances of this case, as we have them before us, justify very much harsher language than I am using, but I understand that there may be explanatory circumstances which might make us regret using any stronger language. As the case stands before us now, it is a matter of serious hardship, and it does not make for the betterment of the relations of the empire to have such a condition of affairs exist.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The correspondence which we have had with the British consul at Montevideo I will place before the House as I stated, and the committee will see that no time has been lost by the department in trying to get to the bottom of the case and to come to the relief of the captain and the crew. We are in constant communication with the Home Office with regard to this matter, and the answers that we have received were, of course, unsatis-factors7, because they did not mean that these men would be discharged, except that the crew was released, as I stated. The department has done all it can do in the matter. Another despatch was sent last week, and we are waiting for an answer to that despatch. [DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked the circumstances of this case. The captain of this vessel is a constituent of mine, a native of Bras d'Or, in the vicinity of North Sydney, and I am in direct communication with him. He writes me that the vessel was under full sail, moving along slowly in a light breeze with all her boats aboard and all hands aboard. No fishing of any kind was being done. There were no seals caught, nothing whatever could be found, nothing was there to be found and there vs ns no offence on the part of the vessel. She was captured four miles off the coast and therefore, I suppose, on the high seas. Not a particle of evidence of any kind could be gathered either on board or anywhere else to show that there was an infraction of any law' even if there had been any law. These are the circumstances and I wish to give them for the benefit of the hon. leader of the opposition in view of what he says. Isothing has since been discovered and there is nothing to discover. These are the facts. There is nothing further that can be found out about it. I am sorry to say to the House that the captain complains very bitterly of the conduct of the British consul at that place wffio seems to take very little interest in his case and to do very little about it. He is also very strry that the matter has been received with such indifference on the other side of the wmter. I am very pleased to find that such an interest is taken in the case by both sides of the House, and I hope that the question will be speedily dealt wntk, because the situation of these men is a serious one. There are 19 or 20 men dowm there out of work. They cannot come home, they have no money, their vessel is gone and hon. gentlemen will understand what the condition of these men must be. They have no money, they are in a strange land and they have no way of getting home. I think this matter is as serious as anything that could possibly come before the House and it should certainly receive the prompt attention of the government.
2C95


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman will see by the correspondence that we have on record that there is nothing to show' that the British consul was negligent in the matter. He is paralyzed to a certain extent, because these men are detained there pending inquiry into the case.


Robert Laird Borden: At the same time if the vessel were seized outside of territorial waters


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The contention on the part of the government is that it was seized within territorial waters.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is clear that an unlawful act has been committed within territorial w'aters that is another thing. However, if the government of Uruguay should undertake to pass laws and regulations permitting British vessels to be seized near the coast outside of its territorial w'aters we would have exactly the same class of cases as those which arose in connection with the Behring sea seizures when the United States government claimed jurisdiction in Behring sea on the ground that it was a mare clausum, because it was practically surrounded by their territory. Of course that contention was not made good and eventually there w'as an inquiry as to the damages sustained. If the facts are as my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) states, there should not be much doubt as to what should be done. It is a very serious act for an armed vessel of any country to seize a ship carrying the Pag of another country on the high seas outside of territorial waters and I quite agree with those who have spoken on the subject that this is a matter which might w'ell engage the attention of the House when we have seen the correspondence w'hich the hon. gentleman promises to bring down.
Steamboat Inspection, $36,000.


Richard Blain: Explain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are 20 steamboat inspectors employed including the chairman of the board.


John Barr: How long do they continue their work during the year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Richard Blain: Were there any new' ones appointed during last year ?
Mi-. PREFONTAINE. I think there was cue appointed at Sorel.


Richard Blain: What qualification is held by those gentlemen who are appointed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The statute provides for the establishment of a system of steamboat inspection and also prescribes the way in which the inspection is to be made.


Richard Blain: 1 suppose that statute was passed some years ago and I assume that rhe hon. minister will require a better qualification and a higher grade of certificate in these advanced times. Are we to understand that the gentleman who was appointed Inst year w-as appointed with the same qualification as w'as called for by the statute passed many years ago ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The same qualification. The rules are changed from time to time according to the improvements that sue going on. For instance, last year w'e amended the statute. We provided in that for the inspection of boats propelled by oil gasoline, electricity and so on. As modifications and improvements are made in the construction of boats and in machinery the rules are changed and made more strict to meet the changed circumstances. Everyone who is appointed passes a very rigid examination, one of the severest examinations possible. He is examined by the chairman of the board assisted by tw'o other inspectors and a great many kaVe failed to pass the examination. I know many w'ho are unable after two or three trials to pass the examination.


Richard Blain: What position did the person appointed last year occupy before he entered the service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He was mechanical engineer employed for many years in a machinery shop at Sorel ; he passed one of the best examinations ever passed.


Mr. INGRAM.: Was there aii increased number of explosions in the smaller vessels last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The published report of Mr. Adams gives a list of accidents, but I do not think there were any explosions.


John Howard Sinclair: I w-ish to draw' the attention of the minister to a complaint that is made by shipowners, that vessels that have been inspected by Lloyds in Great Britain are subject to Canadian inspection

when they trade in Canadian waters. It is contended that this is altogether unnecessary. It is well known that Lloyds is one ol' the most reliable associations in the world, and their inspection and classification will be accepted almost anywhere except in Canada. It appears that a ship which holds a first-class at Lloyds, which is for instance carrying coal between Cape Breton and Montreal, is subject to a special inspection in Canada and the owners put to annoyance and trouble. If this be the case, I draw the attention of the minister to the matter in the hope that the regulation may be amended.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are two sides to that question. Formerly when there was a fee charged there was no Canadian inspection, but three years ago the fee was done away with, and a regulation was passed obliging such vessels to be inspected here. Most of these vessels are what is known as tramp steamers, and it was thought better that we should keep track of them while they are plying in Canadian waters. The inspection does not cost anything. There may be a little inconvenience in it, but the Inspectors are always within call, so that there may be no delay. I think it is a good regulation.
Salaries and allowances to lighthouse keepers, $238,000.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How many lightkeepers have been dispensed with on account of the change in the system of lights ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We had formerly 35 lighthouse keepers in the Kingston-Montreal division ; we have dispensed with 11,
leaving the present number 24.


John Barr: Has the expense decreased as well ?	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There has been a reduction in that division of $2,360 per annum. That has been offset partially by an increase of $70 to Manly Cross who is in charge of the Gananoque group of lights and $250 to Thomas Leger who is in charge of the Lachine group of lights, leaving the net reduction $2,040. The idea of the department in changing the system of lighting was the strengthening of the lights, but the reduction naturally followed.


George Taylor: How many lights have been changed from the old style to aceij * lene gas ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Forty-three.


John Barr: What reduction in cost was brought about by the change ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The acetylene costs about $30 a year more.


George Taylor: When the hon. gentleman proposed to make this change he said that it was going to effect a great saving; but now we find him asking the same
amount as before. There is no saving, and the services of very few employees have been dispensed with.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was not so much the saving that I was counting on. There was a little saving, but the most important point was to make the lights more efficient. It must be remembered that the number of lights has increased considerably and that we are constantly increasing the number for the satisfaction of the shipping people.


George Taylor: Does the hon. gentleman include in this amount the sum paid for the steamer ' Scout ' and crew, used exclusively in looking after the lights ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The expenditure on the ' Scout ' is not included in this, but in the item for government steamers under the heading of ' Ocean and River Service.' The ' Scout ' has three officers and a crew of eleven men.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: May I be permitted to make a suggestion on behalf of a deserving class of people, the light keepers throughout the country. The salaries paid to these people, especially to the keepers of the smaller class of lights, are very small indeed. Those salaries remain at the same figures at which they were placed many years ago, though the conditions along the coasts have changed. The question of fuel itself is a very important question to many of the smaller light keepers. I hope the minister will take into his most favourable consideration the claims of this deserving class of people, and make some effort to grant to them some advance of salary.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to add a word to what my hon. friend has said. The salaries of these light keepers are so ab-sifrdly small that no man can be expected to live on them. For example, I had a letter the other day from a light keeper at Port Felix on the coast of Nova Scotia, who is getting $250 a year. He is living on au island, 'where he has to buy his fuel and everything else that he requires for his family. Every gentleman in this House knows that it is impossible for a man to keep soul and body together for 365 days, and feed and clothe his family, with $250 in any part of Canada. That man is expected to be at his post night and day, and to see that his light is burning when the rest of us are sleeping. He is not allowed a holiday. He has to be there day after day from year's end to year's end, and he gets $250 a year. I applied to the Marine Department for an increase, and I got the usual letter to the effect that the department could not afford to grant any increase to that class of light keeper.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that all the year round ?


John Howard Sinclair: All the year round. I think something ought to be done on behalf of these people.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I sympathize entirely with what the hou. gentleman has stated. I found the state of affairs to which he has referred when I arrived in the department. Since I have been there I have been trying to render justice to the light keepers, but I could not do it all at once. We have not been able yet to render justice to one-quarter of them. We have about 800 light keepers distributed all over the country. I have tried to provide a fair salary for the new ones that have been appointed; but it is difficult to increase salaries without being charged with favouring one class of people at the expense of another. Although I have increased the salaries of a large number of the light keepers during the two years that I have been in the department, I have been unable to do justice, I am quite sure, to a great many. I shall probably bring a supplementary estimate to enable me to render more justice to these deserving people.


George Taylor: I want to draw the hou. minister's attention to some people who I consider have had cold justice served out to them. They have worked at a low salary for a number of years, expecting that they would continue to receive it during their lifetime ; but my hon. friend promised, with the change that he was making to acetylene gas, that he would save the country a large sum of money, and would dispense with the services of a great many light keepers. He dispensed with the services of two or three in my neighbourhood without giving them a day's notice. He just told them that their services were dispensed with, and gave them no pension and no allowance of two or three months of salary. He simply threw them out on the world without notice. I want to hold the minister responsible for the promise he made to the people of this country when he introduced this change. Two years ago the bon. minister stated his reasons for changing the old system of lighting to the new system m the following words ;-
The ten new ranges of gas lights will require no keepers, saving an annual charge of $3,000, and the proposed conversion of the lights from an oil to a gas basis will enable the keepers to be dispensed with as opportunity offers, at a saving of $7,000 per year, or a total saving in cost of maintenance of $10,000 per year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But all have not yet been changed, and the saving could not be shown.


George Taylor: But the hon. gentleman lias changed thirty-live of them between Montreal and Kingston.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have dispensed with eleven of them, and have saved $2,700.


George Taylor: Then to that is to be added the expenditure on the steamer ' Scout ' that I see patrolling the river the whole season. She was not there before, and she is there now.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She is doing buoy service.


George Taylor: But the buoy service was done before out of this sum asked for, and the steamer ' Scout ' is there lying at our docks two or three days at a time, with her captain, engineers and a crew of eleven men, all in brass buttons and gold lace ; and I presume their outfit is furnished by the country. I want the minister to tell me what the expense of the steamer ' Scout ' has been for the season ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $7,000.


George Taylor: Does the bon. gentleman say that $7,000 pays the wages of the crew, including the fuel and all expenses for running the steamer one season ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the information I get from the gentleman in charge.


George Taylor: At what page in the Auditor General's Report is the item shown giving the expenses of the steamer ' Scout ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Auditor General's Report only gives the expenses for the crew, the cost of supplies is not shown. But the officer tells me that $7,000 is the average cost per season.


George Taylor: For wages, fuel and all expenses ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and gold lace, and so on.


George Taylor: Now what is the expense incurred in running the factory at Prescott, together with the cost of fitting up and completing it 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The total cost is $49,280.50.


George Taylor: $49,000 there, and $7,000 for the ' Scout,' and we have so far bad a saving of only $2,040, and the minister informs us that the gas costs more than the oil did. So where is this great saving that the minister promised when he introduced his new system a few years ago ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Prescott depot was established for the benefit of the whole Dominion. We are manufacturing there lamps and other appliances for the lighthouse service all over the Dominion ; so the hon. gentleman sees but a small portion of tlie advantages of the change. The change does not consist in merely substituting an acetylene lamp for an oil lamp, there are a great many other improvements that have been made, improvements demanded by the

shipping federation, marine associations, and so forth. For instance, that section of country has been lighted and buoyed in such a way that navigation can now be carried on during the night. Those improvements were recommended by every one interested in navigation, and we are still increasing them as time goes on, to the great satisfaction of every one engaged in navigation. We have done the same thing for a stretch of sixty miles in the St. Lawrence channel between. Montreal and Quebec, which we have equipped with gas buoys, and with lights of the most approved pattern, so that those sixty miles can now be navigated both night and day with perfect safety. All these improvements cost money. The hon. gentleman should not blame the department- for spending money in making improvements asked for by every one connected with navigation. No one engaged in navigation will find fault with the expenditure made on the St. Lawrence in improving the lighting and buoying of the channel at various points. The fact is that we have demands every day from persons interested, for more lights, more buoys, and more improvements all along the St. Lawrence route from the lakes to the sea.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are they asking you to take out oil and put in carbide ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and they have passed resolutions commending the government. If the hon. gentleman will read the resolutions passed by the Board of Trade of Montreal, by the Shipping Federation, and all others connected with navigation-I will not read them because they are so complimentary to myself personally-but if the ken. gentleman will read them he will see thiait every one interested in navigation highly commends the improvements made by the government, and are asking for still more. I may say that in the supplementary estimates I intend to bring down a large amount, nearly as much as I am asking in the main estimates, in order to satisfy the demands of the shipping interests. Of course if we had more money to expend and more time in -which to do it, we could make more improvements. The work can only be done gradually, because some of the machinery is very expensive, and it takes a good deal of time to manufacture it and put it in position.


George Taylor: But when the hon. gentleman started this scheme and made the change from oil to acetylene gas, he promised there would be a saving to the country annually. But instead of carrying out that promise he is making an annual increase, and according to his own statement he is going to bring down another large amount in the supplementaries. Now I am acquainted with the whole route from Montreal to Kingston, and have been for the last forty years, the route that he says
has now been so greatly improved. During all that time I have supplied steamers with wood at Gananoque, and I never knew the time yet when the steamers could not travel by night between Gananoque and Montreal and back again, -with the old style of lighthouses and the old style of lighting. True, the Department of Railways and Canals has charge of some of these things, they have lighting plants put on the canals, and look after their lighthouses and their light keepers ; and we have heard of but few if any accidents on the route between Montreal and Kingston. My hon. friend promised to make a large reduction in the expense by changing from oil to acetylene gas, and by putting in a plant belonging to the government. But he has not done so, and the whole thing from start to finish shows merely a desire to make government purchases from the manufacturers of acetylene gas, some of whom are members of the government, and are interested in the manufacture of this acetylene gas and are selling it to these light houses. But it will be an increased expenditure, and is an increased expenditure every year. And yet we do not see any improvement in the lights. In fact, there was more complaint during the fly season last year than ever before. Formerly there was a man to attend to each light, and he kept the glasses clear. But now, the government has its gas lights in charge of one man, Mr. Manly Gross, and he only goes around once in a while to see if they are running. The minister dispensed with the services of faithful men on a few days' notice, and started these new lights to use up the acetylene manufactured by members of the government and sold to the government.


Mr. TJ. WILSON.: Will the minister please state who is the light keeper at Brothers light, in Lennox county, when he was appointed, what his salary is, and whether he is allowed fuel and light ? The man who formerly kept the light died, and 1 would like to know about his successor.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The light keeper at Brothers light is Mr. Daniel Wendt. His salary is $200 a year.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose the lighthouse keeper is not obliged to give his whole time to this service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I should suppose not.


Uriah Wilson: Under the former government, the man wras expected to stay there the year round, and, because he would not stay they dismissed him.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Wendt was appointed on the 9th of January, 1901.


Uriah Wilson: The minister has not stated whether he is allowed light and fuel.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I should suppose so. But I can get tlie information if the hon. gentleman (Mr. U. Wilson) desires it.


Uriah Wilson: I do not need to trouble the minister on that point. Is it usual for these men with small salaries to have fuel and light allowed them ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I should suppose so.
8 Mr. INGRAM. The hon. minister stated to the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that about $7,000 is the cost of the maintenance of this boat the ' Druid.' Is any portion of that charged to the buoy account V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is all charged to the buoy account.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, there is one charge for maintenance of boats in the service, and there is also what they call the buoy account. Is there any portion of the boats charged up to the buoy service ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE  .@: 1 have just stated, on the information of the engineer in charge of the lighthouses, that the expense of the 'Scout' was charged to the buoy service above Montreal.


Andrew B. Ingram: I thought there was another account for the maintenance of these two boats in this service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no special vote.
Blr. AaiES. Will the minister please explain in a word or two how these lighthouses are grouped, and something of the system of inspection.
air. PREFONTAINE. The number of lights above Montreal is 194; in Quebec below aiontreal, 174; Nova Scotia, 246 ; New Brunswick, 118; Prince Edward Island, 50 ; and British Columbia, 37 ; total, 809. I was mistaken in the answer I gave a little while ago. Some of the keepers have two lights, and there are also a number of gaslights for which there are no keepers.
air. AMES. I do not care so much about these details, and do not wish to take up the minister's time. But I would like to know something of how the districts are co-ordinated. And what is the system by which they are inspected. The minister states that there are 174 lights below Montreal. What is the system by which these are inspected ?
air. PREFONTAINE. They are under an inspector, air. O'Farrell.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has he a steamer at his disposal ?
air. PREFONTAINE. Yes, he has a steamer-the ' Aberdeen.' And he is kept busy inspecting the whole time, looking after supplies and so on.


Mr.   U.@: 



[Stage Direction]
air. AaiES. And if the apparatus of a lighthouse breaks down, how are steps taken to have it immediately repaired ?
air. PREFONTAINE. There is a signal service. We know at once where anything has gone wrong and immediately give instructions about it.
air. INGRAai. I would draw the attention of the minister to page 6 of his own report, where the statement is made that the cost of these vessels is not charged to th buoy service :
A large number o£ whistling, bell and other iron buoys are maintained along the coast of the several provinces by Dominion steamers, particularly on the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia coasts. These buoys are called coast buoys to distinguish them from the harbour buoys. The cost of this maintenance by the steamers is not charged directly to the buoy service,-
The minister said it was.
-but is included in the cost of maintenance of the steamers which frequently perform the double duty of attending to lighthouses and the coast buoy service, on the same trip.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That may be east of Quebec, but in the upper district it is not. But whether it is charged to buoy service in one section or in another it does not make any difference.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not contending that it does. But the minister says that the $7,000 covers the whole cost and it is charged to buoy service. But it does not appear to be so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the in-formatioH I have from Mr. Fraser, who is in charge of the division where the ' Scout ' is employed.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In Lake St. Louis, the department has, within the past two years, been replacing the old lights with revolving lights, which, I think are very much appreciated by navigators. I wish to know if the same system will be extended over the whole of Lake St. Louis. The new buoys have been only on the western part of the lake, but on the lower part the lights are those formerly used ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am glad the hon. gentleman differs in opinion from the hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor). The hon. gentleman has been scolding me a good deal just now for spending so much money in making these changes. Of course the lesson has no effect on me, because the programme has been arranged by my predecessor and we intend to continue the improvements that were commenced a few years ago and to continue them as fast as the money will be voted because we know that in making these improvements we are doing good to the country, to navigation, to trade generally, and as fast as we can do it we will

change these lights in different parts of the country. We are trying to keep abreast of the demands that are made to the department and to improve the lights in different parts of Canada.
Agencies, rents and contingencies, $25,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: 1 understand there are now six agencies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: An agency has recently been established in Montreal and 1 suppose the minister has personal knowledge of that agency ? Would he kindly give us some idea as to the departments that are installed there, the number of rooms and the number af employees ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The employees are, Mr. E. Y. Bouchet, who is not a new nominee, he was in charge of that part of the River St. Lawrence before; Mr. LeBelle assistant engineer to Mr. Bouchet, Mr. Morin, messenger, and Mrs. Brunet, the caretaker. The branches of the department which have offices there are : The two cattle inspectors, Mr. Pope and Mr. DeLong, the steamboat inspectors, Mr. Laurie and Harper, who are old employees. There is also the pilots' court with Captain Reilly in charge. He has a clerk there and a stenographer. The stenographer attends to the investigations when there are any. There are also rooms for the hydrographic survey and a drafting room for Mr. Bouchet the engineer in charge. There are offices besides that for the deputy minister and myself.


Herbert Brown Ames: That makes in all how many rooms ? v


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Twelve or fourteen.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are there any other departments in the same building belonging to the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, the other rooms are taken up by merchants and we have rented only these rooms.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister, I suppose, has a lease for these premises ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A lease for five years with the privilege of renting.


Herbert Brown Ames: I had some curiosity in looking over the cost of equipping those offices. I find that the equipping of the offices cost $6,340 which seems a pretty heavy expenditure for a suite of offices that are only leased. I also find heavy expenditures for fittings, furniture, &c., about $1,700 in accounts for furniture for the various offices. I suppose the rooms of the janitor are furnished as well ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, I have not seen them, I think they live under the roof.


Herbert Brown Ames: Otherwise it would be difficult to know where the bed clothing and parlour furniture, &c., was needed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It may be called parlour furniture, but it is the usual furniture for an ordinary office. I do not suppose for instance that it would be expected that the minister would go there, and occupy a room without a carpet or furniture, and there receive people, the best merchants of Montreal, the representatives of the Board of Trade, &c. I must say that the building was in a very bad state of repair. There was no electric light in it, there were scarcely any gas pipes for the lighting, and the heating apparatus was in very bad condition. On acocunt of the expenditure that it was necessary to make to put these apartments in good condition we got it at a very cheap price. The property is worth from $60,000 to $75,000 and the rent that we pay is only $2,500. This expenditure was taken into consideration when we rented the apartments. It was the only building that could be got at the time near the harbour. It is directly opposite the harbour.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister said that he had only rented portions of the building, that other parties had the rest.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are three other rooms occupied by some other parties. We did nothing in these departments and it is mentioned in the lease also. I can furnish a copy of the lease to the hon. gentleman.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses and lightships, $500,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the same amount as last year.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the minister give us the details of how that item is made up ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The expenditure for 1903-4 for the maintenance of lights was $3S2,178.36. In that year the lightships placed on the Lurcher shoals and Anticosti island were not in position and not under maintenance. Considerable repairs are now required to the lighthouses throughout the Dominion to put them in good condition, and owing to the increased number of new light stations the cost is increasing. There are now under maintenance in the Dominion 960 lights all told, some of which were built soon after confederation. Extensive repairs are now required in order to put them in good condition. A number of them are in such shape that practically new towers will have to be built and it is important that the service should be kept up to the highest standard. This cannot be done without a large expenditure of money. In British Columbia there has been a large addition to the number of aids to navigation.
It must be borne in mind that provision must also be made for a number of new


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Herbert Brown Ames: If I may make a suggestion, it would be that when we are going to deal with an item of half a million dollars we should have some details as to the manner in which that is to be divided up. I think if we consult ' Hansard,' we will find that Mr. PREFONTAINE.
previously the minister has laid a statement of that kind before the committee.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Never for maintenance.


William Roche: I would like to ask the hon. minister if any provision has been made for the construction of a lightship off Halifax harbour ? There has been an agitation going on for some time, and I think an indirect promise has been made by the hon. minister that his attention would be given to that matter at the earliest possible moment. This is not an isolated work, but it is in connection with the general improvement of lights in Halifax harbour. Numbers of petitions have been sent in, and the opinions of nautical men have been given as to the best locality for it, and I would like to know what determination the hon. minister has arrived at on the subject.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Robert Laird Borden: I understand the hon. minister to admit the necessity of a lightship off the mouth of Halifax harbour.
I am very glad that the department has come to that conclusion. I brought the matter to the attention of the House on a great many occasions, first when Sir Louis Davies filled the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries. At that time the policy of the department seemed to be against it. I was answered with some reports of officers of the department which were not at all favourable to the idea of establishing a lightship there. On that occasion, or on the following occasion when I brought the matter to the attention of the House, I produced statements and opinions

from several persons who were familiar with navigation, and especially familiar with the harbour of Halifax, and they all declared that it was very essential that this work should be carried out. That seems to be the view now concurred in; and if it is, as the hon. minister says, regarded as important or even necessary to absolutely safe navigation in the harbour at Halifax, that this lightship should be provided, I sincerely trust that there will be no great delay about bringing down the necessary appropriation and proceeding with the work. It is absolutely important in the interest of the whole country that this Should be done. We know that every wreck which occurs anywhere along the coast of Canada, or within a thousand miles of the coast of Canada, is posted up against our account when we endeavour to make arrangements in regard to insurance rates. For that reason and many others, it is absolutely essential that a matter of this kind, the importance of which is admitted, should not be postponed. I do not think there is any work coming under the Department of Marine which is more important, especially as we are now promised a somewhat faster steamship service by the new Allan boats, which, I suppose, will run to Halifax, and possibly another port on this side, during the winter months.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: X can assure my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that X am fully alive to the position to which he has referred, it is purely and simply a question of expenditure. It will require $500,000 and we have been unable to* get that amount voted yet. If it depends on me I will have it done within the shortest possible delay. I recognize that with the fine harbour which exists in Halifax, this improvement would probably make it the easiest of access on the coast, and I hope to see the work done soon. In the meantime we are trying to improve the entrance to the port of Halifax by installing gas buoys and submarine bell.


William Roche: I am very much pleased that the minister has announced his resolve to pay some attention to the port of Halifax. He has mentioned that such a lightship as he contemplates will cost a large amount of money, but if that has any influence in deterring him perhaps he could suggest a modification in the size of the ship and the capacity of the lights which would reduce the cost. If a first class lightship be not obtainable at once because of its great cost, would it not be desirable to place a lightship there that would have a range light of thirty miles say, as against the range of forty miles which the highest class lightship has, and which might be in excess of the requirements.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where are the depots situated. at which the supplies for the light-87
house service are delivered, and from which they are distributed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The supplies are distributed by the steamers of the department. These supplies are all bought under contract at Quebec, Halifax, St. John and Montreal, although at Montreal we buy very few supplies. Everything that can be bought by contract is bought in that way.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am to understand that the supplies for the lighthouses are purchased and collected at the six agencies from which they are distributed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The goods are bought and delivery taken at certain points indicated, and then they are taken to the place where the work is going on.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is the carbide for the lights purchased V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Ottawa.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it shipped from Ottawa to the various points where it is needed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who pays the freight?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The department pays the freight.


Herbert Brown Ames: I suppose the steamers call at Quebec and Sorel for carbide.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Prescott, Sorel, Quebec and Halifax.


Herbert Brown Ames: What price is paid for this carbide at Ottawa?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $65 per ton ; the same price as the Canadian Pacific Railway pays, and they take a larger quantity than we do.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have you any idea what is the freight per ton from Ottawa to Quebec?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is the ordinary rate; I will have to look it up.


Herbert Brown Ames: The department buys lumber in large quantities at Montreal for repairing these lighthouses. One entry in the Auditor General's Report speaks of $2,500 worth of lumber being put on the ' Scout ' at Montreal and taken to Ontario.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ' Scout ' could not take that quantity of lumber all at once ; I suppose that represents the whole year.


Herbert Brown Ames: AA'as that lumber bought by contract ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When it is a large quantity and specified it is bought by contract, but otherwise it is bought in the ordinary way; they go around to the different lumber yards and get the price and buy it.


REVISED EDITION '2111 COMMONS
Mr.   PERREY@: Are any steps taken to see that this lumber is bought at a reasonable price?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When there is a large quantity required the officer has instructions to report to the deputy minister and prices are asked by public tender or by circular.


Mr. PERLEY.: The reason I asked you Is that I see the following account in the Auditor General's Report of J. G. Robert & Company, of Montreal, from whom the department purchased $2,207 worth of lumber. The prices in that account are as follows :-
Montreal, July 6th, 1903. The Dominion Government,


To J.   C.@: Robert & Company, Dr. Department Marine and Fisheries. 530 feet 2-inch pine, 1st quality, wide kiln dried, planed 2 sides, dressed
extra, 1,060 at $100	$ 106 00
560 feet 11-inch pine, 1st quality, wide, kiln dried, planed 2 sides, dressed
extra, 790 at $100	 79 00
2,090 feet 1-inch pine, 1st quality, wide, kiln dried, planed 2 sides, dressed extra, at $100	 209 00
3,491 feet 1-inch pine, 1st and 2nd quality, wide, kiln dry, planed 2 sides, dressed extra, pieces at $90	 314 19
1.000	feet 1 and 2-inch pine, rough,
2,000	at $35'	
0*2.000	feet 2-inch pine, 4,191 at $60.. ..	251 461.000	feet 2 x 6 x 20 pine, 2,000 at $36....	70 003.000	feet 2x4 pine, at $60	
180 001.000	feet 2 x 10 x 20-22 pine, 3,333 at $40	133 3225 pieces 10 x 10 x 20-23 pine, 4,167 at $40	166 681.000	feet 1-inch ' T ' and grooved andbeaded	
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	60 00
2,320 feet 3-inch pine, 6,950 at $35. 243 25
42 pieces 10 x 12 x 12-13 , 5,320 at $35.. ..	186 20
84 pieces 8 x 8 x 12-15, 5,680 at $35.. ..	198 80
Here we have common pine charged at $35 a thousand, and these items are all from twenty to thirty per cent more than they should be. Surely the minister ought to take some steps to see that prices of that kind are not paid by the department. I also see by the Auditor General's Report that 81.000 feet of rough pine were purchased at $40 a thousand. I am sure that the hon. minister, if he makes inquiry, will find that $40 a thousand is an exorbitant price to pay for rough pine lumber. I think he should see that in future tenders are obtained from a sufficient number of people to prevent this occurring again.


Herbert Brown Ames: I wish also to call attention to the fact that these advanced prices are not referred to in the Auditor General's Report. It simply mentions advances on account of lumber to J. O. Robert & Co. of $2,250. If we had not had a little experience of the priees of this company we would perhaps be inclined to pass that over ; but having found that item, we took the precaution to ask the Auditor General to bring Mr. PREFONTAINE.
down the statement, which showed that the prices quoted are 30 per cent above the regular market prices for the very best quality of goods.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is not a single one of these items that has not been certified by the proper officer. As this matter has been brought to my notice, I will look into it, and furnish all the information in regard to qualities and quantities.


Herbert Brown Ames: The money seems to liave'-been all paid to the contractor before the itemized account came in.


William Humphrey Bennett: I wish to ask the minister if he is fitting out a plant at Parry Sound for the manufacture of gas ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have not done anything yet, because the parties who offered a property at a certain price have backed out, and we are negotiating with the Bank of Ottawa for a site.


William Humphrey Bennett: What price is the Bank of Ottawa asking for the site ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $5,500. We have a vote of $12,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did some other person make an overture to the department for the sale of the property now owned by the Bank of Ottawa, on behalf of the bank, and if so, who was that party ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, that is the trouble. We found that the property was held under an option given to a man named Clarke, and this man wanted to increase the price. So we withdrew our offer, and the matter remains there.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand the minister, the Bank of Ottawa are now offering the property at $5,500. Might I ask what is the area of the land proposed to be purchased ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is between two and three acres, with buildings, wharfs, engine, boiler and machinery.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it near what is known as the steamboat dock, or is it on the opposite side of the bay, at Parry Harbour ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The engineer informs me that it is on the Parry Harbour side.


William Humphrey Bennett: I know something of the locality, and I have been advised that the price asked for by the Bank of Ottawa is a very excessive price for this property, and that adjoining property that would be equally suitable for the purpose might be acquired at a much less price.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have withdrawn our offer, and we will try to buy on the best possible terms.


William Humphrey Bennett: I presume it is possible for the government to expropriate this land ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have done nothing. The price asked at the time was considered in the locality a very low price, hut the price having been increased, we have declined to go on, and are trying to get a property at a cheaper price.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the feature of this property that made it desirable ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On account of the machinery and the buildings and we thought the price asked by the bank was a fair and reasonable price.


William Humphrey Bennett: What property is it ? Who owned it prior to its acquisition by the Bank of Ottawa ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Kerr & Harcourt. But we did not buy it, and if it is too dear, we will not buy it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister promise that he will ask by public advertisement for offers of a certain area of land which will have the feature that it abuts on the water ? I understand that certain other parties are anxious to sell their property to the department. I am informed that the department was approached by Mr. Clarke and offered this property for $7,000, that the department very properly declined to purchase it at that figure, and that the original owners are now offering the same property for $5,500. Is it a first condition that the property which the department proposes to acquire shall abut on the water ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, from what I am advised I think the minister will be able to acquire land equally suitable at a much lower price.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Will the hon. gentleman let me know the name of the owner 1


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not just in a position to state the name of my informant.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Will the hon. gentleman give me the name privately 1


William Humphrey Bennett: Let the hon. gentleman do what he would do in an ordinary transaction of his own-advertise for offers of property.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will not give me the information, I will try to get it.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is quite plain that the minister has anticipated trouble in this matter with the owners, the Bank of Ottawa. They have given an option to a gentleman named Clark, and his offer was so high that the minister declined to accept it. That offer, I am informed, was $7,000. Is that correct ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think it is.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Clark, who is a friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite, not S7i
being able to put through his deal for $7,000, they are now dealing with the Bank of Ottawa for $5,500 and I am informed that that price is a very excessive price. Do I understand that the Bank of Ottawa has now withdrawn their offer ? Will the minister make a promise that he will call by public advertisement notice to the fact that he wishes to acquire so much land in the town of Parry Sound for this purpose ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It will be pretty well known after this discussion, there will be no need of advertising.


William Humphrey Bennett: We will resume the discussion after six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Third reading of Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Hon.  W. S.@: Stand.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the reason for allowing this Bill to stand ?


Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.: I myself asked the gentleman who has charge of it not to press it just now, because it appeared to me that the more telephone companies were incorporated the more it might complicate the situation.


William Findlay Maclean: All right.


William Mulock: That was the only object.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a good reason.


William Mulock: I should have no objection to it going through and remaining-


William Findlay Maclean: No ; I think the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) is quite right.
Order allowed to stand.


OTTAWA ELECTRIC COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee on Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Mr. GALLIHER.: By mutual arrangement, Mr. Speaker, this Bill stands until Wednesday next.
Order allowed to stand.


MOOSEJAW AND EDMONTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House went Into committee on Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Moosejaw and Edmonton railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the capitalization of this company is pretty heavy-securities of $25,000 a mile and a capital stock of $2,000,000. There are provisions also under section 12, authorizing issue of paid-up stock for service, &c., to which I have already objected on a previous occasion in this House in connection with another charter. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) will observe that for a railway to be built in the Northwest, not a difficult country, this capitalization is pretty heavy. Of course, reasons may have been given before the Railway Committee in support of these proposals. But I do think that the promoter of the Bill ought to be here to answer objections of this kind.


William Mulock: I am not able to throw any light on the subject, as I was not present in the Railway Committee when the Bill was discussed. If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) wishes the Bill to stand over until the gentleman who is in charge of it is here, there is no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that where there is a probability of any questions of this kind being asked, it is as well to have the promoter of the Bill here. It may be that a satisfactory answer can be given. I would rather have the Bill stand. I suppose it will not delay its progress.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) respecting Monterey Electric and Gas Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' Monterey Railway, Light and Power Company.'-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 01) to incorporate the Lebonk and Thunder Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 78) respecting the Macleod, Cardston and Montana Railway Company.- Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Brockville, Westport and. Northwestern Railway Company-Mr. Derbyshire.
Bill (No. 68) respecting a Patent of the Paper Goods Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 86) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. GALLIHER
On section 6,
Mr. BARKER.: Mr. Chairman, in regard to section 6, I wish to make one remark, particularly as regards subsection (i).	1
have protested before in this House against the issue by the directors of any company of stock as paid up stock for the purpose of compensating certain classes of people. I have had some experience with companies and corporations. If any company wants to pay a promoter, or a solicitor, or any person whatever who serves the company ilt ought to pay him in hard cash, and I think it is an improper thing and one that leads to a great deal of mischief that companies, and especially companies in the condition that promoters' companies are ordinarily in, should be enabled to issue large quantities of stock to officers, promoters, engineers, or any other persons serving that company as if they had subscribed for the stock and paid one hundred cents on the dollar upon it. I know all the arguments that are ordinarily used in favour of allowing such a provision as this. A gentleman wants to get up an insurance company, or a railway company, or any other kind of a company. He is a particularly active gentleman and he employs a solicitor, or an engineer, or some other person to assist him. These two or three gentlemen go to work and organize on paper their company. They then go to parliament and get a provision of this kind put into the charter. The result is that these gentlemen form a company and for the purpose of placing its stock on the market they buy perhaps a small property. It may be worth $100,000, but the company takes it over at $1,000,000. If any question is raised about the real value of the property, people are told that the promoters and solicitors and engineers must be compensated with part of the ' paid up ' stock for services. I think there is not a gentleman in this House, but who has had some experience of what I am now speaking of. The promoters buy the property which they really pay $100,000 for, and it is transferred to the corporation at perhaps $1,000,000, and paid up stock is given to these promoters for $1,000,000. Then, these gentlemen place upon the market $1,000,000 perhaps of paid up stock and another $1,000,000 to be sold to the public. That first $1,000,000 is really worth $100,000 and there is $900,000 of watered capital in the company. I do not see as a matter of honest and fair dealing why a clause should be put into a charter to enable promoters to foist upon the public a company with an assumed capital of $1,000,000 paid up when there really is only $100,000 paid up. The result of the using of this kind of a clause in all these charters has been to enable a large number of people throughout the Dominion to trade in companies. I would venture to say that if you abolish that clause you would

i educe by 50 per cent the applications to this parliament for charters. The whole effect of the clause is that a number of gentlemen get some little property-it may be a patent for some invention, it may be a mere project for a railway or a canal or anything of that kind-they buy a little property at a fictitious value and they transfer it to the company they have incorporated at an enormously increased value or rather at a price that there is no pretense of any value in. They take that stock and place it on the market and a large number of people who subscribe and pay in hard cash really believe that the amount at which the property has been put in, represents the actual value. Now, I am speaking to lion, gentlemen w'ho know whereof I speak, and these lion, gentlemen know as well as I do that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred these companies are floated upon terms which enable the promoter to put a lot of money into his own pocket that he has never earned. Why should any stock be issued as paid-up stock wlien it is not paid-up stock ? What is the object of putting into an Act of parliament that stock may be issued as paid-up stock which is not paid-up stock ? If it is paid-up stock you require no provision in the statute; if it is not paid up, by putting that section into the charter you are simply enabling a number of people who are promoting companies to humbug and cheat the public and to pretend that services have been performed and fairly estimated for when services have never been rendered. On more than one occasion I have protested against the insertion of such a clause and I do so again.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: This Bill was very fully discussed before the committee


Samuel Barker: My remarks do not apply to this particular Bill ; they apply to all Bills in which such a provision appears.


Archibald Campbell: I differ altogether with the hon. gentleman. I do not think the public can be so easily cheated and humbugged as he seems to think. This provision has been inserted in Bills for years and years, and there is no reason why an exception should be made in this case. In fact, if you put such a provision in any Bill, this is an undertaking which would justify it above all others. This is a very large undertaking; dams have to be constructed and an enormous expense incurred before you can get any benefit from your investment. Rainy river is the boundary line between the United States and Canada ; a large portion of this power is to be developed on the Canadian side, some of it on the American side, and the undertaking is one which will be of tremendous advantage to the people of this country. Sawmills. flour mills and pulp mills will have to be constructed in order to make the investment pay and this development will entail vast expenditure. If some persons desire to secure an interest in the company by taking paid-up stock instead of cash I do not see how there can be any reasonable objection to that. Every day in the Railway Committee we pass such a clause, and engineers and contractors are enabled to become partners in these enterprises by taking paid-up stock for their work. I can see a good deal in what the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) says if he confined his remarks to insurance companies and such like concerns, but in the case of a great enterprise of this character where there has to be an enormous' expenditure of money before any advantage can be reaped on the investment I do not see any objection whatever to this clause.


Robert Laird Borden: The magnitude of the enterprise does not affect the principle in any way. There is a great deal in what my boil, friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has suggested. Be the enterprise ever so great the stock can be taken up at par and the persons who do the work can be paid in cash. The fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) has suggested that this enterprise would be a very important one for the people of the Dominion is not a reason for departing from what is a good principle. Is the Minister of Finance committed to the idea that we should continue this system of conferring powers of this kind? The minister knows what it results in. For example, I have in my mind a company which was capitalized to the extent of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000, placed its stock on the market at ten cents, the stock went up to an enormously high price and afterwards receded causing a great many people in this country to lose very heavily. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) would no doubt say that this was due to their propensity for going into the stock market in order to make money. I admit all that, but if the company had been legitimately capitalized in the first instance that opportunity would not have been afforded to so great an extent. I do not think the prinicple is a good one ;
I understand of course it has been very often acted upon, but it seems to me the sooner we get rid of it and adopt the principle which my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) has advocated, the better it would be for all of us in this country.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: Has any one in the committee ascertained how far this section exceeds the general law in the Companies Act, or whether it has exceeded it at all ?


Mr. FIELDING.: I have not had this particular Bill under consideration ; it came before a committee of which I am not a member. I know that abuses at times arise from over capitalization of companies, but

there is just the danger that in guarding against these abuses, you may place restrictions on an enterprise which cannot be promoted without some such arrangement For illustration, take the case of a corporation being formed to acquire some existing property. In order to acquire that property they issue bonds probably of a sufficient amount or nearly so, to pay the entire cost of acquiring that enterprise. But, by combination, by uniting the various interests, by improved arrangements in business ; in other words by the application of brains and industry to the enterprise, they would be able to make that property valuable in the future, and believing in that they issue the common stock which at the moment is not worth anything. It does not deceive anybody because at the time of its issue you could hardly sell a cartload of it for $1,000 ; but it has a prospective value provided the enterprise turns out as is hoped. If you do not allow the promoters of an enterprise like that to issue stock which may have a value in the future and which value it will receive from the intelligence and industry of the management, you may not have that enterprise carried on at all. I know that abuses have arisen, but I would almost fear that in attempting to cure them we might restrict industry and enterprise. I can conceive that it may be perfectly legitimate to issue stock paid-up and non-assessable upon which a hundred cents had not been paid, and yet you would deceive nobody because at the moment of issue it would have no substantial value. But it would have a prospective value, and that is all that the holders count on. If through the development of the concern the stock acquires a higher value, that is a legitimate profit to the people who carry on the enterprise. I am not denying that overcapitalization has led to difficulties ; but let us be careful that in trying to apply a remedy we do not place a restriction upon enterprises which but for these facilities might not be carried on at all.


Robert Laird Borden: No one can disupte that there is something in what the lion. Minister of Finance says ; but do not let us suppose that these people will not get the profit of their brains, although the company is moderately capitalized. The stock will reach its higher value in due course, and those who hold their stock will in the end get the return of their brains and industry.


William Stevens Fielding: As a rule, the men of brains do not possess the hundred cents to pay on the stock.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a gamble.


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is not a gamble. It is betting on their intelligence and their brains.


Archibald Campbell: I think every one who has any knowledge of the position of affairs Mr. FIELDING.
at Fort Francis will understand that a very large amount of money is required to build a dam and to develop this work. The capital stock is only $3,000,000, which is a very moderate amount for the work to be done. Then,- the borrowing powers are very limited-I think only $100,000. From the information I have, I believe it is a bona fide work. The Ontario government controls the power on this side and the state of Minnesota controls the power on the other side. The Ontario government requires that fuliy one-half the power developed must be developed on the Canadian side, and the state of Minnesota requires the same on the other side. It is a work of great magnitude, and will employ a very large amount of capital.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has just spoken of the character of this work, and I would like some information as to the reasons which induced the committee on private Bills to declare this a work for the general advantage of Canada. It seems to me a most extraordinary declaration to make in regard to a work of this kind. I should think this Bill ought to be before the Ontario legislature.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is'on international water.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is, you do not want that declaration, for that is a good ground for jurisdiction. There is no recital on the face of the Bill that it is an international water. Let that be recited in the Bill, and let us proceed regularly, and not stultify ourselves by making a declaration which, so far as I can understand, cannot 'be supported for a moment.


Archibald Campbell: Rainy river is a navigable stream for four hundred miles.


Robert Laird Borden: There should be a recital in the Bill setting forth the grounds for this declaration that it is a work for the general advantage of Canada. The Bill does not set forth that this is an international water. I for one object very strongly to the passage of the Bill with the bald declaration contained in it. The power conferred by the British North America Act of declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada has been abused in the past, not only during the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I believe before that as well, and I am not disposed to pass without protest a declaration of this kind.


William Mulock: I think there is much in the observation of my hon. friend that the parliament of Canada has in the past been too careless in seizing or usurping jurisdiction by declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada without having some inquiry to justify that declaration. Nevertheless, that practice has grown up, and it might not be fair in the present instance to intercept this measure further than by this timely protest, and to direct the

attention of the committee and the House to the matter, so that hereafter applicants will not think they are meeting all the requirements of the case by simply getting the committee, from good nature or perhaps carelessness, to do what the facts might not warrant. I entirely approve of the point-a point which I raised many years ago, in 1883 or 1884, when parliament practically seized jurisdiction over all local railways by a sweeping declaration without any reference to the question whether the facts would justify such a declaration. Perhaps it would be safe to have such a declaration in this Bill. The work itself is entirely within a province except in so far as it may be on the waters of the Rainy river and on the south bank of it, which is in the state of Minnesota. It is not a public work concerning two provinces. It is purely local, so far as the Dominion is concerned, within one province ; and if it were held to be purely local as a matter of law, and this declaration were not in the statute, then the Act would be a nullity. Therefore, as a matter of safety to those who invest capital in a work purely local in itself, if the company is to be incorporated here, that declaration would be necessary.


Samuel Barker: To state a falsehood in order to make it sure.


William Mulock: I do not know whether it is a falsehood or not. I do not know anything of the merits of this case. I do not think the bon. gentleman is stating it fairly in suggesting that the declaration is a falsehood.


Samuel Barker: I do not see any great difference between stating what you do not know to be true and stating a falsehood.


William Mulock: I do not know why the bon. gentleman is so excited over this particular measure as to use such strong language. According to my hon. friend's contention parliament has been stating falsehoods for the last twenty years.


Samuel Barker: It has.


William Mulock: This is the first time I have heard an hon. member so express himself. I think the point is well taken, and I think this discussion will be very helpful in preventing the abuse of this power in future. We should recognize the jurisdiction of each legislature of this Dominion and should not assume that jurisdiction by this method unless the facts warrant it- But it does not follow, because the committee has not reported the circumstances, that this declaration is a falsehood. My hon. friend assumes it to be a falsehood, but I do not think that is a fair inference to draw. He says the case has not been proven, and therefore it is a falsehood. We do not know what was proven before the committee. Statements were made, I presume, as is
always the case, and the committee, being satisfied with those statements, has arrived at a conclusion and given a judgment. We have not the evidence, we do not know from what statements or on what information the committee arrived at that conclusion. I would like my hon. friend to say upon what ground, so far as he knows, he makes the statement that this declaration is a false one.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate some of the remarks of the Postmaster General, but when he points to the Acts of this parliament in the past with regard to rail-ways


William Mulock: And other works.


Robert Laird Borden: I am particularly dealing with railways. When you point to Acts affecting railways, you come into a different class of undertakings from this. A railway is exercising what has been described by eminent authorities as governmental or public functions. You might conceive very good reasons why parliament should declare a railway to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, although situated wholly within one province. But when you come to an undertaking of this, kind, which is purely of a manufacturing and commercial character, a company not invested with any public or governmental function, so far as I have been able to ob serve, and when you declare that to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, although in reality it is an ordinary commercial and manufacturing enterprise undertaken for the purpose of gain, it seems to me we are not justified in making such a declaration. I would like to know the reasons which induced the Committee on Private Bills to declare this on-dertaking to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I must say that at the present time I cannot conceive any reasons, valid to my mind, which could have induced them to make that declaration, and, as I have already said, if there are grounds for our jurisdiction, they should be recited in the preamble of the measure. We should not, without reciting such, simply declare, without some explanation, that this work of an ordinary commercial and manufacturing character, undertaken for private gain, is a work for the general advantage of Canada.


William Mulock: I do not take exception to what my hon. friend says. I think he and I view such legislation from the same standpoint and in the same spirit. It could be argued that every enterprise of this kind, though purely local,' is for the general advantage of Canada. It is to the general advantage of Canada that a manufacturing institution should establish itself in a province. I do not say this is within the meaning of the British North America

272 i
Act. but nevertheless the committee maj- be satisfied it is ; they are the ones to construe tlie meaning of the British North America Act in regard to a company ; and if, in their conception of the meaning of the British North America Act, they ave satisfied that a work of this kind is for the general advantage of Canada, I do not know that we are warranted in saying that the committee is wrong.


Samuel Barker: We are the people who are saying that it is for the general advantage of Canada.


William Mulock: At the same time. I wish to observe that every year similar legislation is passed. You will find on the statute-book Dominion charters to persons to carry on business in a province without reference to any locality at all ; and yet over and over again we have given Dominion charters here ; there is not a session gone by since I have been in parliament that such legislation has not passed, and this is the first time-it may have occurred before-but this is the first time in my experience that this procedure has been challenged on the floor of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I have challenged it before.


William Mulock: It may have been challenged in committee. At all events, this is the first time I have heard it challenged.


Robert Laird Borden: I have challenged it over and over again-in the committee and in this House-with respect to works that I think would justify the declaration very much better than the present one. But I cannot recall at this moment that this declaration ever has been made before by this parliament with respect to an undertaking such as this. Of course, I realize how defective one's memory is with regard to these matters ; I would not speak with positiveness, but at the present moment I cannot recall any instance where that declaration has been made with regard to an undertaking of this character. Does my hon. friend remember an instance ?


William Mulock: I do not remember any instance, because I have not been following closely private Bill legislation. But I am warranted in saying that you will not find any session for many years in which there has not been similar legislation and declarations in respect to works that are in their nature essentially local, but which parliament has declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Whilst I quite approve of the hon. gentleman's attitude, he will observe that this discussion itself may remedy this very practice, without our having in this instance stopped the measure.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Does it not occur to the leader of the opposition Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
that we are not given power to legislate at all in this House with regard to these matters unless they are for the general advantage of Canada ? That is the basis of our legislative authority, that there must be a declaration that the work is for the general advantage of Canada. Now if that declaration is not true, we should not pass the legislation at all, it would'be local legislation. The question whether it is for the general advantage of Canada involves the question whether the jurisdiction to legislate is vested in this parliament or not. We are legislating in regard to an international water. I have never personally (looked into the question of an international water, but I have in regard to the question of an interprovincial water, and the conclusion I came to with regard to the Restigouche river, for instance, between Quebec and New Brunswick, was that the two provinces have no right to legislate even to the centre of the river so as to cross it, but if Quebec gave a charter to a company covering half the river and New Brunswick gave a charter covering the other half, they would be legislating within the powers of section 98,
I think it is. of the British North America Act, or a subsection. I know nothing about this case, except that these people are large ^ holders of timber limits that were purchased at an Ontario sale, I think, a year ago last December. AVe are now legislating in regard- to an international water, in respect of which the province has no authority at all. We had that question discussed in the province of Ontario in regard to the St. Clair river, when it was sought to run a natural gas pipe under that river, and my recollection of that discussion is that the consensus of legal opinion was that the jurisdiction giving the right to run that gas pipe under the river was in the Dominion. Now, if that is so in that case, it is much more so in this case, where this company, in order to protect the works they are going to erect upon that river, have to get, not only federal legislation in Canada, but also federal leave for legislation in the United States. The works they are going to erect there are very expensive and very large, so that these people who are going to invest their money in those works want to be certain that their title cannot be upset by a legal quibble. Therefore, upon that statement of fact, that this river is an international river, is a navigable river, in regard to which, I think, beyond the shadow of a doubt federal jurisdiction has exclusive power, this company would be very ill-advised and wanting in judgment if they did not get from the federal power leave and license to erect such large and expensive works as are in contemplation at that river.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether I made myself clear to my hon. friend in discussing this matter before. It seems to me, that if what he states now is correct,

it is the best argument against clause 1 of the Bill. If he is correct, our jurisdiction depends not on this declaration, but on the facts as they are. Yet, according to the Bill we are legislating in this matter, not because these are international waters but because we declare this to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, that declaration being necessary to give us the jurisdiction only where there is no such state of facts as the hou. gentleman has put forward. When that was suggested, speaking without a very clear recollection of the provinces of the British North America Act in that regard, 1 conceded that the fact that these were international waters might give us jurisdiction at least as to a part of the Bill,-I do not know that it would give us jurisdiction as to all its provisions ; I would doubt that so far as I have given the matter consideration. What I did urge, and will urge, is that if that is the basis of our jurisdiction, it should be so recited in the statute in order that we may not have this statute quoted hereafter as a precedent for declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada which are not for the general advantage of Canada according to the meaning of the British North America Act, but are simply local enterprises, ordinary commercial and manufacturing enterprises, undertaken and carried on in one province only and for the purpose of gain.


William Findlay Maclean: I have been here night after night watching the proceedings! in relation to these private Bills, and I have' noticed that we have not the advantage of the presence of either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.


Mr. BELCOURT.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) generally complains that there are too many lawyers here.


William Findlay Maclean: When these private Bills are under consideration, we ought to have at least one of the law officers of the Crown here to advise the House. Yet, night after night, we have these questions coming up and no one to speak for the government from a legal point of view. When the Minister of Justice is not here the Solicitor General ought to be here and give us the benefit of his advice.
The hour for private Bills having expired, House resumed iu Committee of Supply.



[Stage Direction]
Lighthouse and coast service-maintenance and repairs to lighthouses and lightships, $500,-
000.
['Supply, taking up the estimates of the Department of Public Works in case the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here.']
William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister promise that, at Parry Sound, in the event of his going on with this work for the manufacture of gas at that point, the land will be purchased by advertisement ? In
other words that he will ask for a certain amount of land abutting on the bay, or does he propose to purchase from whom he pleases at whatever price he pleases ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can only say that I will do the best I can to secure the best site under the best conditions possible. If we cannot find a site at Parry Sound, we will go to Parry Harbour, Colliugwood or some other place in that region.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister please say who has the buoy service from Depot Harbour up and what is the price and for what term-I mean the placing of the buoys?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Captain Clark performs this service, at $2,GOO, for one year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were tenders asked for, and were any other tenders received?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that Captain Clark has had the contract for a number of years. And when it was j given nobody else would take it. It had been continued from year to year.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that according to the Auditor Geueral's Report of last year the contract was let at $1,595. I ask the minister again whether any other tenders were received besides that of Captain Clark?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Other buoys were added, and that made the price higher. The new arrangement was submitted to Colonel Anderson, the chief engineer of the department, and he recommended it as fair and reasonable.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is, instead of tenders being called for an offer was made by Captain Clark and the department considering that it was fair accepted it. And no other tenders were received by the department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems very strange that the year before the price was $1,595, and now the minister had advanced it to $2,000. I ask the minister again if any tenders were received besides that of Captain Clark.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I had the information that a gentleman named Galna tendered for the same work at $1,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The officer in charge, Mr. G. F. Fraser, informs me that there was no such tender.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was any offer made by Mr. Galna, or by any firm of which he is a member ?

2727


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems an extraordinary thing that the price should now be $2,600, when it was only $1,595 last year, and that the increase was made without being called for;-because the minister says that, instead of calling for tenders an offer was submitted by Captain Clark and, owing to some official of the department approving of it, that offer was taken.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that the price was advanced from $1,595 to $2,600 on the recommendation of the chief engineer of the department. Colonel Anderson, because four gas buoys were added.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well then, the minister states that, owing to some buoys being added, the price was advanced from less than $1,600 to $2,600 without any tender being called for?
Mr. PREFONTA1NE. Yes. It is not customary to do it.


William Humphrey Bennett: To call for tenders ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Where a man has been doing work for a number of years in a most satisfactory manner, and the engineer of the department recommends that, on account of the increased number of buoys he should receive a certain amount in access of what he has received, it has been the custom of the department for thirty years past to carry out that recommendation.


William Humphrey Bennett: My information is right then, and the minister and I agree except as to the offer of Mr. Galna. And I will take Mr. Galna's word that he offered to do that work for $1,000. Did Mr. Galna even make an offer, as no tenders were called for, at $1,000 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed it was not.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am informed by Mr. Galna that that was the case. He is now a member in the local legislature and from what I know of him I will take his word.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Do you want me to take his word in preference to the word of the officer in charge of the service ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not want you to, I will take Mr. Galna's, and you can take your officers, and in the town of Parry Sound liis word will be taken in view of the fact that the minister's administration of his department is such that it is not expected it will be on the lines of fair play. The ' Bayfield ' goes continually into Parry Sound and it is a notorious fact that that vessel was given to a party friend there for $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: You had better read the * Hansard.'


William Humphrey Bennett: Every one knows that a steamer was given for $3,000 that was worth $6,000.	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No one would believe that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I admit the minister has a trying position to fill. He has the example of-the Postmaster General who will not ask for tenders for mail services, and who, when a mail contract is up, as was shown in an answer which I obtained yesterday, raised a contract that had been at $120 to $156 without calling for tenders, and no one expects straightforward dealing in every or any other department. ,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Humphrey Bennett: What does the minister propose to do about that contract ? Is he going to advance Clark next year $100 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister does not. The stress of party exigencies will control his course.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Do you know what you will do next year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If I were administering the department I would have an idea ? I would have an idea that the business would be conducted straightforward and above board. Of course the minister has to live up to his reputation as given by the ' Herald ' and ' Witness,' that he will be crooked.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Have I lost my reputation ?


William Humphrey Bennett: With the Montreal 'Witness ' and the Montreal ' Herald,' the Minister of Agriculture's paper, but not with your party friends. I find the department purchased at Collingwood twelve boats and equipment costing $916.66. Were tenders asked for this ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What kind of boats ?


William Humphrey Bennett: As the minister conducts the department I do not suppose he knows or that his officers either, know. It says Watts & Sons, Collingwood; boats. 12, $852 ; oars, 21,	$50.40; sundries, $12.04,
$914.44. Were tenders asked for this item?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Those boats were bought in the regular way according to the market price for the service of lighthouses.


William Humphrey Bennett: I know that is the regular way in the minister's department, but not in the business world.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is a matter of opinion.
partment to give tne contract to the party holding it as a matter of course.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were tenders called ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want to ash the minister why he goes to Marine city in Michigan, and purchases a boat there for $116. My hon. friend from North Simcoe should see that he keeps his patronage in Colling-wood.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Because we thought proper I suppose.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is a good answer from the minister; that is about the answer I would expect. The minister of course can carry things on with a high hand, but he will some time have to go to the electors.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just come back from the electors and they have returned me by over 2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister knows that I went before the electors and I exposed the ' Bayfield ' deal before the electors, and the deal in regard to the western islands whereby you gave $2,000 or $3,000 worth of timber to a party friend.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In some cases ; not all the time.


Samuel Barker: In some cases ? I would like to know where the hon. gentleman is going to draw the line, when he has got an instance like this where a man had a contract for $1,600 but demanded $2,600 ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On account of the increased number of buoys. There was an increase of four.


Samuel Barker: The man demanded an increase of 65 per cent and the only explanation that the hon. gentleman gives is that it is a usual thing. Now I think if that is the usual thing in government departments-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In special cases.
Mr. BARKER-I do not care when the practice commenced, I do not care whether it began twenty years ago or fifty years ago, the sooner it stops the better.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the buoy service, there is an item, F. Scott, Collingwood, $830, were tenders asked in this case ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Address the chair.


William Humphrey Bennett: Here is a rustic.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Here is a chump.


William Humphrey Bennett: I recognize you as such. Mr. Chairman, I would say through you that I exposed these matters to the people and although even the Prime Minister came up to my riding I am here. I am going to ask the minister again, does he propose to call for tenders in regard to the buoy service up there or does he propose to live up to his reputation.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am going to live up to the reputation which has been approved by the electors of Quebec in my county by 2,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: He gets awful black eyes in Ontario.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not care.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not carry these things in my head. My officers cannot do it either, so I shall ask that at some future discussion I may be allowed to produce the contracts. I shall give the information with pleasure. Going back again I would say that no one would take that contract at any price because they had not the proper plan. It was continued from year to year and as the number of buoys increased a calculation was made of the value of the services to be rendered. I had nothing to do with it personally, I was in Quebec and I never saw Captain Clark. I relied on the chief engineer of the department and if he has misinformed me, he is responsible. I am responsible to the House and I will make inquiries and if there is anything wrong about it I will remedy it. I would be the first to accede to any reasonable suggestion that is made to remedy an abuse, and I do not know why I should meet with all of this abuse.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to go up to Ontario for an election now. They have a couple of ministers on the tenter hooks who would not care much about going up to Ontario. Are you going to give large contracts in this way for buoy service at enormous figures and yet not allow any competition. The minister will outvie the Postmaster General if it be publicly advertised that the public money is to be expended in vain and without tenders.


Samuel Barker: I understood the minister
to say that it was the practice of the de-


William Humphrey Bennett: Nobody is abusing the minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: And my reputation put at stake, statements that a certain paper in Montreal has given me a bad reputation, &c. What do I care about it? Suppose that the hon. gentleman is called by a paper a thief, robber, sneak or anything else. What does he care about it? I do not care about these things; I come before the public and face the public and explain the situation, and if my electors are not satisfied with me they can keep me at home, but that is not what they have done for the past

thirty years. This is what they have done since I have been here: They elected me not only in my native county of Chambly, but also in Maisonueuve in 1896. In 1900 I was elected in Maisonneuve and also in Terrebonne, which was carved out of a Tory constituency, and I carried it by 1,600. While still a candidate in Maisonneuve I went back to the county of Terrebonne, which had not been represented by a Liberal for 37 years, and I carried that county. I was elected for two counties. Does that go to show that the insinuations which are made against me are usually well founded and that my reputation cannot compare with the reputation of any respectable man in this Canada of ours?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have always sympathized with the hon. minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not want your sympathy.


William Humphrey Bennett: Sometimes we have things thrust upon us. Sometimes greatness is thrust upon some persons, but the hon. minister has never had greatness thrust upon him yet. I do not assail the hon. minister. It was the Montreal 'Herald' and 'Witness' that assailed him. It was his colleague the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), because the 'Herald' is his journal.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I beg to denv that it is the journal of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture.


Samuel Barker: It is his brother's journal.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Is it possible for any one to know what his brothers and his cousins and his sister are doing?


William Humphrey Bennett: When the hon. Minister of Agriculture was charged in this House with stabbing my hon. friend in the back his statement of defence was that lie had transferred his stock in this journal to his brother.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Therefore, he was not responsible.


Mr BENNETT.: I do not think there is any love lost between the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I beg pardon, we are on the best of terms and we are the best of friends.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no doubt that up to the day before the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior gave out his announcement these hon. gentlemen would all have claimed to be brothers together. It is a case of hanging together.


Alexander Johnston: The galleries are laughing at you.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) says they are laughing at me. Perhaps it is at himself; perhaps it is at seeing a freak in the House. As long as I am in this House and as long as the hon. minister or any other minister is administering that department and whenever I believe there are good grounds for criticism I will discuss and criticise his administration, whether it be in regard to the buoy service, the purchasing of boats or be it what it may. The hon. minister is not doing what he should in the interest of the country in giving to this Captain Clark, who is a friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite, this contract at this price. To the statement that no one else is capable of taking charge of this work. I would say that Captain Galna, who is the owner of one or two tugs, is just as capable of doing that work as Captain Clark is. Let me call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that Captain Galna offered to do this work for $1,000 and that there is no warrant at all for the hon. minister increasing the price from $1,600 to $2,600. Will the hon. minister say how many buoys have been added to the Parry Sound service? [DOT]


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Before the hon. minister answers that I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett), who has been criticising without discrimination the administration of the Marine Department with the desire of making people believe that something is being done that should not be done, and who has evidently been speaking for the benefit of people who are supposed to be the builders of certain boats, if he can produce an item in the Auditor General's Report showing that W. Watts & Sons did not give full value for what they were paid? If there is no charge of that character and if the hon. gentleman is bound to confess that the item is right, his criticism is entirely factious. Then, I ask him the same question as to Captain Scott's contract in regard to the buoys. It is well known in Collingwood that Captain Scott has been performing that service for a great many years. Whether there have been tenders or not I do not know, but I have never heard a word of complaint about the way in which he did his duties. He is the very best man for the job. Has the hon. gentleman any information from Collingwood or the vicinity' that he has not performed the service properly or that he has been paid too much? If he has not that information, again I say' that the hon. gentleman's criticism is factious and that it is made with the intention of creating the suspicion that something is being done that ought not to be done. If he has not that information, it must be a purely imaginary charge for the purpose of creating a wrong impression in the minds of the public.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many buoys are in the Parry Sound service?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Eight gas buoys, 12 spar buoys and 4 buoys added, making 24.


William Humphrey Bennett: In reply to my bon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), who seems to be very much perturbed, 1 can only say that my only complaint is that the hon. minister has seen fit to go to Marine city and purchase a boat for $110. I think that boats for the use of the lighthouse service can be manufactured in Collingwood, and if they cannot be manufactured there I know many places where they can be. I think that boats for the service of the department should be purchased in Canada without going to Marine city, and I think it is a fair cause of complaint that the hon. minister did go to the United States to make such a purchase as this. My hon. friend from North Simcoe and I, perhaps, do not see eye to eye in this matter. As to the bill of Watts & Sons, $914, there are other boat builders at Collingwood, and when $900 worth of boats are purchased tenders should be asked for in the open market. I do not know anything about the class of boats purchased, and I am not in a position to complain of them. Then, as to Captain Scott's contract, all I have to say is that tenders should be called for this service and whoever is prepared to do it satisfactorily at the lowest price should have the contract.


Archibald Campbell: Were tenders called for previously ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Tenders have been called for the buoy service repeatedly, although I will not say so in the Collingwood case.


Archibald Campbell: They were never called for in your time.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. As to the case in which the hon. gentleman seeks his Justification I agree with him. I do not want to see boats bought outside of Canada. There are boats of all kinds made in Collingwood and I want to see them purchased in Canada whenever they can be purchased here. But, I say that the hon. gentleman's criticisms in regard to the Watts and Scott accounts, are not justified, that they are factious and that they are made for the purpose of creating a wrong impression in the minds of the public.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) give me the page of the Auditor General's Report ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Page P-54.
Thomas Langell, Marine City, Michigan, 1 boat, $116.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 am quite sure that if that boat had been procured in Canada it would not have been bought elsewhere because my instructions to the department are to give the preference at all times to Canadians.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister will see that while he has increased the buoy service 20 per cent, there having been four buoys added, he has increased the price paid the contractor by about 65 per cent. What is the explanation of that ? I am going to ask the hon. minister another question about his department at Midland. Can the hon. minister explain why two decent range lights were sent there to be placed on the hill by the department and a day or so after they were brought there and the freight paid on them they were sent back and two miserable electric lights were put in their places? What influence was brought to bear to bring about that result ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information, as far as I can gather it at the present moment, is that it was decided afterwards to use electric light as being more powerful.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the minister that the principal men in this Midland Electric Light Company were friends of the Liberals, and when two splendid range lights were brought there to be placed on top of the hill to light the harbour and to keep vessels from going on the shoal in the middle of the bay, such influences were brought to bear on the department that these two splendid lamps were shipped back and in place of them two little flickering electric lights were left on the hill. The result is that boats have been piled up on that shoal. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent in Midland harbour for private uses when one-twentieth or one-fiftieth part of the same money would remove this dangerous shoal ; however that is in the Department of Public Works and not in the Department of Marine. Some officer in the Department of Marine reported that these two splendid lights should be placed on the hill as beacons and after they had been brought there, the influence of the party friends was so great that for this miserable $50 a year that resulted to the electric light company, the lamps were sent back and the small electric lights substituted.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. How long ago was that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Three years ago.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Has the corporation of Midland taken over the electric light plant ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, but it did not have the electric light substituted for the lamps. I appeal to the minister to do away with these electric lights and have the lamps placed there again.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have more confidence in the officers of my department than in the mere say of the hon. gentleman. If the chief engineer decides that these two electric lamps render better service than the

two other lamps I will not put my judgment against his.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister rely on the officer who reported that these lamps should be put there, and had them sent there and the freight paid on them, and then have them removed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should think that the minister would have very little confidence in such an officer who ordered the lamps there and then had them sent away again.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is what the hon. gentleman says but he does not know it. If the lamps were sent there to be installed and if the officer changed his mind on an offer being made, and found that the electric lights were better, I will abide by his judgment every day, every hour and every minute in preference to the word of the hon. gentleman.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister admits that the lamps were sent there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never denied it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been informed by men who are in a position to know that the lamps sent there at first were suitable for the purpose. To-day the result is that the looking at that hill you are unable to tell which are the range lights and which are the ordinary lights of the town, and the consequence is that boats have been piled up on that shoal, while if the large lamps had been there the casualties would not have happened.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no such report in the department ; it is pure invention. I would like to know whose opinion am I going to take. Am I going to take the opinion of my officer or am I to take the opinion of the hon. gentleman to run my department ? I have Colonel Anderson who has been there for thirty years, Mr. J. F. Fraser and Mr. B. Fraser all good officials, and am I going to cast aside the opinion of these officers and let the member for East Simcoe run the Department of Marine ? If I did that I would be discredited as a minister.


William Humphrey Bennett: Which of these officers reported that the lamps should be sent there ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are three officers in that service and I cannot remember which one of them so reported. They do not consult me about these technical details ; it would be preposterous that they should do so. If there is any important change or any expenditure of money of consequence they have to report to me and I have to approve or disapprove, but matters of detail are attended to by the officers themselves. I will furnish the information Mr. PREFONTAINE.
to the committee if it is of such importance as to entitle us to spend money in laying on the table of the House a report; that Mr. So-and-So on such a date ordered lights to be placed at that point ; that a few days afterwards having considered that the electric lights would be better, he changed his mind.


William Humphrey Bennett: So far as the report is concerned I am not interested. I know that the lamps were placed there on the report of one of the officers and he must have thought that the lamps were the proper thing to put there. If it was on the recommendation of Colonel Anderson, then Colonel Anderson was in Midland previously and he knew that the town was lighted by electricity before he ordered the lamps. It was openly discussed in the town that the lamps had been switched back, and that was done because of the few dollars which this electric light company got. I suppose the town will have to grin and bear it ; the private interests must be served first and the public interests afterwards.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Even although this has all happened in the town in which the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) lives, yet as a representative of the district I cannot allow to go without protest the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) that the harbour of Midland, a Canadian harbour, has been for the last three years in such a condition that for want of proper lighting boats have been piling up on this shoal, almost one upon the other. And forsooth, why is it that all this has come about according to the story of the hon. member ? It would appear that the electric light company, which the hon. gentleman says was composed of friends of the Minister of Marine, desired to put up electric lights to light the harbour, but it might be no harm to mention that in the district whence the hon. gentleman comes, it is well known that they are struggling and fighting, and if it was not an unparliamentary expression I would say, that they are scrapping from one end of the year to the other, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) and the gentleman who was the main controller of that electric light company. But some two years ago, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) acting on behalf of the town of Midland obtained the control of that electric light plant, and since then the electric light plant is a corporation concern. Consequently, for the last year and a half or two years the corporation of Midland are the people who are getting the advantage of this $50 a year, which has been the cause of all these wrecks on that terrible shoal in the beautiful harbour of Midland. -If that is the picture the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) wants to present to the country of our Canadian harbours on the upper lakes, I protest against it, and I can assure the House that it is not a correct statement of the conditions in Midland bar-

273S
bour. It is not susceptible of belief by anyone that for the last three years such a state of affairs could have existed. The refutation of such a statement can be found in the fact, that the man who was the largest shareholder in the electric light company at the time referred to namely Mr. Playfair, is a hundred times more interested in navigation and boats and shipping than any man in the constituency of East Simcoe. It is absurd and preposterous to suppose that in order to obtain $50 a year for an electric light company, he would take any chances of running ashore on the shoals of Midland harbour, a fleet of vessels which I suppose is valued at half a million or a million dollars.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister now if he will take into consideration the question of substituting proper lights for those electric lights and ask for a report from his department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will not, because I depend upon my officers.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister consult his officers, then, as to the desirability of such a change ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will not, unless they take it upon themselves to recommend it to me.


William Humphrey Bennett: Unless the officers report to the hon. gentleman, he will not make any inquiry-is that as I understand it ? Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman expects to get through some estimates to-night. If he does, he had better come down from that high and mighty vein, or he will not get very far. Now, I am going to ask the minister if he does not think it fair that proper lights should be placed there, or that this matter should be inquired into, in view of the fact that there is a shoal there with deep water alongside of it, and that any one may mistake those twinkling lights on the hillside. Will he not say, in the interest of the town, that he will consult his officials as to that ? Will the minister answer ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have answered twice already.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the minister says he will not look into the matter at all. That is understood ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Very well ; we know where the minister stands on that question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I stand with my officers on what they have recommended and what I think is honest and fair. Those lamps have been there since 1901, I have never received any complaint about them, and the work is going on all right. This is one of those fancies of the hon. gentleman that I am not going to satisfy.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, let me tell the minister that these little lights on the hillside are a matter of complaint in the town, and that the town would prefer to lose the $50 and have two suitable lights placed there instead. And yet the minister says he will not consult his officials.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Until I get a complaint.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman not regard a complaint as coming from myself ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not under the circumstances.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then we may reciprocate. The hon. gentleman may have a complaint coming to me from himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister i-3 taking a rather unusual course in this instance. If any citizen of Midland made a complaint of that kind, I think the hon. minister would consult his officers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: With the greatest pleasure.


Robert Laird Borden: But when a member representing that district makes a complaint, he says he will not take the trouble of consulting his officers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because my offi-ers say they have not received any complaint from any citizen.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not perhaps understand me. If any citizen not in a representative capacity made a complaint, I would consider it the duty of the minister to make an inquiry ; and when the minister has a great deal more than that, tlie statement of a gentleman who represents in this parliament 25,000 or 30,000 people, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman is going a little beyond what I have heard before in saying that he will treat that with absolute contempt and will not make an inquiry of his officers in regard to it. I am bound to say that I have never heard an announcement of that kind before by a minister, and I trust that my hon. friend will reconsider that a little, and at least make the matter which has been mentioned a subject of some inquiry.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the minister will say what candle power are those two lamps of which the hon. gentleman is speaking ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have not a list of the lights. I will inquire.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister listen to a complaint from me as to another pair of range lights, or is he going to treat it in the same cavalier way and say he will not listen to any complaint coming from me with reference to that riding ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am here to listen.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad to see that the minister is coming down from his high horse. There are two range lights around the point from Midland harbour, the caretaker of which is a man named Somers. May I ask whether these are satisfactory, or if any complaints are made relative to them ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by the officer in charge that there has never been any complaint.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I can tell the minister that I have heard complaints from captains of vessels plying there in reference to those range lights.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Let them send their complaints to the proper authorities.


William Humphrey Bennett: I flatter myself that I am here as the representative of that riding. I have been here for a considerable time, and the signs of the times indicate that the people there quite approve of my course here, no thanks to hon. gentlemen opposite. A great deal of time has been lost by hon. gentlemen opposite in their vain endeavours to keep me out of this House. I have always been flattered by the presence of the premier at a meeting and with the presence of the Minister of Customs ; I have always had orators from the province of Quebec and some members of the House ; but all their efforts have been without avail. I want to tell the minister that, representing that riding as I do here, and having represented it in this House for fifteen sessions, I am not going to be treated in this cavalier way by him, and I am going to ask him now whether or not he will ask his officer for a report as to whether or not it would be advisable to raise those two range lights to a higher position. I am advised that the lights are not sufficiently high or strong, and that it would be a very decided advantage to navigation in that quarter to have them changed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Might I ask the hon. gentleman when he got those complaints, and from whom ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not specifying the parties, but I have often heard the captains speak of them. I am not here to say to what extent I am interested in the town of Midland. I am interested as a citizen and taxpayer, and if the minister will consult the assessment roll, he will And that I am probably the largest taxpayer of the town.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then I understand that the hon. gentleman is the complainant?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am the complainant-one of the complainants.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Who are the others ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The others are mariners trading in and out of that port Mr. PREFONTAINE.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Who are they ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not here to mention their names particularly, but I will say to the minister that it is a matter of common complaint that those two range lights are inferior lights, because they are not strong enough or high enough. I ask the minister if he does not think it is fair to the town and to the shipping interests there to ask his officials to report whether it would not be better to have two powerful lights on the hillside which would stand out boldly instead of the two small lights which are there now ? Although the town may be the recipient and has the advantage of getting this paltry $50, the town would be much better pleased to see two strong lights there than to get the remuneration from the sale of the power.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have just asked my officers if there had ever been any complaint, and they never heard of any. They tell me the hon. gentleman's complaint is not well founded.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has either of the hon. gentleman's officers ever been in the town of Midland ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Both of the officers have been there, and they know all about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman's officers, but there is the opinion of the people who are trading there with vessels and barges, and I know they complain of it. -	-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give me the name of one man, who is a mariner, who has made any complaint.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the minister that there are large boats plying there, boats 450 feet in length, carrying a quarter of a million bushels of grain. Some 15,000,000 bushels of grain are handled there. Vessels come from Chicago and American points on the other side, and when the captains look up on the hill and see it dotted with electric lights, and only two little insignificant lamps in the harbour, so small that the hon. gentleman is forced to admit that his officers do not know their candle-power, they get confused. . I challenge one of his officers, who profess to know all about it, to say that either of those lamps are equal to an ordinary street lamp, and yet the minister says he is not going to inquire into it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said anything of the kind. I said just now that I had inquired from my officers if there had been any complaints, and their answer was that there had been none. Then I asked them whether the statement of the hon. gentleman was well founded, and they tell me it is not. Therefore, I again ask the

hon. gentleman to give me the name of one single mariner who would put his signature to a complaint, and he cannot do it. The hon. gentleman talks about the millions of grain that are shipped from the port of Midland, and he thinks that is a justification for his assertion that the boats were piled up on the shore in the harbour of Midland. That is a farce. The hon. gentleman is wasting the time of the committee. Under the circumstances, the hon. gentleman says I am on my high horse. I am on my ordinary horse. I try to be polite, to be reasonable, to be just and fair to every one. But I will not stand here to be ridiculed and cross-examined by the hon. member, when he cannot justify a single one of his statements.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the minister that I never made the complaint that boats were piled up on the shore.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is the horse laugh again.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT.: An ass would understand it anyway.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now, I want to tell the minister again that I did not make any complaint that boats were being piled up on the shore; my complaint was that the boats were piled up on the shoal. But, unfortunately, there have been boats piled up on the shoal owing to defective lighting. When a captain comes in there from Chicago, who has never been in the place before, and when he looks up on the hillside and sqes street lamps there and electric lights by the dozen, it is a very difficult thing for that man, on consulting his chart, to pick his way. I appeal to the minister as a representative of the town, and ask him if he will ask his officials whether it would not be advisable to have proper lights placed there rather than these two electric lights.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister would answer this question-I am putting it in view of what the hon. gentleman has stated-what would his officers regard as a proper degree of candle-power for these electric lights ?
Mr.	P REFONT AINE.	One hundred
caudle-power.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the minister able to state, from the information afforded by his officers, that these lights comply with that standard ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is impossible for them to state, with regard to these particular lights, what is the exact candle-power. The hon. gentleman will understand that my officers are unable to carry in their memories the candle-power of 3,000 lamps distributed in different parts of the Dominion. They cannot say say whether they are of 50, or 60, or 30 candle-power. But I will procure the information.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I was going to suggest, that he ask his officers to procure that information. There is a. certain standard, and they do not seem to be able to state whether these lamps comply with it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have never refused that. But when the hon. member for East Simcoe tells me and tells the House, and thinks we are going to believe such a statement as he makes


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we had better not go into that again.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know what statement the hon. gentleman means to insinuate that I made. If the hon. gentleman challenges the statement that there never have been boats on that shoal, I will stand by that statement. Last year a boat caught on fire there owing to defective lighting.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does the hon. gentleman try to make me believe that if accidents happen there, it was owing to defective lighting in the port of Midland ? The mariners must have been either stupid or did not know their business, otherwise the accidents did not happen from defective lights in that port. People do not wait for accidents to happen from defective lights ; they complain of the lights beforehand.


Mr.   ABIES@: Some days ago a return, prepared at my request, was brought down showing the buoy contracts let since July 1st, 1903. It covers information concerning seventy-seven buoy contracts. In forty-five cases tenders have been called for and the lowest tender accepted. In twenty-seven cases the contract has been renewed without calling for tenders. In five cases the circumstances have been exceptional. I compared a few of these in which tenders have been called for with the prices we have been paying. For instance, in the case of Grand Manan, we used to pay G. B. Harvey $200, as will be found at page P-69 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending June 30th, 1904. Evidently we recently called for tenders, and now we are getting the lighting done by Austin Levy for just half the money -$100. At Mahone bay, according to the Auditor General's Report, page P-73, we formerly paid C. U. Mader $95. That contract expired and another was made on the 12th of August with D. Evans for $78, a reduction of about 20 per cent. These are a few cases that go to show that when contracts are called for the results are almost invariably a reduction in the price.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oh, no.


Herbert Brown Ames: A business man would so infer, at all events. I *would ask the minister if he would take into consideration the : fact that there are twenty-seven of these



contracts, many of which, if renewed by calling for tenders, could probably be renewed at a lower figure ? Is it his intention hereafter, wherever possible, to call for tenders ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is what we have been doing.


Herbert Brown Ames: Twenty-seven out of seventy-seven seems to be a large proportion of contracts renewed without tenders.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will procure the information the hon. gentleman asks for.


Herbert Brown Ames: What I am asking is whether, speaking as a matter of general policy and not of particular instances, it is understood in the department that tenders are to be called for except in unusual cases ? I know that the minister desires to improve upon all previous administrations, and I think he has an opportunity here of saving a considerable sum of money if he desires to do so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I accept the lecture. Of course, I do not understand completely the running of the department. But the information I get from my officers is that when a contractor has been doing his work loyally and well at a fair price, we do not take away the contract, but renew it at the same price. Of course, they ask me to sanction the renewal, and I approve it after examining the documents of the report. It sometimes happens that there are changes in the series of buoys or lamps- they may be increased or they may be diminished. In that case, if the old contractor is unwilling to do the work at a reasonable price, in the opinion of the officers of the department, tenders are called for. I must say that these matters are left to the responsibility of the officers in charge, and reports are made to me. Most of the officers have been long in the department, and I suppose they are honest and loyal, and that they do their duty. If I should discover that they do not do their duty, I should know what my duty is in the matter.


Herbert Brown Ames: Before six o'clock recess, the minister told us something about the purchase of calcium carbide by the department, but we did not quite finish that subject. I understand the minister to say that the carbide he uses is purchased altogether from the Ottawa Carbide Company, and that from here it is distributed to the points at which it is required for these gas buoys. The price paid, he told us, is $65 a ton. The freight is additional, and if it is sent to Sorel or Quebec the freight must add considerably to the cost. Has the minister ever given thought of purchasing carbide at a place nearer to Sorel and Quebec than Ottawa ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Within the last few months the manufacture has been undertaken at Shawenegan Falls. We have Mr. AMES.
not yet bought from the people there. We do not know that article. But we feel that we are safe in buying from the Ottawa Carbide Company. I think that the officers of the department are considering the possibility of buying at Shawenegan if they can get the same quality at as good a price.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. gentleman need have no fear about the carbide being the same, because the parties who carry on the manufacture at Shawenegan are the same as at Ottawa. Mi-. Thomas L. Willson, whose name is found in ail the carbide companies of Canada, is one of the prime movers. So the minister would be dealing with the same patentee in any case. Is the minister aware that the agents in Montreal of the Shawene-gan manufacturers, the Continental Light and Power Company, are quoting this carbide at Shawenegan at $62.50 by the single ton ? Shawenegan is close to Three Rivers, Sorel and Quebec, and so the freight to these points will be very little. Yet the minister is paying $65 a ton and also paying freight from' Ottawa to Sorel and Quebec, which must make the carbide considerably more expensive. As the minister buys $20,000 worth of carbide in the course of a year, here is another opportunity for him to make a considerable saving.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) asserts that buying at Shawenegan would mean less freight to Sorel and Quebec. But any business man in this House will understand that this does not necessarily follow. Shawenegan is an out-of-the-way place. You can to-day get freight from Toronto to Quebec cheaper than you can get it from Montreal to Quebec.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is Montreal an out of the way place ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, that is stronger proof on my side. Shawenegan being an out of the way place we might be expected to pay more freight from there to Sorel, because there is no direct way to it, than we pay at present from Ottawa to Sorel. However, it is a matter to be inquired into and I thank the hon. gentleman for the information. The officers have probably made their calculation and find that it can be done better as they are doing it, but we will inquire into it. There is no competition whatever from Shawenegan to Sorel, and where there is no railway competition sometimes the rates are 50 or 100 per cent more than where there is competition, so that the question of freight does not amount to a row of pins.


Herbert Brown Ames: This carbide is used on the river between Montreal and Quebec in large quantities and the vessels of the department are constantly passing and stopping at Three Rivers. Possibly the minister

might find that he could save considerable money in that way by buying at Shawene-gan. I would like to ask the duties of the small steamer 1 Maisonneuve ' which is employed in the department in connection with this same service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have been called upon to make a return on this question and it is on the table of the House, unless the kon. gentlemen want to waste half an hour while I go over this information.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like the information.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Anything to lose time.


Herbert Brown Ames: I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. If I have information in my hands that I think is of value to the House I shall place it before the House as rapidly as possible but I do not want to be accused of trying to waste time.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot be expected to carry all these details in my pocket. They were all brought down yesterday. It is stated that the 'Maisonneuve' is doing buoy service, and is used generally by the hydrographic surveying officers in visiting places where there is shallow water. I stated yesterday what the boat had done, and what it cost in the way of repairs, &c.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much did the boat cost in the first place ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $8,500. It. had been built by an Ottawa engineer at Smith's Falls and it cost, without supervision and plans, $16,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: I notice that the minister found it necessary to spend a considerable sum of money on the ' Maisonneuve.' There is an account here from a furniture dealer in Montreal, Mr. Valiquette, who appears to have done about $800 of work on it, and he has charged labour at the rate of 40 cents an hour and the wood fittings are charged at the rate of 5 cents a foot. These seem to be high prices and perhaps the minister will explain.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The 'Maisonneuve' had been- constructed as a pleasure yacht. The fittings had to be replaced and they were replaced and changed in the same quality of material as had been employed before. I must state that the ' Maisonneuve ' on three or four occasions was put at the disposal of the Governor General and we did not think it reasonable to botch this little vessel, which is a very nice little craft, or to destroy or diminish its value by putting in cheap goods, or employing labourers of no ability to do the work. We did as any business man would do under the circumstances.


Uriah Wilson: What is the boat used for ?
88J


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I explained that
just a moment ago. She was frequently used by the officers instead of a vessel that would cost 100 per cent more to coal and that would carry a more numerous crew.


Uriah Wilson: The reason I asked was because I understood you to say it was a pleasure boat.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It had been constructed as a pleasure yacht by a gentleman who had used it for two years. If we only wanted it for ordinary use I do not think we would have had it so expensively fitted, but I think it would have been cheap policy to destroy the value of a nice little boat like that by putting in cheap wood. It does not amount to a great deal after all. 1 might have saved probably a few hundred dollars on the repairs by making them cheap and of poor quality, but we probably would have destroyed the value of the boat more than the difference in price between a good job and a bad job.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has brought out exactly the point I wanted to get at. In other words we have found out that this
is,	so to speak, the private car of the department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I deny in toto this statement. I have used the ' Maisonneuve ' only once when she was brought here to Ottawa, and I used her for about two hours, because the deputy minister wanted me to see and judge for myself the value of the boat, how it ran and what uses it could be put to. That is the only time that I used
it,	and if I had used it more I would say so just the same. I think it is small policy to accuse a minster who is doing his duty in a matter of this kind. Unless you can find anything wrong in what I have done personally as regards my department what justification is there for making such an insinuation as this ? If he is travelling without cause or reason and not in the service of the country, well and good, but come out straight and make a definite accusation-no insinuations.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the hon. minister has quite misunderstood what I said and has gone out of his way to feel aggrieved when no offence was intended. I took it from the hon. gentleman's own suggestion that he had fitted this yacht up with special care as, he said, at times he had placed it at the disposal of the Governor General. The point I made was that this was the show vessel of the department, the vessel which was to be used as a sort of private car and to be placed at the disposal of any one whom the department desired to treat well. I did not think there was anything offensive in that because if there were I would be the first to take it back. I do not wish in any way that my criticisms should be considered as

being of a personal or offensive character. I have no intention that they should he and if they should bear that interpretation I
should be the very first one to desire to rob them of that character. I appreciate the work that has heen done in the department of Marine and Fisheries, I appreciate the fact that there is a demand for a great work and that the minister is active and earnest in carrying it out, but nevertheless, my duty as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition is to criticise whenever I think the methods are unbusinesslike, or where-ever I think they can be improved, and I hope that the hon. minister will not imagine that when that criticism is made in good faith from a business point of view it necessarily means an offensive allusion or insinuation against himself because such is not my desire.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am glad to hear the explanation given by the hon. gentleman but I defy any hon. member of this House to have put a different meaning on the words that fell from his lips when in a nagging way he said that this yacht was like a private car to the minister.


Herbert Brown Ames: No, I did not say to the minister. I said a private car to the department.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The minister.


Herbert Brown Ames: No I did not. We will see by ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, if you take it back all right.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not say that. We will see by ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


Uriah Wilson: I do not wish to go on record as advocating a shoddy kind of furniture for a boat like that but there is quite a difference between good substantial furniture that would be suitable for that boat and extravagant furniture when it is to be used in this way. This boat is used very largely by the inspector of lighthouses and in waters where a larger vessel is not able to go.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I started to ask for some information about the ship ' Lurcher.' I understand that she was built by the Poison Iron Works Company and that the department took her over before she was completed. Was there a reduction in the cost because of the unfinished condition of the vessel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was no reduction for the simple reason that the boat was taken away from the navy yard at Toronto at the end of the season because we wanted to have her installed in her position before the winter navigation. We forced the contractors to bring down the boat as far as the sea in order that she would not be frozen in before winter and we should not be deprived of her service.


Herbert Brown Ames: The work was completed at Quebec by men employed by the contractors, and after that she was taken down to Halifax, I think, in December. It cost the contractors a large sum of money to do this work, but we were put to no loss whatever in the matter. It was to serve navigation and because some of the proprietors of the steamship lines were so anxious to have the boat installed in the fall of 1904 that we had her taken down to the sea at that time.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: - Where did the builder, under the contract, have to deliver the boat?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will bring down the contract.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not want you to bring down the contract. I want to know at what point the boat was delivered.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The contract will show that. I do not remember.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. minister must know whether the boat was to be delivered at Toronto, Quebec, or Halifax.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think the boat was to be delivered at Toronto.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then the builder did not finish his contract in time and you compelled him to deliver this boat at Quebec ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because we wanted to save the winter season.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: This boat seems to have had quite an unfortunate career.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In what way ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did she not get into trouble on her way down to Halifax ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She had to go through a very severe storm that we had no control over and she went through very well.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I suppose you would not hold the contractor liable after he had delivered the boat ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot remember how we finally settled with the contractor but I will bring down the papers,


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I should think the hon. minister would have this information before him.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All the papers connected with all the items which go to make up a million dollars ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You have your official there and surely he is posted as to what took place in regard to this boat. Can you tell me what the repairs cost at Halifax ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There were no repairs at Halifax.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I thought she got into trouble, that she got her bow stove in and that there were expensive repairs.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The contractor had to look after that.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The contractor had to pay for the repair of damage sustained owing to stress of weather on her way to Halifax?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I thought that the department had these repairs done under the instructions of one of their officers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, the repairs had to be done by the contractor under the supervision of an official of the department.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I cannot quite understand the situation yet. You say the boat was to be delivered at Toronto, but you finally took delivery of her at Quebec. How was the contractor responsible for the damage done on the way down to Halifax?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I thought that I had explained it so plainly that any business man would understand it. I said that probably the boat was to be delivered at Toronto; I cannot say it must have been. But It was delivered before it was completed, because we wanted to use the boat during the next winter. We did not want to lose that season without the 'Lurcher' being installed where she was to do valuable service. We were being pressed by the navigation companies to have her put in place. If I had allowed the boat to remain in Toronto for a fortnight more it would not have been possible to have placed her on the station before the 15th of May on account of the canals only being opened on the 1st of May. Therefore, the contractor had to send out his men on board of the boat with the inspector of the government, Mr. Stevens, and he looked after the work of completion. When the work was completed, the boat was accepted by the department in good condition, according to the contract, and she was installed at her station.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Where was she accepted as completed?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: At Halifax.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Well, the contractors must have delivered her at Halifax then ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course, they did deliver her at Halifax in the way I have stated. That boat was taken undelivered at Toronto because we wanted to save a season. It does not follow that she had to be delivered at Halifax; quite the contrary.
Mr. LEFTJRGEY, Well, then how is the contractor responsible for the damage done to her after she was taken over by the government?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never said anything of the sort.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You said that the contractor had to repair the damage done to her bows on the way to Halifax.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, but it does not follow that the boat had to be delivered at Halifax.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It follows that if it were taken over by the government at Quebec he would not be responsible.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was not delivered at Quebec.	.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Well, then, the contractor did deliver her at Halifax?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I certainly must submit to this committee that it is a most anomalous position for the hon. minister to place himself in. He said the boat had to be delivered at Toronto and that after she was taken over by the government and sustained serious damage it cost a lot of money to repair her and that the contractor had to pay for these repairs. I imagine the lawyers will have to decide as to what position the government is in with regard to this vote. On what date did she go on the shoals ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will procure the information.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You will find that at page 33 of the minister's report.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then why do you not read your book if it is there ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You seem to forget it. She was taken off the shoals in February, 1904. Did she get into trouble after that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She.slipped her anchor.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did she lose her anchor and all her chain ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All her chain.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What was the cause ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman can find it in the report.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Was a report sent to the department a few days afterward she was placed on the service concerning' the mooring of this vessel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If you want Captain Salmon's report, you shall have it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is a report from Captain Salmon ?	*


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose so.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did he recommend how to moor her ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not remember.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will you ask your de puty minister ?

Mr, PREFONTAINE. He does not know from memory. There may have been a suggestion to moor her in a different way, but I am not a mariner. There may be the fact that some of the sailors did not know how to maintain her anchor, and that is a very stormy place, and we have to learn by experience.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What had the sailors to do with the anchor when she was moored ? Who advises the department on such a matter ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no particular adviser. If an accident happens you cannot help it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not blaming the minister, but I want to know who is responsible. Who recommended the mooring of this vessel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It must have been the nautical adviser, Captain Spain, or Oapt. Salmon.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Who is Mr. Hutchins?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The inspector at Halifax.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did lie have anything to do with the method of mooring on the shoals ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I understand he sent a plan which was submitted to the nautical adviser.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: After the vessel broke loose, was there any objection to the method of mooring her again ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose some improvements were made; we would be stupid not to learn by experience.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did you follow the reports sent in by Captain Salmon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know ; I think not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the minister explain the two methods of mooring ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will not, because I cannot.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have a report here which purports to be a copy of a report sent by the adviser in this matter, and I shall read one or two sections from it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Better read the whole thing [DOT] if it comes from Captain Salmon.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What was the cause of her breaking away a second time ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Probably because Captain Salmon had not advised the department propei'ly.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have here a report sent on the 26th of March, 1904.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Who is it signed by ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It purports to be a report from Captain Salmon or some other officer of the department. It refers to the method of mooring this vessel, and I want to know if any consideration was given to it. Has the minister the duplicate of this report in the department, sent by Mr. Salmon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman had better ask the hon. member for St. Antoine, who seems to be very well posted in regard to Captain Salmon, who for about a month has been a very important individual. If the hon. gentleman leaves the case in the hands of the hon. member for St. Antoine, he will be in a better position to get the information or to explain it in such a way that I can understand it.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is not a matter of trifling importance. The minister has simply to turn to his own report to find on page 33 that no sooner had he made this expenditure of $90,000 than the lightship had such a disastrous voyage through the ice that her bows were smashed and she had to be repaired at Halifax. Then she was taken to the Lurcher reef, and the report says : ' a few days later she broke from her moorings and put into Yarmouth.' Then a little further down : * On the 1st of October the lightship again broke from her moorings, and she was consequently sent to the dockyard for overhauling before resuming her station for the winter. Up to the date of writing this report she has not been replaced on her station.' There we have, in the first place, the vessel tom from her moorings and taken back again ; and, in the second place, three months later, torn from her moorings again and sent to be repaired. The country is not only put to the expense of the repairs, but this dangerous shoal is for three months without protection. The point is whether she was properly moored. I have endeavoured for the last eleven days to have placed upon this table a document signed by an officer who at that time was high in honour iu the department-a document which calls the attention of the department over and over again to the unseamanlike way in which that vessel was moored, and which practically says that unless a different method is adopted, disaster will result; and, bearing out exactly the prophecy of that report, we have the vessel three months out of service because of her being moored in an improper manner. If Mr. Hutchins or any one else is responsible for this improper mooring, we want to know it; and it is on that point that the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Le-furgey) is endeavouring to give the House information, because we have been trying to get this return, and have not yet succeeded in doing so.


Alexander Johnston: I desire again to supplement tiie demand made by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) for an investigation as to the conduct of certain officers of the department at Halifax. Yesterday the bon. gentleman called attention to the conduct of an officer of this department in the city of Halifax. I desire again that the department should take steps to look into this matter and to prevent a repetition of such occurrences as have taken place. My hon. friend from Montreal has again called the attention of the House to the conduct of another officer in the city of Halifax. I desire to add my demands to his, and to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to look into the conduct of the various officers of the department at Halifax, and to see whether they are advising the department properly. 1 understand that certain officers of the Marine Department at Halifax have given instructions to the department here, and I understand that then-advice has been accepted. That advice is not acceptable to the hon. member for St. Antoine; perhaps it is acceptable to the country. All I desire is that the minister should take steps to ascertain once for all whether the advice received from his officers at Halifax is such as has been indicated by my hon. friend from Montreal. If it is not desirable that the department of Marine and Fisheries should receive that advice, let the department take steps to put in charge of the agency at Halifax men whose opinions will be endorsed by the hon. member for St. Antome and the people of this country.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: While hon. gentlemen opposite have a very laudible desire to see that the officers of the department are efficient, they seem at the same time to be much troubled because this side of the House is endeavouring to get information from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to where the blame lies.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The blame must have been upon Mr. Hutchins if he advised the department wrongly. X am going to.look into the matter, and if he is to blame, he will have to walk out.
Mr. LEFTJIiGEY. Have any complaints been made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman is making a complaint that he was the first to suggest that the moorings were wrong, and he will have to stand by it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But the minister must know that he had advice from other officers of the department as to those moorings, and it was after he had this advice that the vessel broke away for the second time. All we ask from the department is to give us some information as to where the blame does lie. The minister informs us that he does not know anything about it, nor has he ascertained anything from his deputy. Has he not had time since the 1st of October, 1904, to ascertain where the blame lies ? Is it only now that he has to get instructions from the back benches to inquire as to whether his officers are suitable for the positions allotted to them or not. We want to know from the minister why he has been negligent of his duty in not finding this out.
I want to give the minister an opportunity to know something of the report which comes into the department before this vessel broke away the second time, and I think, from this report, which I have in my hand, and from the fact that they did not follow this report, that the department are more to blame than Mr. Hutchins or any other official down there. This report, which is file No. 20198 C, and is dated Ottawa, 2Gth March, 1904, says :
The method adopted by Mr. Hutchins of mooring this vessel with three heavy stones is, in my opinion, a very poor substitute for the mushroom anchors provided, but my principal objection to the arrangement of mooring is not in the anchors, but in the method of supporting the cable with a submerged buoy. The safety of a vessel, when riding out a gale of wind, lies in her never being able to put a heavy strain on the anchor or cable, as owing to the long scope and weight of the cable, it forms what is called a ' catehery,' that is to say, on account of the length and weight of the cable out. the vessel can never tighten it ; if she could the cable would snap or the anchor drag.
The second time this vessel was moored, did the department use the method of a buoy attached to a cable ? Can I find- that out from the minister ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, you cannot
find out anything from me to-night.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then the minister apparently does not want to follow the advice given him by the hoii. member for Gape Breton (Mr. Johnston) ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Oh, yes, I am going to follow it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then, you are a long way behind the trail now.


John Howard Sinclair: Allow me to say that we understand that the hon. gentleman wishes an investigation made into the conduct of Mr. Hutchins.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The House will understand that I am trying to get information as to why this steamer broke from her moorings. I am not dealing with any particular individual in the department. It is the minister who is responsible to the House, and we want the information from him. We want to know why this report was not acted upon, and why we have the unfortunate circumstance of a boat a few months on the service breaking away from her moorings on two occasions, and the

minister not being able to supply any Information.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Does the hon. gentleman wish the committee to understand that he has any information that would indicate that the boat was improperly moored, or that her slipping away was not due solely to an accident ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not pretend to be a critic of the proper method of mooring lightships. I am here to get information from the minister as to whether there was any. The minister should know as to whether there was any fault in the first mooring of the vessel, and as to why some other method was not used in mooring her the second time. Apparently the minister does not know anything about mooring lightships, and we can get no information from his department. This report is a comprehensive one, and we would like to know whether the department took cognizance of it, or whether, because the gentleman was in bad odour with the department on account of another circumstance where they could not have their own way, they threw his report aside and persisted in using the old method, the submerged buoy and stones.


Alexander Johnston: Both my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Le-furgey) and my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Ames) have brought forcibly to the notice of the department the fact' that certain officials of the_ Marine and Fisheries Department in the city of Halifax have not advised the department properly. Reports were made to the department by the then officer of the department, Captain Salmon, and the services of that officer have been dispensed with since then. Whether the department did right or wrong in dispensing with his services, I do not know, my own judgment is that they did the proper thing. It would perhaps suit my hon. friend from Montreal and my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island to have retained the services of Captain Salmon and to have dispensed with the services of the officers of the department in Halifax. Perhaps that would have been the better course. The request I have now to make of the department is that they shall look into the request made by my hon. friends opposite and ascertain whether it is in the interest of the department, not only to dispense with the services of Captain Salmon, but with the services of the officers of the department at Halifax as well ; and if the department reach the conclusion arrived at by our hon. friends opposite, then no doubt the department will do its duty.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Alex. Johnston) apparently has reached n conclusion.	[DOT]


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


Alexander Johnston: I have not reached any conclusion. There is no use wasting time over this question. Again let me impress upon the minister the importance of looking carefully into this matter. The truth or falsity of the charge made in regard to the mooring of this ship can be easily arrived at. Now that the hon. member for Montreal and the hon. member for Prince Edward Island have asked this committee to put our little hands in theirs and pass on, of course we will sit down and wait the result.


Herbert Brown Ames: We would not have it understood that we are endeavouring to find a scapegoat for the department, or that we believe that this, that or the other officer is to blame. The point we make is this, that the ship was improperly moored, that the deputy minister was told that it was improperly moored, that no heed whatsoever was paid to the memorandum served upon him and that the very result which was prophesied came true, that the vessel, moored as she was, broke loose and as a result there was loss. That is the way it seems to us. We want to find out whether the department was properly warned, and until the papers we are asking for are here, we cannot tell whether the department was warned that this method of mooring was improper, and if it was warned, whether it took heed.


Alexander Johnston: I still continue to believe that no matter how this ship was moored, even if she was moored according to the directions of Captain Salmon, she would have drifted away. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to assert that if the ship was moored in the manner represented by Captain Salmon she would not have broken away under the conditions in which she did break away ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Of course I cannot say what might have happened under hypothetical conditions. I can only say that the method recommended was apparently not adopted, and#that the results foreseen came true.


Alexander Johnston: I may agree with the hon. gentleman that the instructions issued by the officers of the department at Halifax directed the vessel to be moored in an improper manner. But that is a question I desire to be investigated, and if the investigation shows that the member for St. Antoine (Montreal) is right I will be then able to agree with him.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the method of mooring was submitted to some one who had technical knowledge. We do not know that Mr. Hutchins was an authority. But there was a technical official,
I understood the minister to say ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The first mooring was done according to the best method in

use in the United States, by submersion. As I stated, tbe station is a very difficult one to maintain, and that is the reason why such an expensive lightship was put there. She was moored according to the best method known, and she broke her moorings. Another method had to be adopted which showed clearly that the first mooring under the circumstances was not a proper one. It was decided afterwards to moor her as before. After being there six or seven months, she broke away again. It was simply an accident due to stress of weather, and really nobody was directly responsible. There was no fault or neglect. Since then she has been put back and is rendering the service for which she was intended. Of course, accidents cannot wholly be prevented. Buoys will be driven away, and you cannot always prevent it, any more than you can always prevent a lighthouse being set afire by lightening and burned down. I do not see what object there is in discussing these accidents.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not followed the details of this discussion, but I understand the point of criticism to be that Captain Salmon made some suggestions with regard to the mooring that were not carried out.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 told the gentleman who brought up the question that I had not the papers here, and this provision for the ' Lurcher ' is part of an item which was carried last night. I offered to bring down all the papers on the subject. X think that was a reasonable offer. So, what was the use of cross-examining me as to whether the anchors had been put out at a certain distance or a certain other distance ? Trying to show that I know nothing about these things. Well, I do not know anything about them, and I am not supposed to know.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the minister cannot have technical knowledge about these things. Possibly if we are to have the papers laid upon the table and if we are to be at liberty to discuss the matter on some other item, I should think that would answer the purpose of my hon. friends who are discussing the matter.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 1 had no intention of criticising or worrying the minister as he seems to think. But I had a report here and wished to get some information as to the methods followed by the department in regard to this lightship. I am glad that the minister acknowledged that no one is to blame. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. A. Johnston) who has been worrying about the conduct of the officers at Halifax, having now received this assurance from the minister, can go home and rest quietly.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: I did not say that no one was to blame ; I said that it might be shown that no one was to blame.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I certainly understood the minister to say so in answer to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) a few minutes ago. And. if he will look at ' Hansard ' to-morrow I think he will find that he said no blame attached to any one.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Personally, I do not think there is. But the attitude of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) and the hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey) creates suspicion.


Alexander Johnston: I wish to relieve the anxiety and apprehension of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey). I may have been living in a fool's paradise, but, as the minister knows I was under no apprehension about this matter. I thought the officers at Halifax were endeavouring to do their duty, and. during the nine years I have had to do with political affairs I have never made representations to the contrary to the minister or to any other person. But my suspicions were aroused by the statements made by my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Ames) and my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey). These members upon their responsibility have brought to the notice of the House certain points with regard to these officers. I think it is the duty of the minister to make still further inquiry and ascertain whether there is any reason for the suspicion aroused by these hon. gentlemen.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) is laying down a different doctrine from that which his leader propounded this evening. The minister lays down the proposition that any complaint from this side of the House was not to be regarded as a complaint at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has any vessel been purchased by the government to be used as a lighthouse supply boat ? If so, what is her name and from whom was she purchased ? I do not know whether the government has ever had a boat that went about with supplies for the lighthouses. Has one been purchased by the department?


Mr PREFONTAINE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I see it stated in one of the papers that such a boat had been purchased.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was wrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are negotiations proceeding for the purchase of a boat ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Nothing has been done.
Lighthouse and coast service-construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, including apparatus, $500,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Better let that stand. There is a good deal on that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.
*


Herbert Brown Ames: This Item brings up the discussion of the new aids to navigation from the St. Lawrence and the reports of the various bodies that have asked for improvements. I think it had better wait until we have more time.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have all the information here including the maps and the plans.


Herbert Brown Ames: But, it will take a long time to get the Information. Still of course, if the minister wishes to sit here until four o'clock in the morning, all right.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a way out of the difficulty. I am asking here for only $500,000. Last year we spent $850,000. Therefore it will be necessary for me to ask for a supplementary estimate. I think this item could be voted and any discussion that may be necessary take place on the supplementary item.


Herbert Brown Ames: The subjects covered by the next four or five items require considerable discussion. There is this one of construction of lighthouses. There is the signal service-that can pass if you like. But there is an item to provide for the establishment of Marconi stations. We want considerable information about that. We also want a good deal of information about that submarine signal apparatus contract. Those three items might stand.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We might put through most of the items, and leave either that $500,000 item or the $100,000 item or the $75,000 item. I understand that the leader of the opposition has requested that the item to provide for submarine signal apparatus, $70,000, should be suspended for further information. This would involve a discussion of all the other items, I would give all the information I iiave before me now, and we could discuss the further papers that I am to bring down.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest to the minister that, of course, technically, it is all one item. No. 197-and, by Hie way, there seems to be a great divergence of practice in regard to the way in which items are numbered. In some departments we would find every one of these items with a distinct number, and I would think that the minister would get things cleared up more satisfactorily if he would put them in that way. As the whole item must stand, I would suggest to the minister that we might run through those that involve no discussion and leave about three that will involve discussion.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would ask the minister when his estimates are taken up again if he would please bring down the papers in connection with the cutting of timber on Hope island.


Herbert Brown Ames: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Those produced last year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister will find that some further ones were brought down, because, if he will remember, one of his officers went up there to view the amount of cutting that had been done.
Signal service, $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a slight increase here.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is an increase in the service.
To provide for the administration of the pilotage, $12,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That I suppose, is some increase in the service ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: What are the duties and emoluments of Mr. E. Guerin in connection with the Montreal Pilotage Commissioners' Court ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is a commissioner appointed to make special investigation under the old law. He is not a wreck commissioner, but there is still under the Pilotage Act a disposition which might require the services of Mr. Guerin, who was appointed about three or four years ago. During last year he rendered no service, he had not been called upon to render any service, so the amount of money has not been expended.


Herbert Brown Ames: He is paid so much per sitting ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $10 a day.
Salaries of temporary officers, engineers and draughtsmen at Ottawa, &c., &c., $20,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $4,000 in this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The increase is due principally to the fact that we have appointed an officer, Mr. St. George, a special engineer, to superintend and look after the works of the Harbour Commissioners, in the port of Montreal, at a salary of $3,000 a year. The expenditure was about $1,057.42 a month, so we required this increase of money on account, first, of the appointment of' Mr. St. George, and, secondly, on account of the fact that since the organization of the lighthouse board we have been called upon to pay the travelling expenses of the gentlemen outside of Ottawa who have come to sit on that board, which meets once or twice a month, according to the applications. It is only fair and reasonable that these gentlemen should be paid their travelling expenses to attend the lighthouse board. Members of the shipping federation have been called upon to take part in the deliberations of the lighthouse board, which is composed mostly of officers of the

department, and we have made arrangements to pay their expenses.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is out of this appropriation that Mr. St. George is paid ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is he now permanently in the employ of the department, and does he give his entire time to it ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know that he gives his entire time. He is obliged, of course, to do the service that is required from him. He is obliged to be in attendance and to superintend the work as an engineer occupying that position.
Some resolutions reported.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What will we take up on Monday in case we get through with private members' business ?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply, taking up the estimates of the Department of Public Works in case the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
HOUSE or COMMONS.
Monday, March 20, 1905.