1905-03-14

[Stage Direction]
During the presentation of petitions,
Mr.  T. S.@: SPROULE (East Grey), after having presented some petitions, said : I present these petitions from the electors of East Assiniboia, because the hon. member for that riding seems to regard it as an insult that petitions should be sent to him.


Mr.   .T. G. TURRIFF@East Assiniboia: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for East Grey has stated that I considered it an insult to have petitions from Eastern Assiniboia sent to me for presentation to the House. I just want to say that there is not a man in Eastern Assiniboia who voted against me in the last election for whom I would not be very glad to present a petition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think there is something before the chair. The hon. gentleman rises, he says, to a question of privilege.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I just want to say that if any of my friends, or my opponents, who are also my friends, in Eastern Assiniboia have petitions for presentation to this House, I am quite satisfied that they will send them to me, and 1 will always present petitions which come to me in anything like the proper form. I presented some petitions which came through the hon. member for East Grey, but I drew attention to the manner in which these petitions were drawn, and the manner in which that gentleman got these petitions sent to him, so that he could get the credit through the west of presenting them.


Mr. SPROULE.: I rise to a question of privilege. I want to say, according to my best information, which I take from the Postal Guide and from the headings on the petitions, that I sent to the hon. gentleman several petitions from his own riding, every

i
one of which he commented upon adversely when he presented them, Intimating that the hon. member for East Grey had done something wrong, and he seemed to regard it as an insult. Therefore, I have availed myself of the opportunity of presenting them to the House to-day.



PACKING AND SALE OF CERTAIN COMMODITIES.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the packing and sale of certain staple commodities, by inserting the following sections after section 4 :-
4a. When apples are packed in Canada for export for sale by the box they shall be packed in good and strong boxes of seasoned wood, the inside dimensions of which shall not be less than ten inches in depth, eleven inches in width, and twenty inches in length, representing as near as possible two thousand two hundred cubic inches.
2. Every person who offers or exposes for sale, or who packs for export, apples by the box otherwise than in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty of twenty-five cents for each box of apples so offered or exposed for sale or packed.
4b. When apples are packed in boxes or barrels having trays or fillers wherein it is intended to have a separate compartment for each apple, then the provisions of section 4 and 4a shall not apply.-Mr. Fisher.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: When the House was last in committee on this resolution the point was raised as to whether subsection 2 would apply to apples for export only. I referred the wording of this section to the Department of Justice, and so as to make it perfectly clear they suggested that the words ' for export ' should be transferred from the end of the clause so as to make the section read: ' Every person who for export others or exposes for sale, &c.' I propose that the clause be amended so as to read in that way.	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have some communications regarding this Bill which contain suggestions which might be valuable. A gentleman writing from Montreal says :
With regard to clause 4a in reference to the exporting of apples in boxes, we find that unless the boxes have strong bands nailed tightly at the top of the box at both ends so as to ensure ventilation when loaded on the steamer, the apples suffer considerably from want of ventilation. The hands should be at least one-half inch wide and the same in height. Unless this is done the apples are packed so closely on board the steamers that there is positively no ventilation and the fruit suffers in consequence. With the bands above described the apples cannot he packed and loaded on the steamer in a solid compact mass, as the bands provide a means of ventilation through leaving one-half inch space between them.
I have another letter here from Messrs. Wm. Nivin & Son of Montreal, who write :
With reference to the Bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, we think it a sensible one in some respects, particularly so re the idea of having the size of the package uniform. In the case of butter boxes one-half hundredweight, fifty-six pounds, is the box used practically in all large butter producing countries. Apples as a rule are a cheap article and must he packed in as cheap and strong a package as possible. The box package is steadily growing in favour with the shippers, but owing to the season of packing apples being so short we are inclined to think that the box package will not replace the barrel for a long time to come. If apples were packed in a warehouse it might he different, but, when the packing has to be done in the orchard with the elements to work against, the quickest mode of packing will always be the most favoured. If the box package is at all to be used, then we think it should be made uniform in size and one-third of the regular three bushel barrel should be the most convenient'. Re the strength of the wood and the penalty clause, we are inclined to think they are too severe, at all events for some little time to come.
I have another here which is as follows :
I am much obliged to you for sending me copy of the clauses of the Bill to fix, by law, the dimensions of the apple boxes to he used for export.
The minister, I know, has taken the action on the recommendations of the different Provincial Fruit-growing Societies ; but I find an interview with him, with reference to the subject a few days ago, and recommended a box twenty-two inches long, similar in dimensions to that box which has been used for some years by the government in packing apples for the European exhibitions, and I notice that the Bill has been altered to read ' shall not he less than, &c.,' which covers the point.
The twenty inch box holds barely one-third of an apple barrel, and most of the fruit growers in this province, who are exporters, prefer the twenty-two inch box as it undoubtedly holds one-third of a barrel, exclusive of excelsior, which must necessarily be used to tighten the package.
Clause 4b of the Bill protects my own compartment case, which is used largely for the exportation of superior fruit.
I think the Bill is necessary and will meet the requirements of the Canadian exporter of apples as w-eil as the English dealers.
Yours very truly,



R. W. SHEPHERD.

Mr. MONK.: My hon. friend will remember that the consideration of this resolution was postponed in order to permit some members to consult their constituents upon the subject. I have had several communications from the county of Jacques Cartier where there are large orchards and, without taking up the time of the committee in reading these communications, I may say that the gist of the letters is that there is no objection to this Bill. Some of my correspondents stated that it would probably conduce to better conditions in the trade.

In spite of that 1 still respectfully maintain the attitude I took when this matter first came up for consideration, and I think that the ends of trade and the advancement of trade in this country and in England, to which country most of the shipment of our apples takes place, would be better served in some other way. It does not seem to me, for instance, that the adoption of such a law as this, the carrying out of which must cost us some money, would be of much advantage for instance, in Jacques Cartier, where there are large orchards and where great quantities of apples are produced. Probably that law will remain inoperative in that county. The mere passing of a law specifying the sizes of boxes will tell nothing to most of those fipple growers, whereas, as I pointed out to the minister when we first discussed this matter, it seems to me that information conveyed to these apple growers as to the conditions of trade in England and as to the size of box that sells best there, would immediately be far more advantageous. Any expense which might be incurred to furnish to the apple growers and exporters of apples information as to how they can best succeed and make the most money out of their apple trade would be more beneficial. I still persist in that view, although none of the reports which I have received are unfavourable to this law. Of course in most of our counties in Quebec there are many who grow apples in large quantities. These apples are sold on the market in Montreal, sometimes to exporters. Last year in my owTn county there was an immense crop of apples, and some orchards yielded as much as 2,500 to 3,000 barrels of apples. They packed these apples in barrels and sold them in Montreal to large dealers. The committee will bo surprised to hear that last year apples were sold from orchards in my own county at a dollar a barrel. When you take from that dollar the cost of the barrel and the time taken up in conveying the apples to the city of Montreal it will be plain to the committee that the profit is not very con-sirable. My bon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has read a letter from a gentleman who, as my hon. friend the minister (Mr. Fisher) is aware is probably the best authority on apple growing in Canada, Mr. iShepherd. Mr. Shepherd took a different course with the product of bis orchard. He packed them in boxes and sold them in England and his apples netted him, he told me himself, over $5 a barrel, in fact almost .$7 a barrel. In Quebec, for instance on the Island of Montreal, and in Saint Hilaire, there are immense orchards. The mountain of St. Hilaire last year produced 30,000 barrels of apples. What they require is not a law, but such information as Mr. Shepherd gave to me as to the conditions of trade in England. If the growers had that information they could fill the require-Mr. MONK.
*uents of the British market with advantage to themselves. In other words, I do not think that it is by legislation that we should meet a case of this kind, but by information conveyed to interested parties, just as the commercial agents of the United States throughout the world convey information to the government of their country in regard to the conditions, exactions and general trend of trade in the countries where they act as commercial representatives. From these reports the commercial people of the United States derive information which is given from time to time, but not given in the shape of a law, information which enables them to meet these conditions with profit to themselves.


Mr. BLAIN.: I also have some correspondence with respect to this matter, both from my own county and from other parts of Ontario. One gentleman whom I regard as an authority on this matter writes saying that in his trade, which is very extensive with the city of Glasgow, lie has been exporting his apples in boxes which are 9 x 12 x 18 inches. This was very near the size mentioned in tiie minister's resolution, but not exactly the size. This gentleman states in his letter that he has on hand at the present time 4,000 boxes of these dimensions, and he is very inquisitive to know whether the minister proposes to bring this Bill into operation this coming season or whether ho will give an opportunity for those who have large stocks of boxes such as this gentleman has on hand, to work them off and export them during the coming season. Another point mentioned in one of these letters is that a smaller box should be permitted. He sets forth in his letter that the growing trade of the old country in many sections, particularly in Glasgow, calls for smaller packages and he suggests that a package one-half the size named be permitted in the law that is being introduced by the minister. Those two points I think are worthy of attention, first of all whether it would not be well to allow a smaller size containing one-half the quantity and whether it would not be in the interest of the exporting public to allow one year or possibly more for dealers to work off their old stock of boxes which they may have on hand. Might I suggest to the minister that it would be better to fix the quantity rather than the measurements and to allow a man to make his boxes say 10 x 12 and of a different length, working out bis own shape of box so that he could use that which would suit his trade rather than the exact shape that is specified in the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the hon. minister rises to answer I would like to supplement the remarks of the hon. member for Peel, (Mr. Blain). I took the trouble to inquire from Mr. Shepherd, who is a large exporter of apples, and he found that this was the size of box required on the other side. He

said it was impossible for him to meet the demand for that class of goods on the English market and he seemed to approve of that size of box. He seemed to think that there was a demand in the English market which would consume all the supply we could send from here. That is why I think that if the apple growers, at least down in Quebec, could have the information that would enable them to conform to the requirements of the English trade it would be better because as my hon. friend must have noticed that there was a great difference between the profit realized by Mr. Shepherd and the prices at which apples were sold last year in Montreal, a dollar a barrel, from which you have to deduct the cost of the barrel and the cost of picking and marketing. Mr. Shepherd told me he has realized as much as $7 a barrel by putting the apples in this kind of package.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are matters which have been discussed, not only in the department, but in the meetings of the Fruit Growers' Associations over and over again. I appreciate the endorsement of the principle of the Bill which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has just given. He thinks however that it would be better to let the result aimed at come about without any Bill. Well, what he proposes has been going on for at least three or four years. The people have been informed on these points and have been working in this direction ; but at the same time these same people have been asking for the passage of a Bill such as the one before the House, because they have found that the law has worked very successfully with regard to barrels, and that law is exactly the same with regard to barrels as the one we are now proposing with regard to boxes. The law with regard to barrels has prevented the making of barrels of a great variety of shapes and sizes, and we propose to do the same with regard to boxes. A variety in shapes and sizes works very unsatisfactorily in the loading and handling. The size we should adopt has been thoroughly discussed by those who make the boxes and those who pack them. Of course there are some who have different views, but the consensus of opinion of the fruit-growers endorses the dimensions indicated in the Bill. Those organizations which hold exhibitions and give prizes for apples packed in boxes, specify that the boxes shall be of the dimensions provided in this measure. My hon. friend has suggested that we should provide for a measure of capacity rather than size in inches. That however would allow differences in shape, which would be objectionable. If a measure of weight were provided, that would not serve the purpose because apples vary considerably in weight, according to the variety. Some weigh as low as 3S pounds to the bushel and others go as high as 43 pounds. Each of these boxes is supposed to contain one bushel weighing 40 pounds. Where the apples are a heavier weight, the boxes would weigh more, and in the reverse case would weigh less. To those who want a measure by capacity, I would say that each of these boxes is one-third the present minimum standard barrel. The trade in boxes is increasing somewhat but it is still very small. I believe that this last season it was not over 2 per cent of the whole export, but a number of people prefer to ship in boxes because they can make more profit that way than by shipping barrels. For many years, however, the bulk of the shipping trade will be in barrels, because the ordinary shipper will not undertake to put apples into boxes as that involves greater trouble and care. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier instanced one gentleman who ships in boxes. I know the gentleman very well and I know that he gets a very large profit from his boxes, but I question whether most people would be equally successful. Mr. Shepherd has a particular clientele in England, reaching from the King downwards, to whom he sends regularly a special and fixed number of boxes every year, and these are boxes which do not come under this Act, but contain pasteboard divisions, each of which contains an apple of particularly careful selection. And of course, very rightly and justly, Mr. Shepherd gets a very high price for that fruit. He sends an extraordinary good article, and he has advertised it well and got it into the hands of the people who are willing to give the highest price for the best article. Consequently he enjoys a great profit from that trade. Other people are aiming in the same direction, but, perhaps, not doing quite so well as Mr. Shepherd-at least, I do not know anybody who is. And these people connected with the trade have advised us that to help on that trade, to bring about an increased box trade, a standard minimum box ought to be fixed; and it is in answer to that appeal that this proposition has been made. I ask the committee to pass it and make it into law.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I would ask the minister if this box, 10 x 11 x 20 inches is the same box that the Fruit Growers' Association of Ontario are using at the present time? And I would also ask the minister again if this standard box is intended for the export trade only? I may say that if that is the intention, I have a letter from a correspondent, who is one of the largest shippers in my constituency-and I come from a large fruit-growing district-who is particularly anxious that the box established shall be uniform throughout the Dominion. He seems fairly well satisfied with the dimensions of the box as proposed by the minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained to the committee that this clause in the Act will apply

only to the export trade. Some people would like it to apply to the internal fruit trade also. But, as the barrel is fixed only for the export trade, we thought it better, for the present, at any rate, to make the size of the box applicable only to that trade. I have no doubt that when the size is fixed for the export trade, the same box will be used more and more for the internal trade, and, perhaps, in time, it may lead people to ask us to make the same provision for the internal trade.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I quite agree with certain features of this Bill. I believe it is a good plan to make provision for the shipment of apples in boxes. Last year great difficulty was experienced throughout the province of Ontario in getting the requisite material for making apple barrels. I have no doubt that great quantities of apples were lost because of the fact that a sufficient quantity of barrel material could not be obtained in time for packing the fruit. The manufacture of boxes is much more simple in itself; it is something the shipper can carry on himself in the winter months when lie" is not so particularly employed, and, in that way, possibly, a saving can be effected for the producer of the apples. I regret, however, that there is a difference of opinion as to the proper size of the apple box. In the county I have the honour to represent, the county of Halton, there are a considerable nuinber of shippers of apples. Some very fine fruit is grown there. We are adjacent to the Niagara peninsula which is one of the great fruit-producing sections of Ontario. So far as my constituents are concerned, they are not at all suited with the size of box described in this Bill. There in the region of Burlington they have been shipping apples in boxes for some fifteen years. At first they commenced shipping in a larger box. But they found this not so suitable and gradually reduced the size of the box, until now they have discovered a box which they consider very convenient. It is a smaller box than that described in the resolution; instead of holding one-third of a barrel, it will hold one-quarter of a barrel. They give various reasons why this is a more suitable box. I think that if the minister's experts look carefully into the matter, they will find that the box of the dimensions he has given will hold less than one-third of a barrel. The standard barrel is well known, and I think it may be well to adhere to that standard and to have a box that will be some even fraction of a barrel. The cubic contents of a standard apple barrel are 6,600 inches. One third of that would be 2,200 inches, the size of the box set forth in the resolution. The size of box used in my county is 9 x 12 x 18 inches, the cubic contents of which are 1,944 inches, or for four of them 7,776 cubic inches. Yet It is found that the ap-Mf. FISHER.
pies that fill four of the boxes will exactly fill the standard barrel, while apples that fill three boxes of the size described in the resolution do not fill a standard barrel. The apple shippers in my district are anxious that the smaller-sized box should be adopted. Now, these men, I am quite sure, are members of the Fruit Growers' Association. They must have been consulted.
I scarcely know where the minister has obtained his information, and what association has informed him that a box of the dimensions given in the resolution is the' one most approved. The box containing a quarter of a barrel is certainly approved in my section. One reason is, as I have said, because it does contain a quarter of a barrel. Another reason is that a good deal of the sorting and packing of the apples is performed by women, and they complain that where the boxes are large the work is too heavy. They have to carry the boxes from place to place in the preparation of them for market, and they find a smaller box more convenient. Now, this is a very important matter, because, if apple shippers are compelled to employ male labour, instead of female, they may have to pay twice as much for it. so that there would be a considerable enhancement of the cost of sorting and packing the apples. I may tell the minister that I have letters on this subject from several correspondents, one of whom is especially well known to him-Mr. A. W. Peart, of Burlington, who is a fruit expert whose opinion has great weight wherever he is known. This gentleman highly approves of the box containing a quarter of a barrel rather than the box containing a third of a barrel.
As I said, they have been shipping apples from that section of the country in boxes for some fifteen years, and they find it very satisfactory. They have established a market for that size of boxes, and it will injure the prosperity of their trade if they are obliged to abandon the boxes for which they have established a market in the old country, and set to work to establish a market for another kind of boxes. Mr. Peart tells me that last year, notwithstanding the low market price for apples in the old country, he sold King apples 0 shillings per box, four boxes to the barrel, or 24 shillings per barrel, which to my mind is a very good price indeed. Northern Spys sold at 5 shillings per box, which would be equal to 20 shillings per barrel. In a low' market these were certainly good prices. Now these people are alarmed, and fear that the trade which they have established w'itli a box of the dimensions I have given, 9 inches in width, by 12 and 18, may be interfered with, and they will have to begin over again and establish another trade in place of one which it has taken them some fifteen years to work up. It is a dangerous

thing at any time to interfere with the trade of the country, and I think considerable time should have been allowed to elapse before that size of a box is adopted, so as to allow the men who are engaged in this business to get their patrons in the old country accustomed to the change. They tell me that there are people wiio have box material on hand which will last them for two or three years ; and as the member for Peel has said, it would be a serious matter to these people to have to throw aside all this box material and purchase other. Therefore, I think this Bill should not be forced upon the people in less than two or three years. Gentlemen in my county ask that the Bill should not go -into force until the year 1907. I trust the minister will weigh these matters fully, not only with regard to the size of the box, but with regard to the time when the Bill should come into operation. To my mind the labour question is a matter Worthy of consideration, and possibly the minister's attention may not have been drawn to it; but it will affect people not only in the county of Halton but in a good many other sections of the country.


Mr. MAGDONELL.: I fully approve of the remarks of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). I have taken advantage of the delay which has been allowed by the minister since he first brought this measure up for consideration, to consult the apple exporters of the city of Toronto. The minister points out that he has had consultations with the Fruit Growers' Associations, and also with the manufacturers of boxes. I submit with due deference to the minister that the persons who are most concerned in this measure, who are indeed vitally affected by it, are the apple shippers, the apple exporters, not only those who ship their goods from the Niagara peninsula to the city of Toronto where they find a mai'ket for them, and where the apples are boxed up for the foreign market, but those who export those apples to the foreign market. I find among that class of people only one opinion, and that is that while endorsing the principle of the Bill, that while there should be a standard size for the boxes, they should also be allowed a smaller size and a larger one. I will read an extract from a letter I have received from Mr. James, of Toronto. Mr. James is one of the most extensive shippers of apples from the Canadian market. This season he has shipped as many as 4,000 cases on one steamer. Mr. James says :
The different markets require different packages. If we are ever going to get into the French markets, which we can do when European crops are short, we require a small package less than a foot square, and fancy wrapped fruit, only the very choicest'.
The South African market wants a larger package, I have been shipping one containing two cubic feet.
The British markets, Liverpool in particular, prefer barrels, and while it has been experimented on time and again it has been clearly proved that the hulk of our apples will net' back more money when shipped in barrels than in any other way. There is a limited market in Britain for boxed apples if fruit is fancy, hut the traders over there prefer the larger package.
On the 15th of February, Mr. James sent a letter to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture from which I will read this extract :
I would respectfully submit that the matter be left in abeyance in the meantime, until we can have a Dominion convention and ascertain the exact feeling of those interested in the matter. Of course I am not averse to the proposed Act providing there is a clause permitting the use of other boxes while calling the box you suggest the standard apple box, but where certain markets require a larger or a smaller box I think it would be detrimental to the trade to prohibit their use.
I submit these considerations to the minister, and suggest that while the principle of the Bill is being endorsed, it will meet with wider acceptance if he allows the matter to be worked out according to the best judgment of those who are in the trade, and all the good the measure contemplates will have been accomplished. But I do submit that having regard to the experience of apple exporters, both to the European markets, especially the French market, and to the South African and the English markets, that while the boxes named in the resolution may be called standard boxes, it would be right and proper to permit a smaller box to be used, and that where the trade requires a larger box, that also should be allowed. I think the Fruit Growers' Association are not the only ones who should be primarily considered in this matter, but it is the exporters, those whose business it is to buy the apples from the fruit-growers, 1hey are the people more vitally interested in the question as to the size of the boxes. As to the manufacturers of boxes, their interest is very trifling in comparison, and should not be allowed to weigh in the mind of the minister against the interest of the exporters.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: I wish to say a word with reference to the boxes in which apples are proposed to be placed. Having had a good deal of experience in selling apples for the last thirty-five years, I should know the wants of the retail trade. I think it is a move in the right direction that we should place these apples in boxes instead of in barrels. There are several reasons why boxes are preferable to barrels. In the first place many persons do not care to buy a full barrel of apples ; they only want a box. If you buy a barrel of apples and put them in the cellar where it is warm, before that



barrel is used up tlie apples become shrunken and deteriorate iu quality. But where you buy a box of an ordinary size you can easily use them up before they deteriorate. Then in shipping these boxes, they take up less space on the car and are easier handled. Then there is a scarcity of the material for making barrels. 'I'he material is getting scarcer and scarcer each year. It requires a certain amount of skilled labour to make those barrels, whereas boxes, as has been truly remarked by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), can be made by an ordinary handy man in the winter time when he has nothing else to do, and stored away ready for use when the time comes. Another thing in regard to the size of these boxes. I am confident it does not make much difference what the size is, providing there is a standard size and that you always adhere to that size.
I cannot conceive why it is necessary that the box should be one-fourth or one-third or any other part of a barrel. What the dealer wants to know is the size of the box of apples and how many apples there are in the box. The boxes in which oranges come from California are of uniform size, and on the end of each box is stamped not only the name of the packer, but the number of oranges in the box, so that the retailer knows exactly how he can sell them. The same is the case with prunes. On the end of each standard box of prunes which comes from the growers in California or Oregon, is stamped the number of pounds in the box and the number of prunes to the pound ; so that the retailer knows exactly the size and the number of prunes he is getting. The same rule will apply to apples. The shipper will stamp on the end of the box the number of apples it contains, so that the dealer will know exactly what he is getting. In our section apples are sold by the pound as well as by the piece ; but it is far more convenient, when retailing them, to know exactly the number of apples in the box. If you have too small a box, you cannot face the apples up in the way you could with a fairly large-sized box. The standard that has been adopted is perhaps as good as any other we could have. It is large enough to admit of the apples being faced up properly, and any one can handle it, whether a woman or a man. The retail trade as demanding boxes for apples more than ever. It is only recently that they have come into use, but the more the retailer has them, the more he likes them. I think the sooner this law is put into force, the better it will be for all, the retailer as well as the shipper.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Since this matter was last before the House, I have taken the opportunity of making some inquiries as to the best size of box, and the more I have looked into the matter the more I am convinced that the proposition of the hon.
minister is not a good one. It is in the same category as the seed Bill : it is a meddlesome piece of legislation, which is calculated to make trading more difficult tha,n it is at present. That is never a good move. Trading is difficult enough under the best conditions, and it should not be hampered in any way by legislation. The hon. gentleman proposes to make a hard and fast rule as to the size of the box. I do not think he has made it clear to this House that there is any serious demand from either the consumers or the shippers of apples for a box of the particular size proposed. Every one knows that apples are of different sizes. As a rule, they are packed in layers, and large apples, such as the King of Tompkins and the Itibstone Pippin, cannot be packed into the same number of layers as small apples ; so that the.hon. gentleman should regulate the size to which apples shall grow before he at-temps to regulate the size of the box in which they shall be packed. He has evidently gauged the size of the proposed box from the size of the orange box. There is no comparison between the two. The orange is a fruit which can be compressed and conformed to go into a certain sized hole, and pressure will not hurt it; but pressure will effectually destroy the apple. I have written to a gentleman connected with a firm which exports more apples from the Dominion of Canada than any other firm. It has connections in Glasgow, Liverpool and London, and exports very many thousands of barrels, sometimes running up into the hundred thousand, per annum. If you are going to interfere with a trade of that class, you are going to injure both the fruit-grower and the shipper. In my own county last autumn I saw lying on the ground thousands of barrels of apples for which no packages could be found ; and they had to be left there to become manure. I regret that we could not realize the price which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has mentioned, a dollar a barrel. That would be a good price in our neighbourhood. For three-fourths of the apples not more than fifty cents a barrel could be obtained. Every year thousands of tons of apples are waisted on the ground in Ontario for the want of cheap and effective packages. If the hon. gentleman is going to make it more difficult to get suitable packages, he is going to do a serious injury to the farmer and fruit-grower, and to make it still more difficult to deal in apples. The apple is a cheap fruit, and as soon as you make it dear you lessen the consumption. Leave it to the shipper to know and to provide what his trade requires. It is a mistake to make a hard and fast rule with regard to this matter. I have only one short letter with which I am going to weary the House. It is signed by a gentleman connected with a firm which handles three times the quan-


Aaron Abel Wright: tity of apples handled by any other firm in Canada ; and which has agencies in Liverpool, Glasgow and London :
Brantford, February 13, 1905.
Dear Sir,-While it is desirable to have uniformity in style and size of packages for apples, as a matter of fact no one as yet positively knows what size will be found the most economical and best suited for the purpose. There may be a consensus of opinion, especially from those who have but one view point, but those fully acquainted with the conditions governing the trade from stem to stern would hesitate to name the dimensions of the best box.
The different siz%s of the different varieties *of apples, makes it difficult to arrive at a size which will fill the greatest number of the needs. Four tiers (layers) of Kings cannot be properly packed in a box that is suited for four tiers of Baldwins, or Greenings.
To penalize a shipper for packing apples in a box differing in size to that named, is preposterous. Mr. Fisher has got his apple cart before his hobby-horse. He should have first brought forward a Bill to compel nature to produce all varieties of apples of the same size, and then he would be justified in compelling apple shippers to use his 10 x 11 x 20 ' thunder ' apple packages (or twenty-five cents box fine.) I think I but voice the sentiment of the trade when I say no such legislation as proposed is desirable or necessary.
Yours truly,



J. M. SHUTTLEWORTH.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. E. TALBOT. Does the lion, gentleman contend that these thousands of tons of apples which he says were lying on the ground in his neighbourhood were marketable fruit ?
William Foster Cockshutt: I have no hesitation in saying that a large proportion of these apples was marketable fruit, many of them were choice fruit. They were not culls, but apples just as they grew on the tree, and they could not be shipped because packages could not be obtained at any price last fall ; apple barrels were then practically unobtainable in the district whence I come.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT.: Is it not a fact that the majority of apples found under the trees are wind falls and worm eaten ?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is true of a certain number of apples found on the ground, but the large majority of the apples I refer to were serviceable fruit, and would have been shipped if suitable packages could have been obtained at a reasonable figure.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: I am very glad that this point has been brought out by my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt), because if we had a uniform box for the whole Dominion there would have been no trouble in securing packages for these apples and placing them on the market. At the present time we have to depend on cooperage for barrels, which are becoming scarcer each year, and which will become scarcer still as the years go by. The Fruit Growers' Associa-' 7Si
tion demands that we shall have a uniform box. That association represents the apple growers of Canada, and its members ought to know what is in the interest of the apple trade. They declare that the sooner we have a uniform box the better it will be for all concerned. The chief reason in favour of the resolution is that, packed in this way, the apples can be sold for more money, and the farmer wants all the money he can obtain for his products. I am sure that no one in this House would, if he knew the facts, insist upon the apple growers depending upon barrels, which they are unable to obtain at the present time. The boxes can be made during the winter, when labour is cheap, and they can be on hand when they are required for packing the apples. The box will take less space in the railway car and on the steamer, the freight will be cheaper, and the contents will arrive on the market in better condition. This Bill is manifestly in the interests of all the people, and it should pass without a word of opposition.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There might be some logic in the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Derbyshire) if there was anything in the law as it existed last year which prevented people from shipping apples in any sized box they wished. I cannot see why the people of Canada who have apples to export should be compelled to pack them in a box of a certain size. Surely the apple exporters should know something about it, and the letter which has been read from one of the largest exporters in the Dominion ought to guide the Minister of Agriculture in coming to a conclusion. The members of the Fruit Growers' Association do not export apples ; it is the shippers who purchase from the farmers of the country who are interested in the export trade, and they can be relied upon to pack the apples in the most convenient and advantageous form. This resolution does not say whether it refers to apples for export to England, or Russia, or Germany, or anywhere else, and if a particular market demands a special kind of packing, this law will prevent the exporter from complying with the requirements of that market. I do not think the fruit-growers of Canada who sell their apples to the exporter care what sized box the apples are shipped in, so long as they get a good price for them. This legislation is on a par with the Fruit Marks Act, which necessitated a staff of inspectors t<5 see it enforced, and which, as shown by a return which I moved for, has cost the country up to date $63,070. Here are some of the expenses of enforcing that Fruit Marks Act : W. A. McKinnon, $1,550 ; Elmer Lick, $849 ; Richard Burke, $999 ; E. H. Wart-man. $999 ; P. J. Carey, $999 ; J. F. Scriver, $1,099 ; Alexander McNeill, $1,200 ; G. LI. Vroom, $999 ; F. L. Dery, $999 ; A. J. Pliilp, $1,099 ; Barton Gandy, $850 ; Freeman Fitch, $600 ; Maxwell Smith, $1,040 ; A.

252S-
Gifford, $646 ; G. J. Anderson. $125 ; G. R. Sangster, $450 ; R. J. Rutherford, $400 ; Charles Noreau, $498. The salaries of these gentlemen amounted to $41,284 ; their travelling expenses amounted to $21,398, and the cost of prosecutions to $387, making a total of $63,070 of the people's money which goes to a few of the supporters of the Minister of Agriculture. If this resolution passes it means another staff of officials to see that the farmers of Canada pack their apples in a box of a certain size. The resolution is uncalled for by the farmers and fruit-growers ; if any persons should be heard in the matter, it is the exporters.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The farmers have no say ?


George Taylor: The farmers should have all the say. My hon. friend from Brockville (Mr. Derbyshire) is a large handler of cheese, which is our greatest export dairy product, and I presume that next year the Minister of Agriculture will come down with a law that he shall put his cheese in a box of a certain size. It is the producer and the exporter of cheese that have brought this product to its perfection, and the Minister of Agriculture has no business to interfere with them. He has no more right to say that apples shall be exported in a certain kind of box than he has to say that cheese or pork shall be exported in a particular form of package. When the farmers and fruit-growers of this country find they have to pay $63,000 for the enforcement of this law, as in the case of the Fruit Marks Act, they will come to the conclusion that it would have been better to leave it off the statute-books. In place of enhancing the price of the fruit for the people of this country, this law will have a contrary effect, and in place of half of the apples lying on the ground, as last year, the whole crop practically will be in that condition. At the present time we can export apples in boxes or in anything else, but now they will have to export them in a particular package, and the export will be surrounded with more difficulty. The reason the apples were left on the ground last year was because there were too many apples for the demand, and it paid better to leave them on the ground than to pay labour for gathering them and barrelling them up and shipping them out of the country. Certainly if it is passed it should not be brought into force until we have an opportunity of hearing from the fruit-growers of this country and from the exporters, because it is not the Fruit Growers' Association that have anything, or more than a very little, to do with the export of apples ; it is the purchasers who buy the product of the orchards and pack and export them. I do not think the minister has stated to-day that he has a word from these exporters in reference to the approval or disapproval of this box.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member seems to have inspectors on the brain. He sees here Mr. TAYLOR.
looming up a staff of inspectors who are going to enforce this law. The hon member is perhaps not aware, although it is on the statute-book, and although as a member of this House of long standing he ought to be aware, he helped to pass the law, he was present when the laws were passed


George Taylor: And	he opposed	it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Did	he ?


George Taylor: Yes	he did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like	to	see what
he opposed ; I have not yet said what the laws are, I have no doulTt that-


George Taylor: I thought the hon. member was referring to the Fruit Marks Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend cannot get away from the Fruit Marks Act; he has that on the brain as well as inspection.


George Taylor: You have something else on the brain.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I have. I can quite understand that if the motion for the law in question was proposed by the present government the hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that he opposed it. He is always quite ready to jump up and say that a law is bad simply because it was proposed on this side of the House, without knowing what the law is. I can quite understand that because it is of a piece with his conduct in this House ever since the present government came into power. The hon. gentleman says that this is of a piece with the Fruit Marks Act, a continuation of the same policy. I accept the compliment; nothing was ever passed by this House which has served better the interests of the people of Canada than the Fruit Marks Act has served the interests of the fruit-growers of Canada. I accept his compliment and ask the House if for no other reason than that to pass tlie legislation. But the hon. gentleman says it is simply for the purpose of establishing a new corps of inspectors. We have had the Staple Commodities Act, which this amends, on the statute-book for many years. We have in that Act a provision as to the capacity and the details of size of the apple barrels. There has not been an inspector appointed to enforce that law, not one. The hon. gentleman sees inspectors looming up before his fevered imagination all the time. But it is only his imagination that brings these inspectors into existence ; thev do not exist in the flesh and if this amendment is passed there will not be any more inspectors than there are to-day although I suppose his imagination will multiply ten fold and he will dream of them and have the nightmare over them night after night and week after week. The hon. gentleman says that the growers are the people to be considered, the farmers are to be considered. I am proposing this legislation at. the request and suggestion of the growers of

fruit. The hon. gentleman is very solicitous in respct of the farmers and the fruit-growers, but before he sat down he forgot that; he changed his position and said that it was shippers and packers who were to be considered and whose interest and views [DOT]are to shape the legislation of this House and not those of the farmers. The hon. gentleman's view's seem to change even within *one speech, but as long as he can oppose what is proposed by the present government or any member of the present government he is satisfied. Whether he changes his standpoint or his views or his expressions, it is all one to him, so long as he can oppose what we propose. Mr. Chairman, I need not *deal any further with the hon. gentleman and I will not.
Several other questions have been brought forward w'hich I will be glad indeed to deal with. Their propositions were reasonable in their character and were advanced, I believe, in the interest of certain people connected with this trade. They are therefore deserving of every consideration and courtesy at my hands, and I am glad to pay them that. The hon. member for Halton <Mr. Henderson) read to us the representations of constituents of his. I have had *similar representations made by that firm, and I have considered them very fully. I appreciate that this law may, and probably will, to a certain extent, if it go into force at once, somewhat interfere wilh and disarrange the trade of that particular firm. I did not propose when I introduced the Bill founded on this resolution to have the Bill go into force for this season's trade, I proposed to have it come into force for the trade of next year, I proposed to have it in force for the trade for the year 1906 but not for the trade of 1905. I think that is a reasonable concession to those w'lio have boxes or who have material for the making of boxes on hand. I would say however to my hon. friend from Halton with regard to the size of box indicated, that just the condition of affairs which he describes is what this proposal is aimed at preventing. [DOT]One of the reasons why the standard was asked for is that people have been using *smaller and smaller boxes. Individuals quite .rightly under the present law', quite properly if they think it is in the interest of their particular trade have been trying to sell a little less and a little less all the time to the purchasers, and the people who are largely interested in the export trade of Canada have found that just that kind of thing has been injuring the trade in those countries to w hich we ship, because the people there w'lio [DOT]buy boxes of Canadian apples do not know how many apples or what quantity of apples they are getting. Purchasers in the old country have complained and it is because of that kind of complaint that the fruit-grow'ers of Canada, who in the last resort are after all, the people interested in this trade, have asked that there shall be a
standard box. When they wanted that standard box they took steps to see w'liat the standard ought to be, and after very careful consultation, extending over several years, the Fruit Growers' Association in every province in the Dominion commencing in the west at British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New' Brunswick, the maritime provinces generally have all agreed upon this particular size and shape of box as being the best compromise of all the existing interests, and the best for the future development of the trade in apples packed in boxes for shipment from Canada. Under these circumstances, not because we w'anted to introduce legislation, not because my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose department this legislation comes, w'anted to introduce it, or wanted in any way to interfere with anybody, but because the people who are interested in this trade and in this product of our country have asked that their trade should be helped by this arrangement. I w'ould say to the hon. member for Halton that when a compromise of this kind is come to and an agreement made, it is very likely that one or other individual may suffer a little. That is almost necessary from the nature of a compromise, but if wre did not provide a minimum box we could not tell how far down the box would go in size and capacity, and the people who are buying Canadian apples in boxes w'ould never be assured of the quantity of apples they were going to get. That wras the reason for the specifying of the dimensions of the Canadian apple barrel ; and now that the trade in boxes is beginning to develop, the people who are interested ask that the shape and size should be specified. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) read a letter from Mr. James, as representing the packers and handlers of fruit in that city. Well, I have had a letter from Mr. James in which he says that so far as the English market is concerned, this particular box is quite suitable.


Mr. BRODER.: Is this used by any ether country ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, by Tasmania which is our chief rival in the English market in the apple trade.


George Taylor: At a different season of the year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and they adopted that size because they found it the best package for the English market. The only objection taken by Mr. James is that foreign countries think that a different box might he better. As a matter of fact our apple trade in those foreign countries is practically very small indeed at present; and if it is to increase, it will increase more quickly if we use a (Jistinctive Canadian package than an indefinite one.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The exporters do not agree with that view.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This proposition has been before the House about six weeks. We allowed it to stand over so that hon. members might communicate with their constituents and get their opinions. It has been before the trade for three years. It was in 1902, that the first resolutions were discussed in the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association. My hon. friend says that these associations do not represent the packers. I think my hon. friend in that is wrong. Large packers, such as Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Shuttleworth, belong to these associations. Sir. Shuttleworth was one of a committee of the Ontario Fruit Growers' Association which first discussed the proposition and recommended the adoption of a standard box, and I have never heard that he dissented from the decision of that committee. A similar committee of the same association next year took up the question and recommended as a standard the box stipulated in this measure. Mr. Shuttle-worth is a member of that association, but I am not sure if Mr. James belongs to it. A number of the handlers are, however, members of the association and they all adopted the report of the committee recommending this particular sized and shaped box. My hon. friend from Halton spoke of a particular firm. Well, some of the members of that firm are members of the Fruit Growers' Association. If these people represented at the meetings of that association their views, their views evidently did not meet those of the majority, because the majority decided that a box of this particular size and shape should be recommended as a standard. In fact the fruit growers and packers in all the provinces are in favour <>f this Bill, and I am proposing it at the request of the representative bodies engaged in fruit growing and packing. My hon. friend says he represents the fruit packers of the city of Toronto. I would have supposed that they would have made representations to me if they had any objection to make.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Mr. James says he did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but he is the only man in Toronto who did. There may have fceen representations made to other people, but not to me. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) read each a letter which rather endorses the shape and size of these boxes. My hon. friend from Jacques f'artier also said that his people endorsed their shape and size, but the only question to them was the advisability of passing a law with regard to the box. This law, Sir, goes not nearly so far as many people have asked that it should go. Many have asked that this should be' a special box and that Mr. FISHER.
nc other' kind should be allowed, but the Bill only goes so far as to provide that no smaller box shall be allowed, and the reason of that is to assure purchasers that when they buy a Canadian box of apples they buy a bushel, which is one-third of the barrel they have been accustomed to buy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the administration of this law going to cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nothing more than the administration of staples costs to-day. I am not aware that there is any cost of administration * at all. The law is put on the statutes and those who break the law are liable to a penalty if prosecuted. I do not think that under this Staple Commodities Act, there is a single officer appointed by any department of the government for the enforcement of that law. I may say that the law is administered under the Department of Trade and Commerce and not under my own department,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely, my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) made the contrary assumption the last time this matter was under consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Never.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely it is not possible to carry out this law, to see to it that these boxes shipped to Europe are all of dimensions not contrary to the law without expenditure ? If there is no expenditure, the law will be a dead letter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been done for the last five or six years in regard to the barrels without such expenditure as my hon.. friend (Mr. Monk) hints at.


George Taylor: The hon. minister devoted about thirty minutes to your humble servant and stated that he has had inspectors and expense on the brain. I do not wonder that any taxpayer in this country should object to expense when we find that a few years ago, the Conservative government ran the experimental farms and all the offices in connection with the Department of Agriculture for half the amount now expended and did more and better work. My hon. friend poses as a good representative of the farmer. All through this country our best farmers have on their buildings a wind-milk a very useful article. When the Prime Minister formed his government he took my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) in as a representative farmer, but, I think more for the purpose of illustrating the usefulness of the article I have referred to, than for any good he could do as a practical farmer. He has been spoken of by the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet as a practical farmer, a horny-handed son of toil. Naturally, every one was anxious to see him. At his first visit down to Quebec when he was introduced as a practical farmer, one of the farmers thought he would take the minister

out and show him his crops. Among other things they saw a field of tobacco. Is not that a beautiful crop of tobacco ?' asked the farmer. And the minister agreed with him, but asked: 'When is it going to plug out?' He is such a practical farmer that he thought that the plugs of tobacco would grow on the stalks in the farmer's field. Shortly after that, he thought he would teach the farmers how to fatten chickens ; and he, or somebody else for him, invented a squirt-gun to pump food into the chickens. When lie tried the first batch he burst all their crops. Then he invented a chicken-food made of pea-meal and saw-dust, so as to teach the farmers how to economize in feeding their fowls. The hens that took the feed laid eggs, and when the farmers to whom they were sent had those eggs hatched out. they found that all the chickens had wooden legs. This is the man who poses as a practical farmer and thinks he has the right to lecture a member of the House because that member criticises wasteful extravagance in the use of the people's money. He tells my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the inspection under this law would cost nothing. But he said that there would be no expenditure for the enforcement of the Fruit Marks Act, and now the farmers find that they have to pay $63,000 under this head for the benefit of some political supporters of the hon. gentleman. The fact is the Conservative government ran the country more efficiently at an expenditure of $38,000,000 than the present government can at an expenditure of $68,000,000. With all their great expenditure what does the country receive? Have these gentlemen built a Canadian Pacific Railway or any other work of importance? Just as this $63,000 1 have referred to is frittered away on political friends under the excuse of enforcing the Fruit Marks Act, so another $63,000 will be spent on useless officials engaged in measuring these boxes. The hon. minister says that this Bill fixes a minimum size of box-that people cau make larger but not smaller boxes. Then, what is the use of a subsection like this?
4a. When apples are packed in Canada for export for sale by the box they shall be packed in good and strong boxes of seasoned wood, the inside dimensions of which shall not be less than ten inches in depth, eleven inches in width, and twenty inches in length, representing as near as possible two thousand two hundred cubic inches.
If a person makes a larger box he does not make one ' representing as near as possible two thousand and two hundred cubic inches.' And he is liable to the penalty if he makes it half an inch larger than the proportions laid down in the resolution. If the minister means that this is to fix a minimum size, then let him strike out that last line, for with that line in it any man
who makes even a larger box for exporting apples will be liable to a fine if brought before the magistrate. Now, I hope my hon. friend will make up his mind to leave the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) alone, and allow him to express his opinion as to the cost of enforcing this Act, or as to any other Bill introduced by the government which, as in this case, seems to have as its principal object the creating of offices for hon. gentlemen opposite to fill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose I ought to apologize to the committee, if not to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) for having wasted time upon a reference to him. The burlesque he has indulged in in his reply dictates that I should have been right to leave him unnoticed.


David Henderson: I would not have risen again to say a word had it not been that the minister seemed to pass a reflection upon certain gentlemen referred to by me who have been shipping apples in the county of Halton


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not intend to east the slightest reflection.
Mr. HENDERSON-as he seems to insinuate that their preference for the smaller box was based upon the hope of taking advantage of their customers in the old country by getting a larger price for a smaller quantity of goods. I wras careful to give the reason why the gentlemen desired the smaller box, and I think the minister has ueither answered that question nor given any reason why it should not be considered. I still think that the argument I advanced was a good one. I may say that I did not represent only the views of the gentleman whose name I mentioned, Mr. A. W. Peart, but also the views of a very important organization, the Burlington Horticultural Society. I can tell the hon. minister that the gentleman who writes on their behalf was amongst the first to export apples in boxes, and has been shipping apples in boxes for ten or twelve years, using a box smaller than that adopted by the Minister of Agriculture. The Horticultural Society of Burlington covers a very important fruit district, one that produces large quantities of apples. And the people there favour the smaller box. I have given one very strong reason why the smaller box should be adopted and I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that. These people say that they will be handicapped by the adoption of this larger box, inasmuch as it will increase the cost of sorting and packing. That argument, to my mind, is a very strong one, especially in the present condition of the labour market. I think it a great pity that we should be compelled to adopt legislation here that interferes so materially with trade in this country. The minister seems determined to have a stand-

ard box for the packing of apples. I do not suppose that anything we can say in this House will convince him, no argument will show him, that he is making a mistake. So, we might as well abandon that feature of the case. But I do appeal to him, that if there is to be a standard box-and I assume there will be-it should be of the smaller dimensions I have referred to. I still contend that a quarter-barrel is sufficiently large, and that it will be better than the one-third barrel which the minister proposes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope my words cannot be construed to mean any reflection upon the gentleman to whom the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) referred. I had no such idea in mind. I was dealing generally with one of the reasons why the apple packers and shippers had found it necessary to fix a minimum box, that reason being that the market on the other side wished to know that they always got at least so much when they bought a Canadian box of apples. I did not allow myself for a moment to make any reflection upon such a firm or body of men as have been referred to. As to the labour question involved, I think that particular phase of it was brought forward in the Fruit Growers' Association, and they discussed it on various occasions, and thought that a box of the size indicated by the resolution was one that could be properly and easily handled by the people engaged in this work.
ill'. M. S. SCHELL. I had not intended to speak on this question as I spoke some weeks ago when the subject was before [DOT] the House. I then expressed my approval of the Bill except on one point, and, that I understand, has been a compromise. There really has been some difference of opinion among the shippers as to the size of the box to be used.	But I wish to
correct some wrong impressions that seem to prevail in the House. In the first place some have the idea that it is intended that the boxes should be used supplanting barrels. That is not the idea. Barrels have been used more largely than boxes, and will continue to be used more largely than boxes so long as the material can be got to make the barrels at a reasonable price-at least that is our impression. Another opinion that seems to be held is that the., shippers themselves are against the use of the box. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has intimated that the growers desire to have the box, but that this is not desired by the shippers.
I am speaking as a shipper of apples. I have been engaged in the business for a great many years, indeed I may say that I commenced as a boy in 1880, about twenty-five years ago, in the business of exporting apples, and I have continued in it ever since. Two years ago we shipped over 12,000 boxes, so we have had some Mr. HENDERSON.
experience in the matter of boxes. Besides, we also shipped apples _in barrels to a very large extent, some 25,000 barrels, the same season, and we only used boxes because we could not get a sufficient number of barrels that season. I think the shippers are desirous of using a uniform size of box, as proposed in this Bill. I have been in communication with some of the largest apple shippers in the province, since the Bill was introduced, and I may say that in every case, so far as I have been able to learn, there is a desire for a uniform box, of some form. There are different views as to the size, some would prefer a trifle larger, some would prefer the exact size mentioned in the Bill, and some would prefer possibly a trifle smaller. As the minister lias intimated, the size proposed seems to be a compromise, and a compromise so satisfactory that I do not think there will be much objection urged against it by the shippers. Then there is another point I might emphasize, and that is the desirability of having a standard for the minimum box. You know the tendency would be in shipping to European markets that if one shipper uses a large box for which the price is fixed, and the trade begins to accept that size, the man who ships in a smaller sized box would in a measure partake of the benefit that accrues to the trade from the price of the larger box. But when you fix the minimum size, they are not permitted to use a smaller box, and that is one of the strong points in support of tlie position taken by the minister in compelling the use of a minimum size, it is I think desirable to have a box at least as large as is suggested, for this reason, that when the goods are landed on the dock at Liverpool, Glasgow or Hamburg, the rates fixed for handling, that is the dockage charges, the landing charges, and incidental charges of that kind, are based upon the package. It is therefore desirable to have the Box of a uniform size, and then those in the trade can make their statement with more force to the authorities on the other side who tlx their charges in proportion to the size of the package. That is one of the difficulties we have to-day in shipping boxes to the European markets. The landing charges are exorbitant, they are out of all proportion to the charges that are made for barrels ; but if we have a uniform size then the trade can go to the authorities who fix the landing charges, with a stronger case, if we can show that the boxes used will all be of the standard size, and no smaller. We know however that the tendency will be on this side, not to make it any larger, but to come as near as possible'to the size that is fixed by the law. So I think these arguments all tend to confirm the desirability of having a standard box. one that we can all agree upon as nearly as possible. Possibly there may continue to be some difference of opin-

ion, both as to the size of the box *and as to the quantity the box should contain, but the differences will be slight. Xt>w, Sir, I want to say again, as I said when this question was up before, that 1 think the minister is deserving of commendation for the success with which "his Fruit Marks Act, put upon the statute-book a few years ago, has been working. I believe the Bill now before the House is likewise calculated to advance the interests of the grower, to advance the interests of the shipper, and to advance the interests of the country generally, because our interests are identical. I am both a grower and a shipper, and therefore can speak for both classes. I think it is just as much to the interest of the grower as it is to the interest of the shipper that these matters should be put upon a basis that will be followed by the trade generally. For my part I can see no reason why any member of the House should hesitate a moment to support this Bill.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The question before the House is one of great importance to the fruit industry of our country. I was sorry, though, to see the Minister of Agriculture deal with the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in the manner in which he did. It is not the first time this session that I have noticed how some of the ministers of the Crown have tried to browbeat members of parliament on this side of the House when they are doing their best to obtain information from the ministers. However, Mr. Chairman, I think the Bill before us is in the right direction. I agree with the minster in his efforts to fix the size of the box, and to make it a uniform size. But I would like to impress upon the minister what I believe is of more Importance to the fruit industry of this country than merely the size of the box and its dimensions, and that is the fact the transportation of fruit in this country deserves a great deal more consideration than the minister has been giving it. In the discussion that took place last session on the subject of transportation of fruit across *tlie ocean and the ventilation of the steamers carrying the same, he will remember that the strongest kind of condemnation was visited upon the administration for the manner in which fruit was transported to the markets of Europe. I hope the minister has remedied to some extent the transportation facilities for perishable fruit. As he is aware, we are subsidizing ships to the extent of $100,000 a year in order to obtain cold storage and ventilation on those ships carrying fruit across the Atlantic.
The minister admitted at last session of parliament that he had practically no control over that cold storage. He admitted that he had entered into a contract some years ago and had granted a subsidy of $100,000 to those vessels ; and yet the department of which he is the head has no control over them. If he will look at the records, he will find that thousands of barrels of apples that are sent across the Atlantic reach the shores of Great Britain in a decayed condition and not fit for the market, simply because the transportation facilities are not what they ought to be. The minister may' tell us that the shippers have the privilege of using the cold storage on the boats ; but it is almost impossible to ask the shippers to pay the extra charge placed on the packages put into the cold storage, especially when the thermograph records show that he has no control over the cold storage arrangements. I sincerely hope that the minister will take this matter into his consideration, and give us some legislation that will improve the transportation facilities very materially.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What the hon. gentleman refers to has nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. I will deal with that when we have some motion before the House that refers to it.


Mr.   OOOKSHTJTT@: I understand, from what the minister says, that he does not provide in the Bill that the box shall be of a certain size. In my argument I was proceeding on the basis that the boxes would be uniform in size, which I understood the hon. minister to argue would be more convenient for the shipper. Now, I understand him to say that the boxes are not necessarily to be uniform in size, but that they are to be not less than the dimensions specified in the fourth section. That did not seem to be the intention of the section, but if it is, a good deal of my objection is overcome, <1 admit. But in section 2 it is provided that only apples packed as provided in section 4 shall pass as being properly packed. If the dimensions referred to are not part of the consideration, then I think the hon. gentleman is correct ; but if the dimensions specified in section 4 are those to which we must conform, then I think the hon. gentleman's argument does not well bang together. Another point, which has not yet come out-and perhaps the minister will pardon me for making reference to a subject that he may consider foreign, (hough it is relevant-is that it is not provided what kinds of apples are included in these provisions. There are produced in Ontario large quantities of dried or evaporated apples, and also of canned apples ; but it is not stated in the Bill whether it is to apply to these or only to apples as they come from the tree. I presume that the intention of the minister is that the Bill shall apply to apples as they come from the tree ; but he does not make that evident in his argument, and the Bill is not conclusive on that point.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reply to the hon. gentleman's question, I may say that the Bill

applies only to what are called green or whole apples. It does not apply to evaporated, canned or any other kind.


Mr. WILLIAM JACKSON.: We are here this afternoon discussing whether or not we shall have a standard box for the shipping of one of our Canadian products. It has been said this afternoon that if the farmers of the province of Ontario had been allowed during last fall to use boxes, they would have saved an enormous quantity of their apples. In answer to that, I would say that if we had left more apples on the ground, some of us would be better off than we are to-day. I do not think that they were destroyed because we had not boxes to put them in, but because apples were not a very desirable commercial commodity last fall. With regard to the argument that if we had the privilege of using standard boxes, they could be made in the winter, the same thing applies to barrels. It does not require any great amount of skill to set up an apple barrel ; but I do not think it would be advisable for the ordinary farmer to start in either the box-making or the barrel-making business ; he had better leave that to some one else. In regard to the statement that the same quantity of apples sent to Great Britain in three or four boxes would bring three or four times as much as if sent in barrels, that is misleading, because the apples sent in boxes are often of better quality than those sent in barrels. We know that during the last three or four years the price of apple barrels lias almost doubled. That is why we are trying to get something else in which to ship our apples to the old country. If we could make a little barrel as cheaply as a box, the apples shipped in it would bring as good a price, and they would go in better condition than in a box. At present, we have a standard barrel, the size of which is, fixed by statute, and if we are going to commence shipping apples in boxes to the old country, we must have a box of a standard size. If we are going to have two sizes of cases, they should be specified. Anything sold by the box should be shipped in boxes of uniform size. In regard to anything sold by the pound, it makes no difference.
As to the size of the boxes, it is my belief that these boxes are small enough. In fact, this Bill does not go far enough in reference to the specifications of the boxes, for it only provides for a certain inside measurement, while, in my opinion, more is necessary. You allow one manufacturer of boxes to put in a certain dimension of material on the outside and another manufacturer to put in different sized material, and so your box will lack uniformity. These regulations should go further, and state what the size of the material in the boxes should be. If you are going to place them in cold storage or on a steamship, you must have the boxes uniform in size outside as well as inside. I Mr. FISHER.
believe that this box is plenty small enough ; indeed, I would like to sell my apples to the Minister of Agriculture on the principle that the full of one of these boxes is a bushel, because I have an idea I would get the long end of the deal. I do not believe that the minister could get a bushel of apples into one of these boxes ; I do not think it is possible he could put a barrel of apples into three of these boxes. I repeat that if we are going to send apples to the old country in cases, we should have a case which is really uniform.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The dimensions stated in the letter have been discusse'd at the meetings at which the dimensions as printed in the resolution were adopted. The dimensions as printed in the resolution are of the nature of a compromise, and they have been adopted as being on the whole the most feasible and most practicable. One strong-reason for the adoption of these dimensions is that the size is very easily made and easily described ; the box-makers as well as the packers have an objection to the dimensions of a box which involves the small fraction of an inch. It is true that the dimensions in the resolution are less than the cubic contents of a bushel by, I think, 12 cubic inches.


Robert Laird Borden: Eighteen inches according to this.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps so, but I have understood from those who have considered the matter thoroughly that this was such a slight difference that they did not think it worth while to consider it. I appreciate what the hon. gentleman has said, and I can only say that the question raised in that letter has been thoroughly discussed.


Richard Blain: The resolution states that the package shall be a good and strong box of seasoned wood. Would it not be possible to allow the box being made of other material than wood ? Lumber is now very scarce in some parts of Canada, and they are substituting light sheet steel for it in the manufacture of many articles. Many years ago flour was altogether put up in barrels, but the minister is well aware that linen sacks have been substituted to some extent, and very often flour is sold in paper bags. I think it would be important if the minister provided that the box should be of seasoned wood or of some other suitable material.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think myself that the substitution of any other material in this country to-day would be so much more expensive than wood that there is no danger of any one wanting to put up apples in a package not made of that material. We have had a few papier macho barrels made, but they have never been practically used. If in the future any such necessity arose, we might amend the clause just as under similar circumstances it would be necessary to amend the section with regard to barrels. But for a long time to come there is no likelihood that any material but wood will be used.
Amendment (Mr. Fisher) agreed to.
Resolution, as amended, reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 121) to amend chapter 26, 1901. respecting the packing and sale of certain staple commodities.


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

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['We will continue on the estimates we are leaving this evening, those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries Department. I think there are no Bills coming on to-morrow.']
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.: I do not see the Minister of Finance in his seat, hut I would ask the First Minister whether the Finance Minister has come to any conclusion as to when he will deliver the budget speech.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I cannot give the information now, but if my hon. friend will renew the question, say on Thursday, I think I will be able to tell him.



Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire also whether the government have
under consideration the desirability of making an amendment to the Banking Act, so that there shall be some inspection on behalf of the government of the banks of the country. The right hon. gentleman knows that there has been a recent bank failure in Nova Scotia which has attracted some attention in financial circles, and that failure has renewed discussion with regard to this matter which was somewhat to the fore two or three years ago. I have had an inquiry from one source as to whether it was probable that the government, in view of this failure, would take up the matter again, announce some policy upon it and perhaps amend the Banking Act accordingly. I know of course the objections that have been raised to this proposal before ; I think the principal objection urged by the Minister of Finance was that there might be a certain moral obligation on the government if they carry on an inspection of banks- no more than a moral obligation but one which might give any government trouble -an obligation to compensate persons who had invested money in a bank which had then failed and who might think it would be only fair-play on the part of the country to make good any loss thus sustained. I am not rising for the purpose of advocating any particular form of inspection, but of ascertaining whether the government has this matter under consideration and as possibly it may not be convenient for the right bon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to give an answer in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) I would be very glad if the next time we go into supply that answer would be given if the Prime Minister cannot now give it.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The last time we were in committee this item, in which there is an increase of $3,500 was allowed to stand. It is explained in the following manner :
For civil government contingencies in 1904-5 the following amounts were spent: Clerical and other assistance including the pay- ment of $2.25 per day to M. Lamouche, and $650 to W. L. Cliar-bonneau, messenger, and $550 to Henry O'Brien, messenger, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	$ 3,000 00
Printing and stationery. 7,000 00 Sundries	 6,500 00
Total	$16,500 00
The first of these items remains the same for 1905-6. There is an increase in the appropriation for printing and stationery of $3,000 making the vote $10,000 and in the item for sundries of $500 making the vote for this year $20,000 an increase of $3,500. The vote for 1903-4 was $14,500 and the [DOT]expenditure was as follows :
Clerical assistance	$ 1,323 50
Printing and stationery. 8,029 22 Sundries	 4,239 93

Overdraft from 1902-3. .	991 53
>
$14,584 18
Less refunds. ...	18 22

The amounts charged for clerical assistance are made up as follows :
M. Lamouche, 1 year's
salary	$823 50
L. Charbonneau, 1
year's salary	 500 00

Mrs. Lamouche's salary is at the rate of $2.25 a day.
The department has been carrying an overdraft from year to year since 19001901. Carrying the overdraft in this way has crippled the department and in order to avoid this in the future we are asking for the amount which is now mentioned.


George Eulas Foster: There is an increase in these contingencies of $3,500.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: Yes. That is
what I have been trying to explain. I will give a statement showing how this matter has been standing since 1901. Since that year there has always been an amount standing over to be charged to the following year. In 1901, there was an overdraft of $205.34. In 1902-3, for part of which I was responsible, there Sir WILFRID DAURIER.
was an overdraft of $1,074.47. In 1903-4, the overdraft amounted to $991.53. In 19045. to the 31st of January, 1905, there was an overdraft of $7,032.06. The amount spent in 1901-2, was $10,137.57, and only $10,000 voted. In 1902-3 the amount expended was $12,391.53. In 1903-4 it was $21,616.24, and in 1904-5 to the 31st January, 1905, it was $16,656.23, and only $14,000 voted. Next year we shall require $20,000 to carry on the work of the department. I might 'mention that the work has trebled since 1886.	For	instance, in 1886, 12,800
letters were received, in 1891, 15,300, and in 1904, 32,184. I could enumerate the different branches to show what have been the increases since 1886, but I do not think it is necessary to do so at present. According as each branch comes up, I can show-how much the work has increased. So that really the anlount of $3,500 is not excessive in view of these facts. It is necessary in order to put the books in such a condition that there will be no more overdrafts.


George Eulas Foster: It is a good policy not to have overdrafts though it may not be the best argument for an increase of the vote. However, as the hon. minister promises better things for the future and to keep within his appropriation, I am not disposed to be very stringent in my remarks, but I would suggest that his officers should be a little more careful about the contingencies of his department. There is always a tendency, especially when a minister is good hearted, to stretch a point as regards contingencies. For instance the hon. gentleman might tell me why three copies of * Canadian Annual Review' should be required for the work of his department. I have not a sufficient fertile imagination to imagine what particularly useful service these works could be in the running of lighthouses and shipping buoys. Then I find that he has purchased several copies of ' Canadian politics.' What help will the officers of the department find in this work ? Not satisfied with that, he has purchased a whole set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is no doubt a fine standard work and a very good thing for a general library ; but one would think that what would be required in the hon, gentleman's department would be special works on special subjects. No doubt, it was as an admirer of old English Liberalism, that my hon. friend has bought a life or two of Gladstone. He has also acquired 'the Speaker's decisions of the House of Commons.' Perhaps these may be necessary in the work of his department, but I am at a loss to know how they can possibly be of any use there. Then, I find that the minister is lather costly in his travelling expenses. He and his secretary have spent a round thousand or a little more on those expenses.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Special cars ?


George Eulas Foster: Expenses, and cab-hire at Ottawa. My hon. friend has run up $150 on

cab-hires. But I should think that he is of that peculiar build which would benefit by walking exercise. Of course, subscriptions to newspapers are absolutely necessary. It would be impossible to run the ' Lady Lau-rier, the ' Neptune ' and those other vessels unless they had in the department the ' Athabaskaville Union' at $6 and the 'Charlottetown Patriot ' at $4 and the ' Canada ' at $4.50. No doubt these furnish motive power. AVith the subscription to ' The Sportman's Review,' I have no fault to find. Probably the minister takes that in lieu of exercise. If he cannot get exercise in his department, he can read about it. *


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: The travelling expenses in Ottawa can be very easily explained. I have to go to Montreal every Saturday and sometimes twice a week, which involves my taking my valise and my secretary doing the same. I suppose we are not bound to carry them ourselves and we drive to the station. But I must say that I have never made use in the city of Ottawa of a cab or sleigh at the expense of the government just for the pleasure of having a drive. Whenever I have had that pleasure I have paid for it. Whenever. I have had friends visiting Ottawa and we have driven about, I have always paid out of my own pocket. Whatever I have paid in cab-hire in Ottawa has been spent as I have described. Representing a large district in the city of Montreal, and having a marine agency in Montreal and many large corporations to meet, I am obliged to travel in the way I have stated. But I do not think I have ever been extravagant in that line. As to subscriptions to newspapers, of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Poster) has been a minister, and he knows that the officers of the departments must keep up with public events, and, to be able to do this, they must have the papers to consult. And you must have them in the department, where they will be at hand, for you cannot send for them to the reading room or the library. I do not think that account has increased in any extraordinary way. As regards the purchasing of books, I have not been very long in charge of the department, and when I became minister there vvas not even a copy of the statutes there. I found empty book-cases.


George Eulas Foster: Who was the hon. gentleman's predecessor ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was himself minister of that department and knows the course of things perfectly well. I understand, from information given me by the deputy, that it has been the custom, when a minister changes from one department to another, that he takes whatever books he thinks proper to his new department. After there have been four or five changes of ministers, it will readily be understood, there are no more books and the latest comer must buy
what are needed. I invite the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) to visit my room in the department. I will receive him as politely as I can, and will show him that there is yet a great deal of room in that book-case. But, little by little, I am securing for the use of the department the books that I think necessary. Some of them will be more or less necessary. But the hon. gentleman understands that point perfectly well-he has been long enough in the business to understand.


George Eulas Foster: That raises a very interesting question. In view of the minister's explanation, I think we have every reason to be glad that the book-cases were left; I almost wonder that they had not disappeared as well as the books. Has it become the fashion that an incoming minister finds only empty book-cases because the books have all been taken ? For instance, when a minister changes from one department to another, does he take ail the special books that he used in the administering of the department he is leaving. Really this is a significant statement that the minister has made. But I shall not go into it now. I imagine it extends much beyond this department. Where all the pins and needles go has long been an unanswered conundrum. And where the furniture and furnishings and books, for which immense sums of money are paid by all these departments from Government House to the Speaker's chamber-where they go at each migration is a thing that no one has yet been able to find out. But go they do-there is not the least shadow of a doubt about that ? But the minister has not told me what he wanted with $40 worth of ' The Siege of Quebec.' Was that for a private library ? Have we come to the point where a minister has a right to use the tax-payers' money in buying books that are not necessary for the administration of his department'? If the minister wants to stock a private library, that is his own business. He is paid a salary, and can use his own money for his own purposes. But he has no right to use the tax-payers' money to make a private library, and then run off with it when he leaves the department. I do not think that ought to be condoned as a practice, I care not which government may practice it. I can sympathize with the late Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) if he has to carry around all the books that belonged to the library of the department he has just left. If he has taken them away, I am going to inquire about it. And when the next man comes in, if the government ever makes up its mind to put in another man, if that other man brings in a vote to furnish the empty bookshelves, I think it will be criticised in this House. I doubt very much if that is the rule, and I doubt if the ex-AIinister of the Interior has emptied the bookshelves of liis former office of the books that he used in

carrying on the work of his department.
I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) will renounce the heresy he has formulated


Mr. SIFTON.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) be kind enough to particularize in the statement he made in reference to myself ? I am not sure that I understood him.


George Eulas Foster: It came to this : that I pitied the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) if he undertook to carry oft with him all the books of reference that were in his department while he was Minister of the Interior. That was the first point. The second was that I did not believe the hon. gentleman had done so. The third was that if the hon. gentleman had taken away these books and an item appeared in the estimates to refurnish the bookshelves I thought it would receive criticism in this committee. Well, it is not the universal practice. Even if it obtains in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I take it that it does not in the Department of the Interior.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was there. I suppose it was his practice.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was there. Fie took no books out of the Marine Department. And the hon. gentleman, I may say, should not have to replenish empty shelves when he went there. That was not one of the traditions of that department at that time.	.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I understand that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has a considerable amount charged to travelling expenses. I understand also that he made a trip to Cape Tormentine a year or two ago and has viewed the situation there. I would like to know, for the benefit'of my constituents, what his idea is as to the situation at Cape Tormentine. To-day we have between two thousand and three thousand bags of mail matter lying at Sackville ready to be taken to Prince Edward Island and no means of taking it across the Straits of Northumberland. I understand that the minister has viewed the situation and is satisfied that a ferry can be made there suitable for carrying mails and passengers.
I think that, as the minister has taken the money out of the public treasury to spend for a visit to the Capes Ferry, I have a right to ask him why it is that he has not furnished the needed means to carry mails and passengers ; for in doing this, he would confer a great boon upon the people of Prince Edward Island. I wish to remind the minister that the terms of confederation with Prince Edward Island distinctly declares that the Dominion shall provide continuous steam communication winter and summer for mails and passengers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When the item for ferries in Prince Edward Island comes 1 Mr. FOSTER.
before the committee for consideration, I will be prepared to give the hon. gentleman all the information I possess. As it is now six o'clock, I may inform the committee that after recess I propose to take up the item concerning the ship canal, a very large item of $588,000.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec-River St. Lawrence channel '(Marine Department), $588,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. minister will give a statement as to the present condition of this channel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This item of $588,000 is the same amount as was voted last year to continue the work of improving the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec. In 1899 a general plan was made of the improvements which were contemplated in the channel between Montreal and Quebec, which plan was laid before the House. This work has been going on according to this plan during a number of years preceding my tenure of office. By Order in Council of March 11th, 1904, on a report from the right hon. the President of the Privy Council, with a view to systematizing and facilitating the work, the hydrographic surveys, the management and control of the river St. Lawrence ship channel, together with the dredging and ship building jilant, wfere transferred at the close of the fiscal year to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, so as to place the supervision of the improvements to navigation on the St. Lawrence route under the department directly responsible for the pilotage and aids to navigation. This vote of $588,000 is to make provision for the following in accordance with the subjoined detailed estimate transmitted by the superintending engineer of the St. Lawrence ship channel:
1.	Working expenses of a dredging fleet of six elevator dredges and one hydraulic or suction, dredge, with their necessary plants, which it is proposed to keep at work at various points on the St. Lawrence below Montreal, deepening and otherwise improving the channel, including the sweeping and general supervision.
2.	Maintenance of Sorel shipyard establishment, inclusive of supplies, charges of management, office expenses, stores, buildings, shops and machinery.
3.	Towards construction of additional dredging plant at Sorel, improvement of shipyard facilities, including wharf and dock accommodation.
4.	For the completion of the construction of a powerful ice-breaking and sweeping tug.
Detailed estimate of requirements for 1905-6 :
1. Dredging operations-
Working expenses of six elevator dredges, operating day and night, with their accessory plants of tugs, scows, &c., including fuel, wages, board, stores, repairs and office expenses as well as the supervision and sweeping of the

ship channel, for a season of about eight months.
Six elevator dredges at $40,000 each.. ..$240,000 "Working expenses of one hydraulic dredge, operating day and night, including plant and superintendence for a
season of about six months	 60,000
Working expenses of two stone lifters 10,000
310,000
2.	Shipyard supplies, buildings and new plant

Coal for shipyard, 2,200 tons at $4.50$9,90P
Smith coal, S00 tons at $6	 4,804
New' sawmill and woodworking shop, including machinery for
sawmill	21,000
Tools for new' woodworking shop 4,000 Tools for new machine shop.. .. 15,000 Sterilizing chamber and other
buildings	 5,000
Slip-way in yard	10,000
Furnishing wharf No. 4	 5,000
Purchase of land on which shipyard
tow stands	 25,000
Installing galvanizing apparatus 5,000 New plant and machinery	 7,300
3.	New' dredging plant and improvements to fleet of ship channel-
Two new dump scow's of 200 cubic
yards capacity each	$30,000
Tug to replace St. Francis.. .. 17,000 Equipment of floating machine
shops	 3,000
Flat scow	 6,000
To finish new sieit of buckets for
dredge ' Lafontaine '	10,000
*

4.	Ice-breaking and sweeping tug for above and below Quebec-
For the completion of the construction of a new powerful ice-breaking and sw'eeping tug designed for prolonging navigation, sweeping above and below Quebec, aiding belated vessels from Montreal to Quebec and general towing of dredging plant, especially for Cap a la Roche	 100,000
Total estimate of requirements for fiscal year 1905-6	 588,000
This is a resume of the whole	amount
which we are asking the House to appropriate for the next season. I must state at once that the amount is not included in the main estimates for erecting certain Iiiers on Lake >St. Peter in order to aid navigation during the latter part of the season. It is an impossibility to maintain the ordinary floating lights on Lake St. Peter after the ice begins to form, so that in order to make this part of the channel perfectly safe it has been decided to erect a series of piers. Four or five of them will be constructed in due time as far as our appropriation goes, so as to make this part of the channel perfectly safe even after the ice is formed and after the floating buoys are taken away. We think that by erecting these piers and having fixed lights we can maintain navigation on the St. Lawrence later than the 25th November, the time at which the insurance risks expire. This work is not new. It is following out the
plan of improvement which vas adopted at the demand of the Shipping Federation, the Board of Trade of Montreal and the Boards of Trade at Quebec and elsewhere, in order to make the bed of the St. Lawrence as safe and as advantageous as it is possible to make it. This plan is not mine at all. It is a plan which was laid before the House in 1899 by a former Minister of Public Works who had studied the question specially, and who had this plan sanctioned by the House as far back as the year I have mentioned. The work is under the same engineer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Last year, in this vote of $588,000 was included $60,000 on account of the construction of a new, powerful ice breaking and sweeping tug designed for prolonging navigation. What success has been obtained by the expenditure of this money, and what has been the record of the ss. ' Montcalm ' as an ice breaker in the vicinity of Quebec?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: The $60,000 voted last year has not been expended, but we intend to do so before the first day of July, in order to commence the construction of the ice-breaker and sweeping tug. This tug is intended to aid vessels at the latter end of the season to get as far as Lake St. Peter or perhaps as far as Quebec where they will be taken in charge by the ' Montcalm.' The ice breaking tug will complete the system for keeping navigation open as late as possible between Montreal and Quebec. During the summer she will be in the service of the department. Applications are frequently made to assist vessels leaving Montreal late in the fall; tugs not properly strengthened have to be used and they are in danger of being damaged or lost. The shipping federation of Canada and the pilots have urged the necessity of sweeping the Cape it la Roche channel and other parts of the River St. Lawrence immediately after the ice leaves in the spring, and there are more urgent demands every year for sweeping the channel below Quebec. I may mention that a reef was discovered last fall opposite Murray bay, where a depth of 20 feet was found and where the chart showed 75 feet of water. It was the intention to build this tug at Sorel, but in view of the special features of construction and the absolute necessity of having the steamer in Canada next autumn it has been considered advisable to give the contract to one of the two British (firms which has most experience in such work. As to the work of the . ice breaker ' Montcalm ' at Cap Rouge this winter, it has been a complete success in this way; that although the winter has been among the severest known for the last fifty years, the ' Montcalm ' has been able to break the ice as far up as it is necessary in order to have a channel open early in the spring. Some days the

ice was twenty feet thick, font she worked her way through it so that as soon as the weather becomes warmer and no new ice is forming, she will, we hope, be, able to open the channel higher up than Cap Rouge and make her way as far as Three Rivers or at least to Portneuf. There is no doubt she can get through the ice and do what she was built for. The ' Montcalm ' unfortunately lost six blades of her propellers, and as we had only a small number of blades to spare we cabled for a further supply which have now arrived and the ' Montcalm ' will be ready again shortly. We are perfectly satisfied with what that steamer has accomplished. The ss. 'Champlain' has attempted with more or less success. I should say with fair success, the winter navigation between Murray bay and the Intercolonial Railway at St. Denis. She was delayed for a few days on account of the ice being piled up on the south shore. The [DOT] Champlain ' is smaller and not so strong as the ' Montcalm,' but she has done very good work and we are quite satisfied that the experiment has been successful.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is such a very interesting matter that I would like to know Whether there is in the possession of the department a detailed report from those in charge of the ' Montcalm ' and ' Champlain,' showing exactly the work of these steamers from day to day during the winter ?
The steamer is a costly one, it costs us $150 a day, I understand, and it would be interesting to know exactly what work she is doing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The latest report I have about the work of the ' Montcalm ' is dated January 11, 1905. I have no objection at all to giving it to the House as I have received it from Captain Koenig, who is an experienced seaman who has been employed by the department for many years. He was formerly employed on the ' Druid.' This report is as follows :


Col.   F.@: Gourdeau,
Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Sir,-According to instructions received from you, that I have to make' a statement from the time the Dominion government steamer * Montcalm,' has started ice-breaking until to-day, I beg to report that I arrived from Scotland on the 3rd of December last, and from that date until the 22nd of the same month, I had to do some alterations, in the piping arrangements to prepare the ship for winter work.
December 22nd.-Deft Quebec at 9 a.m., and proceeded up towards Cap Rouge up the river ; met some accumulated ice of about three feet 'thick. Ice running down the river freely. Heavy snowstorm with a strong breeze from the north east. Returned to Quebec.
From this date until 29th the ice running freely in the river. Men working at the piping arrangement.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: December 29th.-Weather cold, ice making fast, but running freely in the river. Prepare-the ship to go out in the morning.
December 30th.-Received telephone message from Cap Rouge that the river was clear of ice. ft is also clear of ice abreast of the city.
December 31st.

Snowing, calm ; left wharf at 6.20 a.m.; proceeded up as far as Confederation Point ; found some ice between the bridge, steamed through to break it and also broke away some batture ice, to make the channel' wider and returned to Quebec at one p.m., having also broken some batture- ice off Beauport.
January 1st, 1905.-Received a telephone message from Cap Rouge that there was little ice on the river and it was running freely ; no necessity to go out to-day.
January 2nd.-The same weather and condition of ice as yesterday.
January 3rd.-Received a telephone message from Cap Rouge that there was very little ice in the river, and it was not necessary to go out.
January 4th.-Snowing, easterly wind. Received a telephone message from Cap Rouge that there was no ice on the river, and no danger of ice taking.
January 5th.-At 8 a.m. left Pointe-h-Carcy wharf and proceeded up the river ; at 8.40 a.m. I met some heavy packed ice between' Sillery Point and extended as far as 1 could see. Worked in the ice until dark, 4.30 p.m., when the ice started to run down the river with the tide.
January 6th.-Left Pointe-S-Carcy wharf at 8 a.m. ; weather cold and very thick vapour rising from the water, met some heavy packed ice. I steamed through it to break it. At noon the ice running freely, I returned to the wharf.
January 7 th.-Strong easterly wind, with blinding snowstorm. Having received a telephone message from Cap Rouge that the ice was not making, I did not proceed up the river. I steamed through the ice in the harbour to break it. I returned to the wharf at 5.30 p.m.
January 8th.-Heavy loose ice in the harbour running freely.
January 9th.-Nine a.m. proceeded up as far as the bridge. I found the ice stationary. Worked in it until 4 p.m., but did not' succeed to break the jam, the ice being packed from ten to thirty feet thick. Could not work any longer on account of the flood tide making.
January 10th.-Deft Quebec at 9 a.m., being high water, I found the ice still stationary in the narrowest part of the river between the piers of the new bridge ; worked in it all the ebb tide, seven hours, succeeded to break three-quarters of a mile in the key of the jam. Impossible to work any longer on account of flood tide making. I returned to Quebec.
January 11th.-Left Pointe-a-Carcy wharf at high water, 11 a.m.; found the ice in the narrowest part of the river still stationary. X worked at it until 5 p.m., the beginning of the flood tide, and in seven hours I only broke a distance of one-third of a mile. This ice being packed to an unknown depth. I have seen pieces breaking away of twenty and thirty feet thick.
All this jammed and packed ice is due to the strong current running down in this narrow part of the river, which extends from below the piers of the new bridge to some distance above Cap Rouge, from four to five miles.
It appears by the work done to try to force the ' Montcalm ' in it, that the ice is so tightly

jammed and packed together, that no icebreaker can break it away.
1 am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) CHAS. KOENIG, Master.
Dominion government steamer ' Montcalm,' Quebec,- January 11, 1905.
I may say that the key of the jam is now broken so that there will be no difficulty whatever in clearing that part of the jam. '
I have a copy of a letter which I received on January 23, from the government engineer at Montreal who happened to be down in Quebec and who took a trip on the ' Montcalm ' on January 17, after the date last mentioned in the report of Captain Koenig. That letter reads as follows
Montreal, Jan. 20, 1905. ^Honourable R. Prefontadne',
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Sir,-On Tuesday, January 17th, 1905, I visited the steamer " Montcalm " at Quebec at 6.30 a.m., and with the kind permission of Captain Koenig, under your instructions, was able to see the working of the ice-breaker ' Montcalm.'
We left the wharf at 6.30 in the morning, going up to Cap Rouge about J mile above the Quebec bridge. The ice was very thick, ranging I should judge between 15 and 20 feet thick, piled up very strongly and forming a very strong barrier. The way in which the Captain handled his ship on approaching the ice was very masterly as he did not overstrain his ship in charging the ice too directly.
The work being done by the steamer is marvellous. considering the immense thickness of the ice and the enormous power to contend against. I feel confident that the captain is doing all in his power to break the ice, and will by constant work this winter, if nothing happens to his ship prevent the ice jam from forming in the spring. By breaking daily up the ice which has formed very strongly* since the ice began to form this winter, the ship will be able to hold her own. Work can only be done during the ebb tide, so that a small portion of the day can be used. If I may suggest anything I wrould recommend that after this season, that another steamer be used in conjunction with the ' Montcalm ' so that two steamers could work jointly together, one either side of the channel, which would more than double the work.
As to the steamer herself, she is a beauty, strength and power combined. Her build is very strong and the engines and boilers are perfect, the reversing gear of the engine is astonishing and a marvel of rapidity in movement. The pumping power should be increased and the feed pipes rearranged. All of which no doubt your captain has told you of. I can only add that this experiment of endeavouring to keep the River St. Lawrence at Cap Rouge open, is the keynote of the situation, and if effective, which no doubt appears to be certain, provided the vessel meets -with no unforeseen mishaps w'ill be accomplished. But you must bear in mind that the task is a difficult one and requires constant attention and goodwill to make it a success, which I am sure your captain has in view. I hope that you will I 79
allow me to visit her again, as the experience I have already had on board of her is a most instructive lesson, and anything I know about ice formation on the St. Lawrence river will be gladly given if it may be of any use to you.
I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Signed) PERCIVAL W. ST. GEORGE.
Here is a letter from Mr. Weller, manager of the Babcock & Wilcox, Limited :
Babcock and Wilcox, Limited,
Water Tube Steam Boilers, and
Accessories.
Montreal, February, 9th, 1905. Hon. Raymond Prefontaine,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottaw'a.
Dear Sir,-As the writer spent Monday and Tuesday last in Quebec, looking over your new ice-breaker, the ' Montcalm,' I thought you would probably like to have a few lines from me in regard to same.
The writer spent Tuesday out on the ice bridge with her, and she did splendid work. She handled very well indeed, and had no difficulties in breaking down the ice, although it was of very considerable thickness. She was labouring under considerable disadvantage, owing to the loss of a number of the blades of the propellers, which reduced her power very considerably, and she also suffered from the soft ice getting in the injection pipes of the condensers, and putting them out of business temporarily. The chief engineer intends to make certain changes, which will remedy this.
I went over the boilers very carefully, and found them an exceptionally fine installation, and under Mr. Pettit's care, they handled the vessel in good shape.
I must also compliment you on the general arrangement of the ship, and her substantial build, practically no vibration or shock being discernible when running into the heavy ice, and I think that she should prove a great success in opening up navigation at an early date.
I was glad to find that you had secured the services of Mr. Pettit as chief engineer, as he has been known to us for a long time as a thoroughly capable officer, and we hope you will be able to retain bis services in your department, and have supervision over any installation of our boilers which you may purchase, as he is thoroughly familiar with them, and will be able to train the firemen properly, so that you can obtain the most economical results.
Trusting that when you have any further business in our line you will not fail to give us an opportunity to figure on same, I am, Very truly yours,
(Signed) H. W. WELLER.
I have nothing to add to this certificate, and I am quite sure that within the next two or three days when the blades that have been broken have been replaced and when the ship will have made her trip down to Seven Islands-because the boat was also intended to give some winter service to Seven Islands below Quebec and her trip down there will take five or six days- she will again be at work, and I hope that all that was expected of'her. although it



has been a most extraordinary winter, will be fully realized. Her trip down there will take five or six days, and I hope that despite this very rigorous winter the work done by her will be fully up to expectations.


George Taylor: We are now on the item of the St. Lawrence ship channel, and I find in the Auditor General's Report that all sorts of expenses are charged against this work. For instance on page V-28 I find : paid Mr. H. C. Beaulieu, Sorel, for one No. 4 sewing machine, $50 ; paid F. X. Beliefeuille & Frere, Three Rivers, secondhand wool picker, $50. Then on V-31 I find paid Dr. A. F. Fleury, Sorel, vaccinating 190 men at fifty cents. Also paid Henry Hains, Ottawa, evidence taken at inquiry into explosion of boiler of ' J. I. Tarte,' November 1903, 65,500 words at 16 cents per hundred and three copies, 196,500 words at 2i cents per hundred.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Was not that allowed by the Auditor General ?


George Taylor: X presume he allowed it because it was certified to by the minister as just and correct, but you could get the whole thing done by any typewriter at 3 cents per hundred words, whereas this cost 231 cents per hundred words. Further down I find that Hudon & Orsali were paid for four eases Radnor water at $9, one case of Appolinaris, $10.50, English soda and ginger ale, four dozen each at $1.35-all charged to the ship channel at Montreal. Then a little further down I find this item charged : Pierre Paul, Sorel, funeral expenses of Joseph Paul, killed in accident to dredge 'Israel Tarte,' $40. Also paid A. V. Roy, Cure, St. Ann de Sorel, burial service of Joseph Paul, $26. In our county, if we have a funeral, the minister has to officiate free, but here is $26 paid for burying Mr. Paul. I see another poor fellow was killed at the same time, Thomas Brunelle, but nothing was paid 'for burying him. All through the report X find items like these, and we should have an explanation. What have they to do with the deepening of the ship channel east of Montreal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the shipyard, we have to employ people in making sheets and bedding, and for that purpose had to get a sewing machine. As regards the soda water and Radnor water and ginger ale, I do not think my hon. friend, if he had to receive the Shipping Federation or the representatives of large bodies, coming from England or any part of the Dominion, and was showing them around the ship channel, he would be satisfied to treat them only to cold water. I do not think we were extravagant when we made this little expenditure on a few bottles of soda water, ginger ale and Radnor, especially the Radnor which is pure Canadian beverage and which my hon. friend ought to patronize. As regards the funeral expenses, an accident happened to the Mr. PREFONTAINE.
boilers of the dredge ' J. I. Tarte,' which resulted in the death of two of the employees, and of course we had to look after their burial expenses and will no doubt have to pay a pretty large sum to their families as compensation. One of these employees we had to bury especially at our own expense, but the other one had a brother who paid the expenses.


George Taylor: They were both buried at the expense of the government, according to the Auditor General's Report. Thomas Brunelle, killed in accident to dredge 'J. I. Tarte,' $34; paid general hospital services two days and two nights, $6 ; mortuary-habit, $25.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As to these services, I must state that under our creed we believe in these services and believe they should be paid for to whoever performs them. We thought it would not be fair to allow the family of the poor fellow who lost his life in an accident to pay these funeral expenses. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) will bear me out in saying that if he had had the information I am now giving him, he would not have brought this matter up in the committee. These people were employed in the work of the ship channel, and I think that what was done by the former Minister of Public Works in regard to these matters

small matters after all-was rightly done. Had I been in his place, I would have done the same thing.


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Mr. Pre-fontaine) did not explain the expenditure of $153.92 for the typewriter in preparing 65,500 words.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That explains itself. There was an investigation to show who was responsible for the accident. This investigation was held at the suggestion of the government, and was in addition to the coroner's investigation to determine whether there was a criminal liability. A stenographer was employed to take the evidence. I understand that the rate he charged was the ordinary rate, and he was sworn in the ordinary way, and I have no doubt the account would not have been passed by the Auditor General if there had been an overcharge.


Mr. BENNETT.: Was a government dredge built at Toronto last year ; and, If so, what was her name ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not for the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Such a dredge may have been built for the Department of Public Works.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps I may refresh the minister's memory. Was not a dredge constructed in Toronto and was lost on Lake Ontario while en route to Montreal ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was for a contractor named Poupore, and had nothing to do with the department. I happen to

know about -it, because the fact was given to me by Mr. Poupore.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A large number of small items go to make up this expenditure of half a million dollars referred to by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor). I would ask the minister who has charge of the purchasing of these items ? This is not the first year that we have found most extraordinary items charged to the St. Lawrence ship channel. Last year the Auditor General's Report showed fine, expensive carpets bought at Hamilton and charged to the ship channel. There are charges for scented soap, unscented soap, Pears' soap, towels and pillows, and a multitude of things, all charged up at considerable prices. There must be somebody prepared to certify these accounts, and I would like to know who it is. There is a charge for snowshoes purchased in Ottawa, and many other things that one would imagine that would not be necessary for the deepening or maintenance of the channel. Who does the ordering for the department and is prepared to be responsible for the prices charged for these articles ?
Mr. PREFONTAINEt Mir. George E. Desbarats is engineer in charge of the shipyard in Sorel. He controls the purchases and must certify to every account. I cannot speak for the system formerly in use, as I do not know about it. But since 1st July last, during which time I have had control of the ship channel, I have given special instructions that all orders for whatever amount must be sent to Ottawa and approved by the deputy minister or myself. The prices are looked into, and the orders go back to the director of the shipyard who orders the goods. He has to see to it that they are delivered in the condition mentioned in the order and must send back the accounts to the department here. They are entered in the regular way in the books of the department and paid as demand may be made upon the department. I may say that when I took over this important work I sent a chartered accountant to Sorel to examine the books and ascertain how the business was conducted, and also to make a regular inventory of the stock in store. And it was after I received the report from this accountant and his assistants that I gave the special instructions which I have just referred to. As to the variety of articles ordered, the extent of the work must be considered. We have ten tugs under our control as well as seven dredges. These dredges including the ' J. I. Tarte,' have a capacity of 1,000,000 cubic yards a month. This, of course means very large crews. The tugs also require many men, who must be housed and boarded by those in charge. As to the tugs, some of them are of pretty good size. Two of them, the ' Eureka ' and the * Fron-tenac,' are used by the officers of the department. The ' Frontenac ' was built three years ago. before I was in the department.
79J
She is a fine little cruiser, and well equipped in every way. The fact is she wts built in the expectation that the Prince of Wales would take a cruise in her down the St. Lawrence. She is for the special use of the superintending engineer of the ship channel, Mr. Cowie, who is in charge under me, as he was under my predecessors before the present government came into power. So I think we have simply continuel the system that existed before, except that where improvements were to be made we have made them. I have tried to put the yard in a better business condition than it was before. I have not wasted any money. But things will improve as time goes on, and as we acquire more experience. It is not given to everybody to run a shipyard properly without loss of something or other. I know that Mr. Desbarats is considered one of the most energetic and painstaking engineers in the country, I do not think he could be replaced with advantage. I do not know which side of politics he belongs to, there are no politics whatever in the shipyard ; everything is conducted as much as possible on business principles. Of .course, there may be some items that look strange. I cannot tell why the snowshoes, for instance, were bought. Probably somebody was sent out into the bush to look up timber, that we might have a supply in the spring. Besides, there is a staff of men working near Lake St. Peter taking soundings, and it stands to reason that when the snow is deep the engineers are obliged to use snow-shoes-perhaps skates, or other articles of that kind. But I am quite convinced that Mr. Desbarats would never order anything which was not needed for the use of the men on the channel. It would have been dishonest for him to do so, but I do not think he is a man who would do anything of the sort.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I wanted to elicit from my hon. friend was the name of the party responsible for these purchases.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I said Mr. Desbarats.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand my hon. friend has modified his answer since then, and now he says that everything has been sent up to Ottawa to be authorized by the minister. So these purchases which appear to us to be abnormal we now understand were made on the responsibility of the minister and of Mr. Desbarats. Now I want to remind the minister that last year when he brought down his estimates, he gave a detailed statement of this sum of $588,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will allow me-the item was not submitted to the House by me, though of course I am ready to assume responsibility for it.

24 GO


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, it was my hon. friend liimself who submitted the item last year. But he submitted it in several portions, and 1 think if the hon. gentleman followed the same course this year it would enable us to get through the item much more readily. Now out of this sum of over half a million dollars last year, the first part of the item was for dredging expenses, for working expenses on six elevator dredges and one hydraulic suction dredge, with their accessory plants, which it was proposed to keep at work at various points on the St. Lawrence below Montreal, deepening and otherwise improving the ship channel. I think it was with that item the hon. gentleman began this evening. Those expenses last year were set down at $60,000, which sum we understood was to be expended in dredging and deepening the channel. The item for dredging last year was $240,000, and there was added to that an extra for the working expenses of one hydraulic dredge, operating day and night, including plant, and superintendence for a season of about six months, $00,000. So that last year there was an estimate of $300,000 for dredging. Now the question I would like to ask my hon. friend is this :	What was done
with that $60,000 last year? What dredging was accomplished, and how is it proposed to spend the sum this year which is included in that estimate for dredging ? What are the results obtained? How much have we deepened the channel, where have we deepened it and what is the field of operations for this year?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have here a full statement in detail of every sum that has been expended for the year ending June 30, 1904. It was on that statement that the sum of $588,000 was voted. The cost of dredging in 1904 was $276,958.59 ; expenditure for plant, ships, &c.,	$308,766.44.
Now if hon. gentlemen want the details I can give them but they are very long.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I desire to know what has been the result of last year's dredging. We expended $276,000. What has been the result and what is the plan of operation for the coming year ?


Mr.   P HE F O N T AIN E.@: Continuing the
work that was begun in 1899, I will read a resume of the work of each dredge. The dredge ' Lady Aberdeen,' with the tug ' Cartier,' did 649,400 yards at a cost of 5'51 cents per yard in clay and stones. The work was done near Contrecceur and St. Ours. The dredge ' Lady Minto ' did 306,340 yards, at 12-07 cents per yard, in blue clay and stone at Contrecceur Traverse. The dredge ' Lauriei- ' did 317,950 at a cost of 11-28 cents. The first part was done in clay and sand, and the other in clay and stone, one at Point aux Trembles (en haut) and the other at Sorel to lie de Grace. The dredge ' Laval ' worked Mr. PREFONTAINE.	.
to lie de Grace. The dredge ' Laval ' worked in clay and stone taking out 31,500 cubic yards at Champlain at 22J cents and 184,750 yards at 14-77 cents, clay and stone, at Pointe aux Trembles. The dredge ' Lafon-taine' took up 86,100 yards at 3-6 cents _at Contrecoeur and Belmouth Curve, 248,550 yards at 4 cents at Contrecceur Traverse and 90,000 yards at 3-38 cents at Petite Traverse. The dredge ' Baldwin ' took up 271,000 yards at 10-73 cents in clay and stone at Pointe aux Trembles, and 49,800 cubic yards at Contrecoeur, and the ' J. Israel Tarte ' with the tugs 'Lac St. Pierre ' and ' Montcalm ' took out 2,055,140 yards at 3-04 cents, soft blue clay, in Lake St. Peter. There are two stone lifters, Nos. 2 a#d 3; they also did part of the work. There were the steamers * Frontenac,' ' Eureka ' and ' James Howden ' and the hydraulic survey steamer ' De Levis.' If the hon. gentleman wants more details I can give the fuel, wages, board, classes of material, Ac.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not ask for these details. I merely wanted to know what results had been obtained from last year's dredging? How many miles have we deepened the channel ? What is the depth in Lake St. Peter now and what are your plans for next year ? There is no use giving the number of cubic yards.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: How can you know the result if you do not know the number of cubic yards ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You can give the result in much less scientific language than that.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no science at all in that, but if we want to get a channel 30 feet deep and 450 feet wide, we have to take out a certain amount of material and that can be calculated.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many miles have you dredged ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There were completed to the end of the last fiscal year, 42 miles out of 624 miles requiring dredging. Now there remain 20 miles between Quebec and Montreal to complete, and this we expect to do during next season and the following seasons.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I merely want to ask my hon. friend what deepening the channel has had with this $300,000 that we have expended, how much remains to be done, and how much he expects to do this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There have been completed 42 miles of the channel between Montreal and Quebec, 30 feet deep at the lowest water and 450 feet wide. The bends in this 42 miles have been straightened so that any large vessels that navigate the St. Lawrence are perfectly safe day and night within those 42 miles. There remain to be completed between Montreal and Quebec 20 miles. I have just stated the amount

voted this year will not complete this 20 miles because we have a. very hard proposition to meet. These Cap & la Roche shoals which are composed mostly ot shale rock are pretty hard to dredge, and that is why we will ask, probably, in the supplementary estimates, for an amount to fit up some of the dredges In such a way as to enable them to work in that hard stuff. An offer was made to us to give this work out by contract and to arrange for the use ot chisels and other very expensive machinery. We thought it was not necessary to do that and that we can do the work with our plant improved somewhat. That is v hat we intend to do during the next season. The work will not be completed to tide water until some time in the season of
1906.


Mr. AMES.: The hon. minister knows from his report that the first 21 miles are completed, that there are 4$ miles yet to be completed in the second division, 6} miles in the third division and 9 miles in the fourth division. The fourth division is the part that feels the tide and therefore it is not so important as the other divisions. The hon. minister knows also that they have completed about 5 miles within the last season. How long does he expect it to take to finish divisions 2 and 3 leaving division No. 4 possibly for the next season ? Will 11 be possible to complete divisions 2 and 3 and give a shiji channel from Montreal to Cap a la Roche 30 feet in depth and 450 feet in width in the course of the next season ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by the engineer in charge that he expects to complete to Batiscan this year, about 10 miles. I was anticipating too much. The rest cannot be done in less than the next two seasons. That will carry the work to
1907.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then, do I understand it will take two seasons more, or three seasons more ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Three seasons more.


Herbert Brown Ames: That it will be completed to Batiscan this year, from Batiscan to within S' miles of Quebec next year, and the remainder in the third year ? I would like to ask the hon. minister if he can explain tor the benefit of the committee a statement which appears at page 267 of the reports of the chief engineer of Public Works in reference to the cost of dredging up to date. We are quite aware that the cost of dredging varies very much with the different soils that have to be dug. We know that from looking at the reports of the various dredges where it costs per yard all the way from 21 cents a yard to 4 and a fraction cents a yard. But as a rule, if you have a series of dredges working at points on the river the general charge for
the entire season will be about the same. I notice that in 1902 and 1903 the cost of dredging and the expenditure for plants and shops was charged at $53.3,000 and that the quantity of dredging was 6,500,000 yards. In 1903-04 while the sum spent was $585,000-slightly more than the previous season-the net results were only 4,619.260 cubic yards, showing a diminution of about one third on the previous year's work. In the first year the average price of the dredging was 4 cents per cubic yard and in the latter year the average price was 6 cents. I caii understand how there might be a variation, but it is difficult to see how that variation can amount to 50 per cent in the work of a dredging fleet one year as compared with another.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: One explanation is that the dredge ' J. I. Tarte ' met with an accident and worked only a part of that year. This dredge takes out more material than any other and does it at a smaller cost. The engineer also tells me that as you dredge deeper the stuff gets harder and the cost increases. Then, in 1903-4 there was the beginning of an increase in the salaries of the crews which culminated in an increase of nearly 25 per cent during the last season. On account of this increase of wages which has now taken full effect, it will be found in future statements that the cost has proportionately increased. We cannot afford to pay less to our men than is paid by outside employers. If we pass regulations controlling the employment of workmen by general contractors, it is only reasoname that the government shall apply these regulations to its own workmen. Even although we have made these increases we are every day losing captains, mates, engineers, and men, who are getting better pay outside. There was plenty of work all over for the men last year and we had to increase their pay to retain them.


Herbert Brown Ames: The salaries in the shipyard were apparently increased, because this statement show's the shipyard wages, to end of July $16,247, end of August $18,149, end of September $16,817, end of October $18,721. It is a little remarkable that October should have been the heaviest month, and it is also remarkable that there should be a falling off immediately afterwards. There is also a peculiar feature about the purchase of supplies. This same return shows :	for the month of August
$48,682 w'orth of supplies, for the month of September $21,047, for the month of October only $2,775, but for the month of November it was $65,508. Can the minister tell us how it happened that $65,000 worth of supplies were purchased in November ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What report are you reading from ?


Herbert Brown Ames: It is the return brought down at the request of Mr. Monk. I will send it

to tlie minister. This increased expenditure for wages and supplies in the months of October and November demand an explan-tion.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is for the year 1904, and as I have said there is an increase on account of the increased wages paid.


Herbert Brown Ames: Did the advance in wages occur about September and October ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know exactly, but it was about that time.


Mr. BERGERON.: I am a little curious for information with respect to the dredge ' J. I. Tarte.' I find in the Auditor General's Report (V-28) the two following items, which I do not understand :
Bertram, John & Sons, estimate one on $18,400 contract' for two boilers for dredge ' J. I. Tarte,' no public advertisement, contract price same as that of John Inglis & Company, $18,400, less drawback, $1,840, $16,560.
Inglis, John & Company, estimate one on $18,400 contract for two boilers for dredge ' J. I. Tarte,' public advertisement, lowest tender, $18,400, less drawback, $1,840, $16,560.
Here are two items identically the same. There would seem to be an error ; can the minister explain ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This occurred before I was in charge of the department. When one of the boilers of the ' J. I. Tarte ' exploded it was decided to replace the entire four boilers because it was ascertained by the engineer who had superintended the operations of that dredge that they were not quite strong enough for the engine, and the replacing of the boilers was ordered by the Department of Public Works at the time. It took some time before this was decided, and as the season was advancing, there was no alternative but to offer the work to the firms that it was thought would best do it. I know as a fact that one of the firms to which it was offered, namely the Poison Iron Works, would not touch it at any price, because the time was too short. Then the work was divided between the John Inglis Company and the John Bertram Company, who undertook to furnish the engines and boilers in time. On account of urgency there was no time to ask for tenders, and the engineer was instructed to get the work done on the best possible terms. Although the contractors undertook to furnish the engines at a particular date there was some little delay. I interviewed a member of one of these firms in Toronto and he said it was quite impossible for any engine builders to deliver the work within the short time allowed. I think that really the department did the best that could be done under the circumstances in order not to have the dredge lose the whole season of 1904. We were delayed and during the last season she did not run more than about two months, and I must state in justice to my predeees-Mr. AMES.
sors and those who had charge of the work that it was certified by all the best authorities that the price was fair and reasonable. That was all explained when the Order in Council was passed ordering the boat.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would my hon. friend give me the name of the engineer who made such a report, because if my information was correct there was a mistake.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: James Howden.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is he an engineer ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He was superintendent of the shipyard for a great many years and of the dredging fleet for fort}' years.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I know Mr. Howden ; he is a very able man, but I did not know that he was an engineer.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He is a mechanical engineer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But that is not the report upon which my hon. friend based his assertion ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by the superintendent of the ship channel that it was Mr. Howden who did make the report.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was there any other report?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: And Mr. G. Des-barats, who is looking after the shipyard. I may state that Mr. Howden is now in charge of the dredging of the Department of Public Works. He was never under my control.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would my hon. friend tell me how long the dredge ' Tarte ' had been in operation when this accident occurred ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The accident occurred in the fall of 1903.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long had ^ the dredge been in operation at that time?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Tn o seasons of five months each.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And do I understand that the boilers which were first made for that dredge were declared by Mr. Howden to be bad, and that it was necessary to replace them entirely?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He declared that when we had to replace one boiler it was better to replace the four because he was afraid the other three would not be strong enough and that sooner or later an accident might happen. The other three boilers could not be used. One had blown up and ii was evident that there was something wrong.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The others might have been put in better condition.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, there was some technical reason because at the time they were forced on account of the heavy work of the engines to be worked at their fullest capacity; in fact they were taxed too much, and although the accident might have been avoided with a great deal of care, I have heard from one of the best mechanical engineers, Mr. Ddsy, that when he was working the dredge to its fullest capacity he was afraid to remain on board.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That teems to be a reflection on the contractor; there must have been a test made of these engines before they were delivered to the government and paid for.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was no fault on the part of the contractor at all. They had been built according to the specifications, but in an immense machine like the ' J. Israel Tarte,' it is difficult, from the information I have gathered, to be quite exact. There was a good deal of discussion, for instance, as to where the boilers should be put In the dredge. Some engineers thought that the boilers should be higher than the deck. It was decided after a good deal of consultation to put them below the first deck and they were made small. The new boilers have been placed as it was originally thought they should be placed, that is to say they have been built larger and higher than the first deck so as to give more space for the steam and therefore more working capacity. They are larger boilers than the others.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But there were four at first?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, there are four still.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see here only two in the Auditor General's Report?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, that must be a mistake. There were two supplied by the Inglis Company, and two by the Bertrams.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was an investigation made into that accident by the department of my hon. friend or the Public Works Department?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was an investigation as I have stated by the Department of Public Works. *A very thorough investigation took place under the direction of Mr. Gobeil, the Deputy Minister of Public Works. The results have not been made public because there are some cases pending at the present moment. Two, I think, have been settled and the others are pending.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course I understand the reason given by my hon. friend but it is a pity that we cannot get that report here. There was at that time, so far
as my memory can serve me, a report that some officers on board, either engineers or others in charge of these engines or boilers had been very careless, and that although they were first-class boilers they had been left dry and as any one knows any boiler left in that condition is likely, even if it is the best in the world, to burst.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that the verdict of the coroner's inquest was that no blame was attached to any one, that it was a mere accident. That is the report I got from the superintending engineer of the department at the time, that there was no blame to be attached to any one. This private investigation was held after the coroner's investigation, ns the Department of Public Works thought it was a good way of obtaining full information as to the facts and the cause of the accident. I may say at once that from the information obtained at that inquiry, the Department of Justice has recommended a settlement, and on their recommendation arrangements have been made for the settlement of some of the cases. The matter will come before the House before the end of the session, because a sum will be asked for to compensate the families of those who will be crippled for life.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was that report of Mr. Howden, stating that these boilers were not good and had to be replaced, made in writing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot say. It was not made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, because the orders for these boilers were not given by that department. When this portion of the Department of Public Works was handed over to me, the contract had been given to Inglis & Bertram and the boilers were being delivered.


Robert Laird Borden: But where certain works, which were formerly under the Department of Public Works, are now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is bound to give the committee all the information which the committee would be entitled to expect from the head of the Department of Public Works had these works remained in that department. The bursting of the boilers might have been due to some defects in construction or some carelessness. I am informed that Mr. Howden reports they were improperly constructed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were unsuitable-not strong enough.


Robert Laird Borden: Then they were improperly constructed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It might have been the fault of the designer.


Robert Laird Borden: These boilers were built under the supervision of Mr. Howden ; was he not on hand to see that they were built properly ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were built under the supervision of Mr. Robinson, who had designed them. It was a new type of dredge which Mr. Robinson had designed specially for that work. He designed all the machinery ; it was an immense piece of work ; and he took years to carry it out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the same men who had charge of the boilers before remain in charge afterwards V t


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Two of them could not, because they were killed, but Sir. Desy is still in charge.


Robert Laird Borden: Who superintended the construction of the new boilers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were designed by the boiler inspector at Quebec, Mr. Samson, and he superintended the construction.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not Mr. How-den examine the boilers before they were accepted by the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The dredge was accepted by Mr. Robinson, as representing the Department of Public Works.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: That is not an answer. I understand they were built under the supervision of Mr. Robinson.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were designed by him and built under his supervision along with the rest of the machinery.


Robert Laird Borden: Were they not examined by Mr. Howden in order to see whether they were complete and perfect and in accordance with the contract ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That could not be done, because Mr. Howden is not a boiler inspector. The boilers must have been examined by a boiler inspector under the supervision of Mr. Robinson, who designed them and passed them as complete according to his designs and plans. Mr. Howden may have looked over them, but he was not called upon to report.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister suggests that Mr. Howden is not competent to examine these boilers, because he says that, not being a boiler inspector, he could not have done it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He could not have done it officially.


Frederick William Borden: If that means anything, it means that he was not competent to examine the boilers for the purpose of having them accepted.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Although we may have a mechanical engineer in the department and be satisfied with his examination, we would not be justified in accepting his examination as official without the inspection of a regular boiler inspector.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: While the minister fixes the responsibility for the loss which took place upon the report of this gentleman, he apparently thinks that this same gentleman would not be capable of making the necessary examination in order to have the boilers accepted. Surely the minister ought to be able to place in the hands of this committee the . report of the evidence regarding the accident. Surely you must have had at least as high au authority to determine the causes of this accident as would have been required to determine whether the boilers were fit for acceptance or not. But that is something we do not seem to have. Reference has been made to the coroner's inquest, but that was probably not a very scientific investigation, and the minister speaks of some other investigation.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The report of the investigation held by the Department of Public Works has not been made public, because there are some cases pending before the courts, and we are trying to bring them to a settlement. When these claims have been adjudged upon and settled, we will be in a position to lay this investigation before the House, but it would not be judicious to do so now.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two answers to that plea. In the first place, I understood from the minister that the claims have been practically settled. In the second place, the question whether this report should be made public is a legal question which the Department of Justice should decide and not my hon. friend. If the Department of Justice should report that on account of the pending litigations it would not be in the public interest to publish this report, no one would demur. But in the absence of any report to that effect from the Department of Justice, I do not see that my hon. friend has any justification for withholding the evidence.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not try to justify anything. I give the information I have received from the Department of Public Works, and I give it frankly and honestly.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister is the Department of Public Works, so far as this matter is concerned, for he has taken over this part of their jurisdiction.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It did not happen under my administration. How should I be held responsible and obliged to justify an act of Mr. Gobeil, of Mr. Howden. or any other officer ? What am I supposed to know about it ? When an item is brought before the House for a settlement, if there should be a settlement, that will be the proper time for the furnishing of the documents connected writh the case. Up to this time I have nothing to do with it. I volunteered the information that I possessed in the matter. I am not asking the House for

money to indemnify tlie families of these people, or to reimburse the Department of Marine and Fisheries on account of the cost incurred in installing new boilers.


Mr.   R.@: X,. BORDEN* The hon. minister has a very different idea of his responsibility from that which I entertain. Even if the Department of Public Works had not been divided and a portion of its jurisdiction attached to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefon-taine). he is responsible as a member of the administration for everything done by every department. Surely that is only the A B C of constitutional doctrine. And, surely he understands that, as he has taken oyer this jurisdiction, he is as fully responsible in respect to it as if it hail always belonged to the department. He says he does not offer this explanation because he is obliged to do so. I must dissent from that.
I think it is a legitimate subject of inquiry. If we had a report from the Department of Justice against producing the report of this investigation, that would be enough ; but. in the absence of such a report from the Department of Justice, I think the minister should bring down the report of the investigation. It is entirely a question of law. upon which tlie House should be advised by the Department of Justice, before such an excuse as that offered by the minister is accepted.
Mr. PREFONTA1NE. I have not offered any excuse. I said the matter was in the hands of the Department of Public Works and they were conducting an investigation. They decided not to bring in the evidence 1 ecause they were engaged in making a settlement under the advice, as I understand, of the Department of Justice. I have , offered no excuse, and have none to offer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand the difficulty in which my hon. friend (Mr. Prefon-taiue) finds himself in having to deal with a matter which, so far as it is covered by the repart of the Auditor General, is in a different department than his own. But we are entitled to an explanation. Does the hon. minister know whether the Poisons 'held an investigation ? They had to make themselves right in case the government might have an action against them. Does the hon. minister know whether they made that investigation and found out the cause of the accident ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not that I am aware of any. They were satisfied, so far as my information goes, that they had built ( the boilers according to designs made by Mr. A. Robertson, and Mr. Robertson had accepted them as perfect. And the boiler inspector, whoever he was, passed them. So, that being the case, they felt free.	,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am going to make a reasonable demand on my hon. friend. Would he be kind enough to find out the '
information concerning that accident whether he gets it from the Department of Public Works or anywhere else ? The information I have is different from that which the hon. minister has received. I am informed that the designs of the dredge were made by a very competent engineer who came from New York purposely to design the new dredge-for it is probably one of the newest on the continent. The work was carried out by the very important house of Poison & Co. Mr. Howden, whose name has been mentioned here was three months in Toronto to superintend the construction of the dredge boilers, engines and everything else. And, when the dredge was finished it was accepted as perfectly well built and by Mr. Robertson who. my hon. friend will find made a report in writing which is now probably in the Department of Public Works stating that everything was in perfect order.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Otherwise it would not have been paid for.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That dredge was sent to Lake St. Pierre and worked for the whole season giving great satisfaction to the engineers in charge and doing the best work of any dredge employed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She did not give satisfaction. She did enormous work when she was in operation, but was often stopped.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My information is (hat she gave great satisfaction. I am informed also that after the accident the Poison Company made an investigation, when il was proven that the men in charge were the cause of the accident-that the dredge was badly managed, the boilers being left dry.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They got a very severe punishment, then, for they were killed ?	'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am asking the minister if he will be kind enough to find out if this information is correct. We will I uive another evening on these estimates, and it will be no difficulty for him to give orders to have this information prepared. Do I understand that the families of some of these men will be indemnified ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is under consideration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has anything been done in that sense already ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My information is that nobody has been paid. The matter is under consideration by the Department of Justice.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: There are claims filed in the Department of Justice, and two petitions of right have been granted. But I do

not think there has been any settlement-only pourparlers.


Robert Laird Borden: We have got the Minister of Public Works and the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux). Now I want to serve notice on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that we are to have that report brought down to which he has referred, unless he produces the opinion of the Department of Justice that its production in parliament will be prejudicial to the interest of the Crown in the cases to which reference has been made. If that is produced, I will say no more, for the Department of Justice is the absolute judge as to that matter. But in the absence of such an opinion we are entitled to that document, whether it is in the Department of Public Worlds, or in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any other. It is not enough for the minister to tell us that the report is in some other department. We. are entitled, it necessary, to have every minister here and ready to furnish information on every item in these estimates. And in reality that is the theory-that they are all here to furnish such information. I want to put myself plainly on record with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in that regard, that this document must be produced, we must have the information afforded by it, unless we have an opinion from the Department of Justice that its production might be prejudicial to the interests of the Crown.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As the hon. gentleman wants to put himself on record as asking for these documents, I also desire to put myself on record as stating here that I was not in possession of this information, and that I understood this report was not to be submitted to the House at present because the Department of Justice was considering whether they would settle these cases or not. That is as far as I can go. Now if the sums claimed by the families of these poor people are to be paid, or if a certain indemnity is to be paid to them, it stands to reason that in order to justify it an investigation would have to be held, and a report made to the House, giving such information as will justify the voting of these amounts-I think in one case $5,000, and in the other case $6,000. I understand that one case has been recommended for payment, but the money cannot be paid until it is voted by the House ; this will come down in the supplementary estimates, either in my department or in the Public Works Department, and then no doubt ample information will be furnished. I have never denied the right of any member of this House to ask and obtain that information, and I have always admitted that the government would give the information at the proper time. As regards the other information asked for by my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), I shall certainly have the greatest pleasure in com-Mr. LEMIEUX.
municating with the Department of Public Works to ascertain whether Mr. James Howden made a report in writing before receiving the dredge, or whether Mr. Des-barats did, who was in charge of the shipyard at the time, or'whether whoever accepted the dredge ' J. I. Tarte ' found it built according to specifications. If there exists such a report in writing, I will procure it. As regards the condemnation of the other boilers that remained intact after the accident, I have no doubt there must be a report in writing, either from the boiler inspector, Mr. Samson, or a competent engineer, stating that it was necessary to replace one of the boilers that exploded. I will undertake to procure any information that exists, I cannot do more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We are not blaming my hon. friend. If this had been done under his administration it would be a different thing, in fact his officers would be acquainted with the circumstances. Since we are on the ship channel item, it would have been better for him to have had here some of the employees of the Public Works Department who know something about this matter, and then we could have obtained from them all the information we are asking for.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They might have given more verbal information but they could not give any more information in writing than I have given myself. But I will procure any information that is in writing and lay it on the table of the House as soon as I can.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman will see that we should have here exactly such information as would have been here if the department had never been divided. All these reports would have been here then, >
the officials of the Department of Public Works would have been in attendance for the purpose of producing them; but the difficulty is that none are here.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I come here with all the information I have in my possession.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, but the trouble is that he has not the required information in his possession because the department has been divided. I do not seem to be able to make myself clear to the hon. gentleman. The department is divided ; some of the information regarding these estimates he is placing before the committee, is in the possession of another department. The officers of that department should be at his elbow for the purpose of assisting him in giving that information to the committee which we have a right to demand. My hon. friend from Beauharnois has kindly suggested that the acting Minister of Public Works had better send over for his staff at once.


Mr. HYMAN.: The matter is a very simple one, it hinges on a report. When the department was divided, all the papers re-

lating to the ship channel were supposed to have been sent over from the Public Works Department. If there are any reports that are not in the Marine Department, they must of necessity be in the Public Works Department. But there is just that question which the Minister of Marine has stated as to whether they could properly be made public at the present time. Aside however from that question, there is no objection in the world to bringing down the report.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is what we are asking for. Those papers may or may not he in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; but if they are in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I am convinced that the employees of that department who are here do not know anything about the affair, whilst employees of the Department of Public Works could tell us whether these particular papers were sent down to the Marine Department or not.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I know for a fact that they were not sent down, because I found that the matter was still in their hands for settlement and they had been negotiating with the Department of Justice in the matter. I can have whatever reports the Department of Justice may furnish without prejudice to the Crown.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is only one report. My hon. friend must know, I am sure, all the documents necessary to facilitate the passing of these estimates concerning the ship channel, and which are in the Department of Public Works. There are no reasons why they should not be sent from one department to the other.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We are merely playing on words. There is not a cent of money to be voted here and now on account of that accident. As I have said, it will be time enough when the committee is asked to vote an indemnity to the families of these men, to produce the reasons why a settlement is recommended.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We have been talking about many other things.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Let us dispose of this one first. Does the hon. gentleman not admit that it would be improper to produce the report of this investigation before the government has decided that they will entertain the claim ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We decided that a moment ago, it is in the hands of the Minister of Justice.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As regards the report of Mr. Howden, or of Mr. Desbarats, or of Mr. Samson, concerning the construction of those boilers, I said that I had not the report in my hand, it was not in my department. but that if there was a ref)ort in writing I would procure it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is what we wanted. More than that, would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to say whether there was an investigation made by the Poison Company, and if so, would he bring down the report if there are no public reasons to prevent him from doing so?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot agree with the minister that we have to wait until we are called upon to vote an indemnity to the parties aggrieved by this accident before we can get all the information relating to the accident itself.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman, either.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When we are asked to vote $588,000 for the St. Lawrence ship channel we have a right to know everything connected with the incident that has resulted in the bursting of the boiler of one of the dredges used in that channel. I submit that as a proposition of law. I can bear out what the hon. minister says about there being a case pending, because I acted for the lawyers in Sorel who represented one of these families, and I had to deal at the time with Mr. Gobeil.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: You know more about it then than I do.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know about that, hut I am able to affirm that Mr. Gobeil seemed to be in ^charge at that time of the settlement. What was the cost of these four boilers that were replaced ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is in the Auditor General's Report.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No ; we have only two in the Auditor General's Report.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Their cost was $18,500 each pair.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: $18,500 is the cost of each one ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why are only two of them put in there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the reason is that possibly the other boilers were delivered and paid for out of the present year's vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. minister say for what time these boilers have been in use, and what is the ordinary life of a boiler of that kind ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were in use a little over two years. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the report of the Department of Public Works for 1904, page 272, he will see the following :
The power for the main pump is derived from a triple expansion marine engine. The boilers, of which four were originally put in, were of the locomotive type. From the commencement of the work difficulty was had with the boilers. Finally in November, 1903, one of them exploded, resulting in loss of life and dis-

abling the dredge for nearly eleven months. Four new marine boilers were put in, and have proved their efficiency and capacity.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am asking the kon. minister two questions-how long they have been in use and what is the ordinary life of these boilers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were only used two years, and the ordinary life of a boiler should be about twenty-five years, unless an accident happens as did in this case.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I said a few moments ago it would be better to have the employees of the Department of the Public Works here, because they might know some things which the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries do not know. Now, I want to ask the hon. minister how the provisions and supplies intended for use in connection with this ship channel are procured ? Is it done by tender ? I find that purchases to large amounts have been made. If these purchases are not made by tender, it is a very dangerous system to pursue unless the hon. minister is very sure of his buyer. I see that supplies were purchased from The Edward Cavanagh Company, Montreal, to the amount of $11,575 ; from Caverhill, Learmont & Company, Montreal, to the amount of $11,648, and from Andrew Baile, of Montreal, to the amount of $22,541. If I remember rightly, the horn minister has no right to buy anything exceeding in cost $5,000 without calling for tenders.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These are small items.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I find an item as high as $42,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These supplies were not all bought without tender.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is for coal.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is all bought by public tender.
Mr. iBERGERON. Well, at has been bought for the last few years from the same firm, the T. F. Moore Company, Montreal, and for the same amount.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year it was divided, and not purchased from that firm at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that coal was also purchased from Andrew Baile, Montreal.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: For the ship channel ?	.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, he was probably the lowest tenderer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Andrew Baile, of Montreal, received for coal $22,541, and the Mr. PREFONTAINE.
T. F. Moore Company, of Montreal. $42,337.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All this was done through public tenders, and these tenders were advertised in the papers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to bring down some of these tenders ?


Mr. J. D. REID.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has decided yet as to the advisability of giving Captain Leslie a bonus for keeping his wrecking plant in the lower St. Lawrence ? The matter was discused a while ago.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The matter does not appertain to my department. It appertains to the Department of Trade and Commerce. There are two propositions before the government at the present moment-one from Captain Leslie, of Kingston, and one from Mr. Farquhar. It has been proposed to establish a wrecking plant at Sydney or North Sydney. The matter is the subject of negotiation now. It is in the hands of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the wrecking plant at Quebec under the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; it is under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there any very good reason why it is under the Department of Trade and Commerce ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose the reason is that they have been trying to grab everything, and therefore I did not ask for it. '


Mr. INGRAM.: It is rather a strange thing that the correspondence from the Boards of Trade of Montreal and Kingston has been directed to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. PREE'ONTAINE. They thought probably that it belonged to that department, but all the correspondence has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Andrew B. Ingram: A statement was made in this House a short time ago that very materially affects the wrecking plant owned by parties in Kingston. A statement was made that Captain Leslie had not done any wrecking east of Montreal. I find here a statement to this effect :
Part of our plant as described in our letter to The Shipping Federation has been stationed at St. John's, Newfoundland, for the past three years, but we cannot afford to continue the service unless we get some assistance from the government ; hence our petition that they should bonus us for placing the plant at North Sydney the coming year.

247S
Our salvage plant is the most efficient in the Dominion, consisting of pumping and diving outfits equal to any, and in addition our cylindrical steel pontoon plant and compressed air plant are the only ones on the continent, the compressed air system being an application of my own of that system to salvage operations, and only used by myself, and has been proved efficient by the salvage of the steamers ' Gallia ' and ' Scottish King,' the former near Sorel, and the latter at Newfoundland, both steamers having been declared total losses and not recoverable by all other salvage companies, including the Davie plant owned at Quebec.
I simply put this on record to show that the statement made the other evening by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), to the effect that this plant had not done any wrecking east of Montreal, is contradicted ; and, secondly, to show that his statement that no plant in Canada was equal to the Davie plant is not correct. I want to put the statement on record to show that this is a superior plant ; and that, therefore, there is nothing in the argument to the effect that this plant was not judged competent to do wrecking even in the St. Lawrence. I hope the government will do justice to this company, who seem to be prepared, and who are quite capable and competent, to do good wrecking work, either in the St. Lawrence or anywhere else.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: This question of wreckage plants will come up when we consider the items connected with the Department of Trade and Commerce. My hon. friend is not stating the facts correctly, no doubt due to mistake or lack of memory. The other day, when this question was up for consideration, I said that this plant was used once on the Newfoundland coast and that I thought it was in connection with the salvage of the steamer ' Scottish King.' That is the statement I made the other day and I think that statement is borne out by the letter that my hon. friend has just read to the committee. I am not personally competent to judge of the relative merits of the two plants any more than is my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram), but the Board of Trade of Montreal and the Underwriters' Association of the Dominion have pronounced on the subject and they have asked for a subsidy for the Davie plant; they have not asked for a subsidy for any other, and they are the parties interested in the St. Lawrence shipping. If others want something to be done for Captain Leslie there is no possible objection to that; but let the question of merit be decided by those competent to judge. So far as I am concerned I appeal to the Board of Trade of Montreal and to the Underwriters' Association.


Andrew B. Ingram: To be fair to the Minister of Justice, I shall put on record the statement he made, because neither he nor I are competent to judge of wrecking plants. The hon. gentleman chose to criticise the
plant of Captain Leslie. I read from 1 Hansard ' the statement in reply to him, as follows :


Charles Fitzpatrick: Ill what respect did he enter into competition with Leslie ? We all know that there have been wrecks In the St. Lawrence from time immemorial. I venture to say that during the past twenty years Captain Leslie had never gone down beyond Montreal except once, when he went to Newfoundland, and I think he has regretted that trip ever since.
(Mr. INGRAM. A vessel man made the statement in this House that Captain Leslie did wrecking in the St. Lawrence, and very successfully, and I prefer taking the 'word of a vessel man even to that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick).


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will take the responsibility of making that statement of course I accept it, hut I make the statement with some knowledge of Quebec-and I have been connected with the mercantile life of Quebec for many years-I make the statement that Captain Leslie has never gone below Montreal to the assistance of a wreck except in one instance when he went to Newfoundland, and we all know what occurred then.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am very glad that the minister made that statement. Possibly in a few days we shall see whether the statement of a vessel owner in this House or that of the Minister of Justice is correct.
I wrote this letter to Kingston :
Owing to a debate the other evening in the House on the subject of wrecking in the St. Lawrence, and in which the names of George Davie & Company and Captain Leslie figured (the latter I believe was a former resident of Kingston), and to the fact that a statement was made by the Minister of Justice that Captain Leslie did not do any wrecking in the St. Lawrence east of Montreal, to which I gave an emphatic contradiction, I should be very glad if you would kindly furnish me with all the information you can with respect to the plant of Captain Leslie. I should be very glad, as well, to know Captain Leslie's present address.
These gentlemen are responsible for the statement they make in their letter ; they made the same statement to the Marine Department, they made the same statement to the Montreal Board of Trade, and they undoubtedly have done wrecking east of Montreal and in the St. Lawrence.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In how many instances ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That does not make any difference. I have proven the truth of my statement that they have done wrecking successfully east of Montreal.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In how many cases?


John Dowsley Reid: They assisted at many wrecks.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have here the statement that they were successful in cases where even the Davie wrecking plant gave the job up. I have proven that the Leslie's

plant is not so inefficient as the Minister of Justice would make out.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is another feature of the case which possibly the Minister of Justice will allow me to draw his attention to. I know the Minister of Justice is great on chronological sequence, and the fact I wish to draw the attenion to is that the resolutions from the Board of Trade and the other bodies were passed after the debate had occurred in this House ; after these bodies had come to the conclusion that it was the Davie Company or nothing at all, and after they were under the impression that there was no other company but the Davie Company that could do the work. Surely, if it was necessary to have a wrecking company down in the gulf to look after salvage, they most naturally trusted that the Dominion government would insist that the company should be capable to do the work. I am quite sure that it makes no difference to the Board of Trade and to the other bodies who gets the indemnity provided there is an efficient service.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I can tell my hon. friend that on thiee different occasions, namely in 1900, 1901 and 1903 the Board of Trade asked for this.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mentioning the Davie Company ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, mentioning the Davie Company. Not only that, but a deputation from the Montreal Board of Trade waited on the Minister of Marine at the Windsor hotel in 1900 or 1901 to ask specially that Mr. Davie should be induced to put his wrecking plant at the disposal of the government-a little knowledge in connection with these matters is not bad.


Herbert Brown Ames: Being a member of the Board of Trade council during the last few years, I know something about the discussion that took place, and I think the impression is that the Davie Company is the only company that does wrecking there.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let us get at the facts first and we will deal with impressions afterwards.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Justice has been most unfair to the Leslie Wrecking Company, a company that has been in existence for years on the upper lakes. In making this House believe that the Leslies have not a wrecking plant sufficient for the gulf the Minister of Justice was unfair. The Davie wrecking plant has been in existence for years at Quebec, but they never asked for a bonus until Mr. Leslie went to all the expense and trouble of taking his whole fleet down there. Then the government gave a bonus to the Davie Company and the Leslie firm were in consequence unable to compete. If the Minister of Justice inquires he will find that the Leslie Wreck-Mr. INGRAM.
ing Company has done good service in saying lives and property at wrecks, and in view of the small amount that would be given to this company it would repay the government twice over.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not disputing the right of these gentlemen to a subsidy. The only issue with me is, the justification of the subsidy paid to Mr. George T. Davie. My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is perhaps not as often in the House as some of us, and therefore he does not know all that has occurred. He is evidently not aware that the point in dispute was as to whether or not the Leslie plant had gone east of Montreal. I do not know whether or not they have done wrecking on the upper lakes ; I am dealing with the lower St. Lawrence and I know something about that. I said that the Leslies wrecking plant went below Quebec only once and then in connection with the salvage of the ' Scottish King ' on the shores of Newfoundland, and my statement is borne out by the letter that has been read, and which states that they had gone below Quebec for that one vessel- they did not mention any others.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, the steamer ' Galilee.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Where ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The ' Galilee ' ran on the shore at Sorel.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What became of her ?


Andrew B. Ingram: She was raised by this wrecking company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The ' Galilee ' ran out of the channel into a bank and she was simply dredged out. I know something about the case of the ' Scottish King ' because I was in some way connected with it. I may tell my hon. friend that the statement I made with respect to the operations on this boat, the ' Scottish King,' are absolutely correct, and I am quite sure that if Mr. Lister would tell us all he knows about it, he would repeat what I said here, that he has regretted from the day he ever-sent to the ' Scottish King ' to the present that he ever took the job.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would say


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. A. Johnston).: The minister has stated that this is an item en tirely apart from his department, and we have allowed the discussion to go on in order to permit various members to make statements. I think we might now come back to the item under discussion. I make the suggestion but of course it may not be acceded to.


Andrew B. Ingram: The suggestion is a good one, but we are discussing a matter in connection with the St. Lawrence, and I wish
.MARCH M. 1905
to point out to tlie Minister of Justice that the point the other night when his discussion was up was not so much as to whether wrecking had been done; the point was simply that Davie had a plant unequalled by any other in the Dominion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no doubt about that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, there is.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not among those who know anything about it


Andrew B. Ingram: Personally I admit that I do not know, but I am quoting the statement made by this company who ought to know. The Minister of Justice talks about this steamer being on shore and so forth. This steamer according to the statement here was given up even by the Davie Company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Which one ?


Andrew B. Ingram: These two vessels I am speaking of now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the case of the 'Scottish King' the Davie Company would not take the job at the price.


Andrew B. Ingram: The steamers were declared total losses and not recoverable by all the other salvage companies including the Davie Company at Quebec, and this company were successful at least in raising it and making a success of the salvage. The other night when the discussion was up 1 for one objected to the statement made to the effect that the Davie Company was the only one in Canada that could do this work. I have no interest in the Kingston Wrecking Company any more than in any other company, but it is a serious matter for a company with a large amount of money invested to have a statement made in this House that might affect their business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I was present when the discussion took place the other night, and I know that the point made was simply this : We give $10,000 a year to the Davie Company because it is the only company that can do the wrecking work. That was the allegation of the Minister of Justice. There is no doubt whatever, it seems to me, that we have to-day proof before us that there are other wrecking companies competent to do the work. We have proof too that the Davie Company began to get this subsidy the moment the other company arrived on the field of action.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what year was that, will my hon. friend say?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take the allegation of my friend here. There is no question whatever; does the Minister of Justice deny it?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: When was the ' Scottish King' raised?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In 1901.


John Dowsley Reid: That is about the time that the bonus was given to the Davie Company


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That was the conclusion I arrived at. It was not the exact day that the other company arrived, but very soon after. It seems to me that we do an absolute injustice in not getting tenders from these two companies as to which will accept the lowest retainer to stay there. There is no doubt in my mind about that. We have abundant proof that this wrecking company is competent. There is no doubt about it. It does wrecking on the lakes, it went down there and is a well known company. Why should we bonus one company and deprive the other of the advantage of being on the field of action at all ? It seems to me it is a great injustice. The plainest course for us would be to find out which company would accept the lowest money, because it is simply a retainer for being down there and being ready to assist in wrecks. The action of the Board of Trade and of these bodies is not surprising. They wish to have one company down there ready to do the work when the necessity arises, but that does not justify us in bonusing one company and refusing any assistance to another. The thing ought to be done by tender. It seems to be a matter of favour and nothing else.


Herbert Brown Ames: To return to the discussion of the St. Lawrence channel, did I understand the minister, an hour or so ago, to state that this year he expected to have the channel deepened to the extent of 30 feet and widened to the extent of 450 feet all the way from Montreal to Batiscan ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: That will be all done this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I hope so, during the coming fiscal year.


Herbert Brown Ames: Between now and the end of navigation?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The fiscal year lasts from the 1st of July, 1905 to the 1st of July, 1906. It will be before the 1st of July, 1906.


Herbert Brown Ames: The reason I return to this question is of course that it is one of the most important with which we have to deal, and because all the shipping interests of Montreal are anxious to know how soon they can count on a 30-foot channel all the way to the sea and how soon they can count on having a full width. They know of course that for the last nine miles, where the tide has some influence, it is not so

important. The minister is aware that there remains according to his report upwards of eleven miles to complete in the fiscal year. During last year something under five miles were completed and he intends to do eleven miles, more than double that amount, between now and the end of the next fiscal year. I see the minister is only asking the same amount of money as before, and I suppose naturally that only the same result will be obtained as from the money previously asked.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman must remember that there are three months yet of the fiscal year ending July, 1905.


Herbert Brown Ames: You have three months more and then twelve months, fifteen months in all, in which to do eleven miles and you have taken nine months to do less than five miles.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We hope the
' Tarte ' will work all this year.


Herbert Brown Ames: That she will be good.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She has only
worked two months this season.


Herbert Brown Ames: I trust the minister will take care that a sufficient sum is voted in the estimates, if necessary in the supplemen-taries, to make this promise good, because so much depends on it to the shipping of Montreal and the Dominion. We consider this to be a promise, not a hope but a genuine declaration.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is a promise provided circumstances will allow us. If some of our dredges break down or something of that kind occurs we may be delayed, but we are asking the money for a new dredge in order to be sure that the work during the season of 1906 will be pushed forward with more celerity than during the past season.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would ask another question with reference to the method in which this dredging is carried out. We already have, of course, a narrow channel of 27i feet through the inland portion of it and part of the work of the dredging is to deepen the existing channel, part of it is to widen the existing channel. I would like to ask whether the dredges in widening the existing channel work up and down, so as to give the benefit of full channel first and to gradually widen that channel or do they work across the river, giving the full width of the required depth, but only leaving 27J feet in the balance. My reason for asking this is that I believe the shipping people would prefer having a narrow channel made the full depth as soon as possible rather than to have the full depth for a portion of it and have the remainder of it Mr. AMES.
without the necessary depth. I think the minister will understand just what I mean, that I think the shipping interests will prefer to have the channel narrow but of the proper depth in order that vessels by proper navigation may come up, rather than have the proper width for a portion of the distance but not a proper depth for the balance.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My engineer, informs me that it depends on the material and the character of the work. Sometimes they work up and down and sometimes across the channel.


Herbert Brown Ames: As a general principle, my hon. friend will admit that it is very advisable this work should be completed as soon as possible. It is very advisable that in as short as possible delay vessels drawing 30 feet may be able to come to Montreal in the lowest water.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In Lake St. Peter they are not working crosswise but up and down, but in other parts we are working up and down and also crosswise according as the work can be done most advantageously.


Herbert Brown Ames: I wish more especially to impress on the hon. gentleman the great importance to our shipping interests of having a deep channel to the sea, in the shortest possible delay, even if it be a narrow channel. The hon. minister has spoken of his department endeavouring to put the Sorel shops on a thorough business footing, and he told us that an inventory has been taken.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was taken early in September or August and finished in January. There were two accountants to post up the books and make a special inventory.


Herbert Brown Ames: I supppose the actual stock taking was done very rapidly, in the course of a week or so ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It took more than that. There had been books kept in the store but they had not been carefully entered up, and the storekeeper was not able to give a satisfactory account. No dishonesty was suspected and I do not think that any members of the staff were guilty of anything *wrong, but the store was not kept according to modern methods, and we appointed a more capable man to manage it and gave him special instructions as regards the entries to be made. Now we can ascertain every week what there is in stock which we could not do under the other system.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. minister is introducing what is evidently a new system, and one which will furnish us material for future discussion. He is giving us an excellent mile post from wThich to start. In adopting the system of taking inventories, I sup-

pose lie will have a general inventory made once every year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: *Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: And lie lias a competent stock-keeper who keeps a check of all the goods received and handed out ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and his instructions are to charge against every steamer what is expended on it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the minister have what might be called a factory or workshop account to which he charges all his wages, supplies and expenses of superintending V And then does he charge against each piece of work, whether it be a new piece or repairs, what he considers to be the amount of wages and supplies that go into it ? Does he then make up what each piece of work actually cost, and at the end of the year make his computation to see whether the goods turned out from the factory give an adequate return for the wages and supplies that have been expended on them, and so balance his account? Every well organized business, which has a factory and sales shop side by side, keeps a straight factory account, charging that account witli ail supplies, wages and superintendence and a certain proportion of the rental and other incidental expenses, and credits it with all completed goods. Then at the end of the year they are able to see whether they have lost or made money. I trust the hon minister will be able to submit to the House a similar statement every year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think that I shall be able in a year hence to give my hon. friend entire satisfaction.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then to-night I shall content myself with establishing the principle, and I hope that at the end of the year we will be in a position to go carefully through the estimates carried out on these lines. What is the custom in the department regarding employees who are temporarily absent ? Are they charged for their absence or given half pay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Those who work by the day, lose their day's pay, if they are absent the whole day. If they are absent less than a day, only a fair proportion of their day's wage is deducted. In the case of employees engaged by the month, they are charged proportionately for their absences unless they are absent on leave or with good reason.


Herbert Brown Ames: When we asked how it was that the expenses this year are greater than last year in the Sorel shops, we were told that wages had been advanced, but my hon. friend neglected to state the date when the general advance took place in those shops.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was a redistribution of the wages of the men, and I 80
think that took effect in the beginning or the middle of October. I had been working at it since the 1st of July. I went down three times myself to see about it and got Mr. Desbarats, the director of the yard, to make up the list. Then it was revised. That took a little time and at the same time I was having this inventory made. There were other changes made so that the redistribution did not take effect untid about the middle of October. Of course we did not increase the wage materially but we are looking into the whole matter to see what we will do for the next season.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the hon. minister explain the manner in which the supplies for the Sorel workshops and his dredges are purchased, are public tenders asked for or only private circulars sent out ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Some are bought from day to day. We ask prices from different merchants for the different classes of articles, and we take the lowest who Is able to furnish in proper form and quantity this kind of goods. The request is made by Mr. Desbarats, and he generally gives us a list of merchants from whom he has asked prices. The order is examined and checked ; and if it is approved by the minister, or by the deputy minister in my absence, it goes and the article is bought. Staple articles, of which we know we shall require a quantity, are purchased by tender after advertisement in the newspapers. For instance, coal for the fleet is bought in that way, and so is lumber when we require a large quantity and are not obliged to use it immediately. Since I entered the department I have consulted the managers of large concerns, like the Allans and the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, who buy in large quantities, and have found that the system that we use is the one which their experi ence has proven to be the best.


Herbert Brown Ames: When tenders are called for by advertisement in the newspapers, how are the offers opened, and by whom ? And who decides the awarding of the contract ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are generally opened by the deputy minister, or by the engineer, or by Mr. Desbarats, in charge of the work at Sorel. The offers are in regular form, with security. The minister is responsible for his approval, on the recommendation of the officer in charge.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the lowest tender always accepted ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Always, except in special circumstances, and then a special Order in Council must be obtained.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has spoken of a list sent to Mr. Desbarats of the firms from whom purchases shall be made of articles that are not bought by public tender.

24.87


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He prepares a list of what he wants and asks for prices from reliable firms.


Herbert Brown Ames: I suppose he has a list of firms from whom he shall ask prices ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose so.


Herbert Brown Ames: By whom is that list prepared T


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know. I found a list in the department, and I follow it. Sometimes I have added to it, when I thought that they were buying from firms that were not first-liand dealers. To save all profits and commissions we must deal at first hand.


Herbert Brown Ames: On the principle of a new broom sweeping clean, we look to the hon. minister (Mr. Prefontaine) to improve on his predecessors, not necessarily to accept the system that he found in use.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is why I made inquiries of the managers of large concerns as to their system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As to the list of those from whom the department purchased, can the minister, the next time his estimates are under consideration, lay that information on the table ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will find it in the Auditor General's Report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have there a list of those who have sold to the department, but not of all those who have endeavoured to sell. If there is a regular list, we are entitled to see it, of course.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no regular list. Mr. Desbarats makes his list himself, consulting, of course, the officials of the department as to the reliability of the firms. Where he finds that he does not get bottom prices he tries elsewhere. Of course, we try to purchase from Canadian firms wherever possible. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has a list to suggest, I am sure he will take it into consideration.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not complain of the names, but wished to know if there was a regular list. If the list in the Auditor General's Report is the only one-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are some on the list of the director who have never succeeded in selling five dollars' worth to the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: I hope the hon. minister can assure us that there exists no preferential list, for I have received a communication from a leading firm in my own city in which they state that they are not on the privileged list and do not supply anything to the department. If I can assure them that there
is no such list-


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. PREFONTAINE. I have known parties to complain that they made no sales to the department, and, on looking up their names, have found that they were supplying more than any other.


Mr. LALOR.: I understood the minister to say that he found a list in the department, and had since added names to it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The engineer sent me a list, for approval, of people from whom he asked tenders, and I suggested some other firms in addition to that list. I suppose he has added those names.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I understand that the question asked by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was whether the list would be brought down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I did not say there was a list in my department. I understood that the director of the works in Sorel had a list before him. In making such large purchases of supplies, where you have an expenditure of $200,000 or $300,000 a year, it stands to reason that the director will have a list of firms from whom prices would be asked. Of course he must have some knowledge of the dealers, and be in a position to ask them for prices.


David Henderson: What are the special qualifications for getting on to this list?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To be an honest and straightforward merchant.


David Henderson: Then are we to understand that all those merchants in Montreal whose names are not on the list are dishonest ? I hope the gentleman does not mean to insinuate that those whose names are not on that list cannot qualify.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are other qualifications.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to page 274 of the Public Works Report where there is an analysis of a new construction under way during that year. I understood from his remarks a moment ago that next year this new consltruction account will be more complete, and that we will have credited to each dredge and each tug the expenses for that particular construction.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman is not a manufacturer, he does not know bookkeeping as well as his neighbour (Mr. Henderson). There will be in the books of the department at Sorel entries made to justify the expenditure on every dredge, whatever it may be. But it would be improper to put all those details in a report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then we will be able to get a separate account for each construction ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: You will be able to get it by asking for it. But I would not undertake to publish it in the departmental report, for it would make a more bulky report than that of the Auditor General.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he was building an eighth dredge, he has seven now. Has that been completed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No. it is being designed.	it I!


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Has the minister any knowledge as to a comparison of the work done by dredges owned by the government and the work done by contractors' dredges paid by the hour ? Which is the cheapest? Is it profitable for the government to use their own dredges ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information I gather from my officials is that it is a great deal cheaper to own our dredges and work them ourselves. We do better work with our own dredges, and do it cheaper. Naval engineers and men of experience from every country have visited the works going on this year, and they admit that we have one of the finest plants in the world, and that we are doing the work very successfully indeed.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement, and I hope the government will increase the number of their dredges so as to dispense entirely with the necessity of engaging the dredges of private contractors by the hour. In my experience, and I have seen them at work, the government is being imposed upon by private contractors, and are losing a great deal of money.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In my department I have not a single contractor's dredge at present working by the hour. Last summer when the work was not going on as fast as we desired, and some one spoke about hiring other dredges, my engineer said that it would be better to do the work more slowly by our own dredges than to hire any contractor's dredges.
Some resolutions reported.


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


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


Mr. FIELDING.: We will continue on the estimates we are leaving this evening, those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries Department. I think there are no Bills coming on to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
80}
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 15, 1905.